Is Eric Swalwell The Answer To Trump’s Prayers?

Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the complaint filed by Rep. Eric Swalwell against former president Donald Trump. Swalwell just filed a complaint that could prove to be the vindication that Trump has long sought in the riot in the Capitol on January 6th.

Here is the column.

French philosopher Voltaire said he had only one prayer in life — “O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous” — and that it was uniformly granted by God. The answer to Donald Trump’s prayers may be Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.). It is not because of Swalwell’s relationship with a Chinese agent or the bizarre defenses of him, including one Democrat insisting he deserved the Medal of Honor. It is because Swalwell’s lawsuit against the former president could offer Trump the ultimate vindication over his role in the Jan. 6 riot on Capitol Hill.

Swalwell’s 64-page complaint against Trump — along with son Donald Jr., Rudy Giuliani, and Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) — alleges nine counts for relief, from negligent emotional distress suffered by Swalwell to negligence in the “incitement to riot.” One might think this would be a lead-pipe cinch of a case. After all, an array of legal experts has insisted for months that this was clear criminal incitement, not an exercise of free speech. As a civil lawsuit, it should be even easier to win, since the standard of proof is lower for civil cases.

Yet, for more than four years, many of these same experts claimed a long list of “clear” crimes by Trump that were never prosecuted or used as a basis for impeachment. Likewise, despite similar claims of criminal incitement, roughly three months have passed without a criminal charge against Trump. District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine insisted weeks ago that Trump’s alleged crime would be investigated. Yet any such prosecution likely would collapse at trial or on appeal, and people like Racine are not eager to prove Trump’s case.

Enter Swalwell, who has long exhibited a willingness to rush in where wiser Democrats fear to tread, with what may be his costliest misstep yet.

First, his lawsuit will force a court to determine if the defendants’ speeches were protected political speech. As if to guarantee failure, Swalwell picked the very tort — emotional distress — that was previously rejected by the Supreme Court. In 2011, the court ruled 8-1 in favor of Westboro Baptist Church, an infamous group of zealots who engaged in homophobic protests at the funerals of slain American troops. In rejecting a suit against the church on constitutional grounds, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: “Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker.” Roberts distinguished our country from hateful figures like the Westboro group, noting that “as a nation we have chosen a different course — to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”

Second, Swalwell must show that Trump was the factual and legal cause of his claimed injuries. Swalwell and others have expressly argued that, if not for Trump, the riot would not have occurred. But a trial will allow the defense to offer “superseding intervening forces” on that question — acts of others that may have caused or contributed to the breaching of the Capitol. A court could rule that Trump was not the “but for” cause of the riot before even getting to any legal causation or constitutional questions.

Claims of blame would have been easier to make before the House refused to hold hearings on Trump’s impeachment, including weeks after its “snap impeachment.” Now, facts have emerged that implicate Congress itself in the failure to take adequate precautions against rioters, despite advance warnings. Former House officials claimed an FBI warning was sent only in an email, a day before the riot — but FBI Director Christopher Wray has testified that a warning of plans to storm the Capitol was sent on all of the channels created for sharing such intelligence. Moreover, former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund testified that he asked for National Guard support but was refused six times; one key official, Sund said, did not like “the optics” of troops guarding Congress. Delays at both the Capitol and the Pentagon allegedly left the Capitol woefully understaffed. And Trump has been quoted by former Acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller as warning him the day before the riot that “You do what you need to do. You do what you need to do. You’re going to need 10,000 (troops).”

There also is a growing problem with the riot’s time line. Swalwell’s complaint alleges a failure by Trump to act as violence unfolded. But as more information has been released, the time period has shrunk to a difference of minutes between the breach and Trump’s call for law and order. Trump ended his speech at 1:10 p.m. The first rioter entered the Capitol at 2:12 p.m. Eight minutes later, Trump had a heated call with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who told him of the breach. Then at 2:26 p.m., Trump mistakenly called Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) instead of Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.). Lee reportedly said Trump did not appear to realize the extent of the rioting. Finally, at 2:38 p.m., Trump called for his followers to be peaceful and to support police. That was roughly 30 minutes after the first protester entered the Capitol. Trump’s defense team will likely emphasize that the he not only told followers to go “peacefully” to the Capitol but made the call to obey law enforcement roughly 30 minutes after the first rioters entered the Capitol.

Many people think Trump should have spoken earlier. Indeed, I condemned his speech while he was giving it. Yet, various people took actions (or failed to take actions) that left the Capitol vulnerable. And, at trial, a comparison could be drawn to the violence around the White House during the previous summer: Fearing a breach of that complex, overwhelming force was used to create an expanded security perimeter — but the use of National Guard troops then was denounced by congressional Democrats, D.C.’s mayor, and the media.

Finally, Swalwell’s complaint accuses Trump of reckless rhetoric — but Swalwell could find himself on the witness stand having to answer for his own rhetoric. Those comments include his mocking of threats against Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). Swalwell, who now claims severe emotional trauma from the Capitol riot, dismissively tweeted “Boo hoo hoo” when angry protesters surrounded Collins’s home in 2018.

Swalwell’s complaint is timed beautifully to collapse on appeal just before the 2024 election, giving Trump and Republicans the ultimate repudiation of prior Democratic claims. Voltaire also famously said that “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him.” Luckily for Trump, Swalwell not only already exists, but he may be the very answer to Trump’s political prayers.

761 thoughts on “Is Eric Swalwell The Answer To Trump’s Prayers?”

  1. Will Democrats be held accountable for their own behavior and rhetoric? I think not.

    Trump told his supporters to protest peacefully.

    Democrat politicians, activists, and pundits urged on riots as the voices of the unheard. They told their followers to harass Trump supporters in restaurants.They told them to harass members of an administration. To go out “make a crowd and make sure they know they aren’t welcome anywhere anymore.” Biden’s team bailed out rioters and looters. Pelosi said “I don’t know why there aren’t uprisings. Maybe there will be.”

    Democrats stormed the capitol and Senate offices during the Kavanaugh hearings, leading to dozens of arrests.

    Do Democrats have amnesia? Do they promptly overlook what they’re told isn’t there? The Democrat media is never going to point out Democrat rhetoric that induced violence, and they covered burning cities as “mostly peaceful.” They will never hear criticism of their own party on their media. But it shouldn’t take the media pointing out what’s in front of their faces. They have “heard” their own politicians openly calling for civil unrest, and sometimes violence. Does someone need to tell them to remember what they’ve heard with their own ears?

    I just don’t get it. Plenty of Republicans criticized Trump when they felt he made a misstep, and at times took issue with the party in general. I can’t imagine never hearing any criticism of my favorite party. This lockstep brainwashing on the part of Democrats is frankly weird.

    We’re all watching Biden’s apparent mental decline on TV, but whenever I tune in to channels like CNN they just don’t talk about it. “I’m ready to take questions, Nance, if you think that’s what I should do.” Cut the feed.

    Remember when Democrats paused in calling us Nazi, Fascist, racists, deplorable, evil, fill in the blank bad names and scolded Trump voters for voting for someone so rude? In the middle of calling us names, they criticized us for voting for someone who insulted others on a regular basis. They ignored the reasoning that we’re voting for lower taxes, the preservation of individual rights, the Constitution, and for our leaders to prioritize American interests.

    Well, voting for someone that seems to be in blatant cognitive decline, and belonging to the party that looted and burned and even took over entire city blocks for months reflects quite poorly on their own judgement in voting.

  2. “All politicians have gaffes, flubs, and bone-headed things they say. But when your public statements are few and far between, so protected by Teleprompter guidance and friendly media, and a significant % of your words are unintelligible, it’s a problem.” ……

    “President Joe Biden forgot the name of his defense secretary yesterday (Lloyd Austin), as well as where Austin works (the Pentagon). The other day, his handlers abruptly cut his video rather than let him answer questions from his fellow Democratic elected officials.

    His team won’t allow him to host a press conference, even knowing that the White House press team couldn’t be friendlier to the man who replaced the man who drove them crazy with rage. The septuagenarian just struggles with communication, as he did in his gloomy speech a couple of weeks ago about how many Americans died from the coronavirus, or when trying to defend his bill to bail out Democratic strongholds in the name of COVID relief:….”

    https://thefederalist.com/2021/03/09/for-national-security-reasons-lets-keep-biden-in-the-basement-and-off-tv/

    “Biden’s campaign from the basement worked because the media essentially ran his campaign, hiding issues that hurt him and elevating issues that hurt his opponent. People who were paying attention probably noticed that his public performances, whether debates or otherwise, were wildly erratic.

    Sometimes he seemed completely focused and in control of his faculties. Other times he was flailing on stage or challenging voters to fistfights and calling them names. Sometimes he just seemed a little lost and would get support or help from his wife, Jill. She’s even helped him out in his interviews as president.”

    “This is a president who can’t even take questions from the same press corps that asked Obama what most enchanted him about the presidency, much less the rabid and hysterical grilling Trump endured daily from an unhinged press corps. Not that he need worry about such treatment.

    We can count on the media to cover for Biden and downplay the flubs, the forgetfulness, the stumbles. They’ll explain his absence from regular direct questioning.”

    “It’s not good for the American people that the president isn’t hosting press conferences or answering questions. It’s not good that we can’t count on the White House press corps to press Biden on his administration’s radicalism, his culture war onslaught, or his struggles with handling the rigors of the presidency.

    Still, maybe it’s best if we all just encourage him to stay off camera if for no other reason than our national security.”

    (Joe Biden is destroying America and the Fake News Media is an enemy of the people – without question)

  3. The “new” Trump working class GOP:

    Under Trump’s tax law, nearly half the benefits went to households making $308,000 or more in 2018.

    Under Biden’s covid stimulus, 70% of the tax benefits go to households making $91,000 or less in 2021.

    They each cost the treasury about the same.

    1. You’re comparing a tax law to covid stimulus?!

      Those are some weak talking points, JF. Do you ever think for yourself?

      What happened to the $2000 checks Joey D promised?

      BTW, the biggest problem with Trump’s tax bill was what it did for the Banksters. Not that I’d expect you to know that.

      Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush II, Obama, Trump, and now Biden, all serve the same Money Masters. But 90% of the electorate are too uninformed and badly educated (aka/ “indoctrinated”) to see that reality.

      1. “You’re comparing a tax law to covid stimulus?!”

        Yes. They both cost the government, one in reduced revenue, the other in increased expenditures.

        “What happened to the $2000 checks Joey D promised?”

        Those eligible already got the first $600, and the remaining $1400 will be sent soon, now that the Senate approved the Recovery bill.

        1. The objective is not the benefit of government. I do not care what things “cost the government”.

          I care what they cost real people.

          Tax cuts benefited real people.
          It allowed all of us to keep more of the wealth we create, and many of us to reinvest creating even more wealth for all in the future.

          Covid spending did not.
          There is nothing in covid spending – under Trump or Biden that increased wealth or increased the share of what they produced that people got to keep.

          1. LMAO that you can’t even bring yourself to admit that the Covid spending ALSO benefited real people.

            1. Of course it did.

              Every single action of government benefits someone.

              In fact every single action benefits someone.

              If I throw a brick through your window – someone will be paid to repair that window.

              What I said – which you have ignored is that standard of living is increased by producing more than people value.

              Regardless, as is typical you stop with the first order effects of government actions.

              PPACA benefited lots of people – but they benefits are dwarfed by its costs.

              C19 spending benefited lots of people – yet the cost is 3 times larger than 10 years of PPACA – do you really think that will end well ?

              Further these stimulus measures PRODUCED nothing.

              Some wisdom that has passed the test of centuries.

              https://englishlanguageandhistory.com/?id=frederic-bastiat-broken-window-fallacy-1

              1. No, John, what you said was “Tax cuts benefited real people. … Covid spending did not.”

                1. On net – it did not.

                  That is what the broken windows fallacy demonstrates.

                  Even bad things have positive benefits.
                  But not NET positive benefits.

              2. “Every single action of government benefits someone.”… but is always paid by someone else whether it is overall beneficial for the population or not.

                Anonymous the Stupid (or ATS shorthand) is intellectually unable to understand what you were referring to. He sees only a singular straight line that leads directly to the center of his Stupidity and then tries his “gotcha”.

                That is the basis of Anonymous the Stupid’s comment below.

                The tax cuts brought potential taxes received by government to a higher level by increasing wealth production. Covid spending decreased government’s allotment for its fixed spending. That means that government borrows and pays the $1.9Trillion off over time.

                The balance sheet shows something like this.

                Individual receives 0 – $1,400
                Individual’s share of the debt is $5.700 (on a per capita basis) whether they received $0 or $1,400

                This type of analysis requires more than one step so it is far beyond Anonymous the Stupid’s abilities.

        2. Why $2000 ? Why not 50000 ?

          If 2000 is good – why isnt 50000 better ?

          No matter how much money we are paid – we are no better off if we have not produced more.

          1. John say, “ I do not care what things “cost the government”. Actually you do care. The moment you cite deficits or the federal debt you are in effect caring what it costs the government.

            Covid spending is benefiting real people. The fact that even a majority of Republican voters support the bill and it helps them as well is proof.

            $2000 makes a difference, especially for those affected by the economic fallout of the pandemic. Your objection or disagreement seems to rest on the level of wealth of the recipients.

            Trump himself advocated for $2000. It was HIS idea ironically and democrats gladly adopted it.

            $50,000 would have been an impossible goal given the current makeup of congress. $2000 was much more realistically achievable.

            1. “Covid spending is benefiting real people”

              That is true. How much of the $1.9 Trillion is going to people in need that earn up to $100,000 per year?

              How much will they or their children have to spend to repay that debt and to cover increased costs due to that action?

              It’s not a matter that some will benefit. The question is at what cost and how many people will be hurt.

              1. S. Meyer, we have had ever increasing debt for decades and the same arguments have been made that your children will be paying it somehow. I bet your own parents were told YOU would be paying for the ever increasing debt. Have you experienced this massive requirement to pay it all back? Of course not. It won’t happen the way you think. As long as we have a population that is productive and an economy that is still producing we will have the ability to borrow. Republicans in congress know this, They are the ones who love to spend more when they are in power.

                1. “we have had ever increasing debt for decades and the same arguments have been made that your children will be paying it somehow.”

                  True, and such debt is wrong. Now answer the questions and deal with the final question.

                  How much of the $1.9 Trillion is going to people in need that earn up to $100,000 per year?

                  How much will they or their children have to spend to repay that debt and to cover increased costs due to that action?

                  It’s not a matter that some will benefit. The question is at what cost and how many people will be hurt.

                  SM

                  1. Anonymous SM, “ How much of the $1.9 Trillion is going to people in need that earn up to $100,000 per year?”

                    That depends on what you mean by “people”. Are you referring to an individual taxpayer making $100,000 a year or a couple filing jointly.

                    A couple filing jointly making $100,000 will get the full sum, because it would mean each makes $50,000 a year. An individual who makes $100,000 a year could be a single person with no children of a single parent. One person making that much a year really isn’t in a category that may be experiencing hardship as the rest. If one is still making that much they are perfectly capable of sustaining themselves throughout the pandemic. Those making $85,000 and up to $100,000, again if they are single have more “cushion” in their finances than those making less. Remember, republicans wanted to cap the salary to qualify for the checks at those making less than $50,000, completely bypassing those who need it most.

                    Cost shouldn’t be relevant at all. Just as cost wasn’t relevant when trump and republicans passed their own trillion dollar tax cut.

                    Your kids or their kids will not be paying that debt. Just as you didn’t and thisr before your parent didn’t either.

                    As long as this nation is still producing and its economy continues there will always be opportunities to reduce the debt. Who knows maybe military spending is cut in half, more efficient energy consumption saves more to pay down debt, etc. you can pay down debt in many different ways besides “your children”. Maybe corporations will pay more in the future. After all they enjoy the protection this country offers by paying less.

                    1. You missed the question. The idea behind the stimulus is to provide Americans in need with money to hold them over. I am not concerned with how the $100,000 +/- number is laid out. I am concerned with how much of the $1.9Trillion is going to NEEDY Americans that are looking to recreate their lives.

                      “Cost shouldn’t be relevant at all.”

                      Costs are always relevant. They amount to trade-offs. Though needy Americans might end up slightly better off temporarily, that accounts for a tiny percent of the $1.9Trillion. These same people will be paying that money back with devalued currency and taxes to help pay off the debt. That is what you don’t want to reckon with.

                      Your solutions do not necessarily help the worker. In fact it is more likely to destroy him, but you don’t want to view the unknowns and the trade-offs involved.

                    2. About 1/5 of the stimulus is going to the 1400 checks.

                      The rest is going to nonsense.

                      Though honestly – the 1400 checks are nonsense.

                      End the lockdowns and you do not need “stimulus”.

                      Frankly the Stimulus is nonsense anyway.

                      We need to produce more – that requires ending stupid government polices – like lockdowns.

                    3. Teh “Checks” cost as I recall about 400B – the rest of the 2T in spending is NOT going to “people in need”.

                      It is going to all kinds of stupid nonsense.

                      nearly 100B is going to union bailouts. Why is government bailing out unions ?

                      Can we bail out churches ? the Kiwanis club ? The KKK ? BLM ?

                      An enormous amount is going to bailing out blue states.

                      Aparently democrats have not heeded Hamilton.

                      When states make fiscal mistakes they must be allowed to fail – even go bankrupt.

                      The consequences of bad actions are the preventative for future bad actions.

                      This disaster is a gigantic pile of moral hazard.

                    4. Or you could have just not lockdown the country deprived them of their jobs and wasted Trillions of dollars.

                      You seem to think that “explaining” how the bill works is somehow meaningful.

                      It is not. The COST of this bill is $6000/every man woman and child in the US – are you getting that much ? Is anyone ?

                      The further COST of this bill is that NOTHING has been produced – that means the bill is inevitably inflationary.

                      Evenb GoldMan Sax is expecting 8% growth in Q3 – BUT most if not all of that will be inflation – not real growth.

                      “Remember, republicans wanted to cap the salary to qualify for the checks at those making less than $50,000, completely bypassing those who need it most.”

                      False – very few people making over 50K need this at all. That is the top half of the country. US Median household income is 65K.

                      C19 has had negiligable fiscal effect on the top 70% of the country. They have the same jobs at the same pay.
                      Many are better off – because they do not have to drive to work each day.

                      Regardless, the best thing to do was to kill the entire thing and end the lockdowns and send everyone back to work.

                      You claim to be the party of “science” – that is BS. There has actually NEVER been science to support lockdowns. The idea came from a childs science fair project in the Bush administration. No one took it very seriously until C19. It has never been done before. We are now on Day 365 of 15 days of lockdowns to slow the spread. This has never been done before. Why ? Because the ACTUAL experts knew long ago it would not work and the cost was enormous.

                      Regarldless the data is now in. Lockdowns do not work. Their net effect may even be negative.

                      Masks – have MINIMAL benefit – 10-15% reduction in spread over 90 days if you beleive the data from Europe, 1-3% over 100 days if you beleive the real world data from the CDC. The CDC results were so bad for masks that some of the data indicated a NEGATIVE impact from masks.

                      Next, the total cost of “payments” is 438B I beleive – what makes up the other 1.2T ? Bailouts to blue states and to unions.

                      There is a reason that you DO NOT do bail outs. That is because doing so is a massive moral hazard. It CAUSES future bad behavior.

                      As noted about we have learned that lockdowns do not work. Except that if we “bail out” states that locked down – then they do work – not at stopping Covid – but at spunging off the public teat.

                      Those governments that failed to deal with C19 – should have to deal with that failure.

                      “Cost shouldn’t be relevant at all.”
                      Costs are always relevant. Do you go out and spend more than you earn ?

                      “Just as cost wasn’t relevant when trump and republicans passed their own trillion dollar tax cut.”
                      The tax cut cost nothing – revenue went UP, and it went UP more than the prior year.

                      “Your kids or their kids will not be paying that debt.”
                      No YOU will.

                      “Just as you didn’t and this before your parent didn’t either.”
                      What you think this is all magic ?
                      Federal government debt service in 2019 was almost $600B.
                      More than the deficit. If there was no national debt the budget would be balanced.

                      Regardless – we will pay for this – not our children.
                      We will likely pay for it in inflation.
                      Nearly everyone is predicting significant inflation. Some are predicting hyper inflation.

                      For most of the past 2 decades the interest rate the government has had to pay has been ridiculously low.
                      But it is rising – before this it was expected to rise to 3% – 50% higher than under Obama, now how high it will head is unknown.
                      If it hits 6% – something it could easily reach, debt service would consume the entire federal budget.

                      Or more likely and worse – we would have to borrom even more money to pay the interest on the debt.
                      That is a death spiral. That is how we get to hyper inflation.

                      There is no real way out of hyper inflation that is not disasterously painful.

                      I could be wrong – nearly all economists could be wrong.

                      one of the big problems is that We have never done anything like this before.
                      The only nation that has ever had debt levels as high as the US and survived has been Japan. And Japan did so at incredibly low interest rates and with great wisdom in how they spent that money.

                      Every other nation that has reached debt levels this high has failed.

                      But hey – as those on the left keep chanting – “this time is different, this time things that never worked, will work”

                      “As long as this nation is still producing and its economy continues there will always be opportunities to reduce the debt.”
                      Current GDP is 21T. National Debt is 28T – and is about to be 30T – that is debt at about 150% of GDP.

                      Nouriel Rubini did seminal work in the early 2000’s that found that a countries ability to continue to grow was severely hampered as debt rose about 80% of GDP – and that growth was REDUCED further the higher the percentage of debt.

                      “Who knows maybe military spending is cut in half”
                      I have no problem with that – but it is not going to happen – neither democrats nor republicans will do that.

                      Whether you like it or not – Trump totally won the argument regarding China – China is the biggest US threat – now and in the future, and they are increasingly beleigerant under Xi and current Pentagon War Games predict that if The Chinese decide to Take Tiawan – or do anything else that would require a military response from the US – that the US will LOSE.
                      While I think those assessments are wrong – those assessments are what will drive US budgets.

                      “more efficient energy consumption saves more to pay down debt”
                      Nope.

                      First government has NEVER driven increased energy efficiency. Next historically increased efficiency has ALWAYS resulted in higher consumption. Next all supposed green energy – still cost double what fosil fuels cost per unit of energy delivered. Worse, all “green energy” requires energy storage technology that either does not exist or more than doubles the cost.

                      I do expect that Solar in particular will ultimately provide a substantial portion of US energy – but not for decades.
                      Again you are assuming magin.

                      Next – there just is not enough potential gain.

                      “you can pay down debt in many different ways besides “your children”.”
                      There are only three ways you can pay for government (or debt).
                      You can borrow more – kicking the can to the future.
                      You can inflate – which is just an immediate and highly regressive tax on everyone.
                      Or you can raise taxes. You are currently near or above the revenue optimizing tax rate – so higher taxes will not produce more revenue, they will just reduce growth.

                      “Maybe corporations will pay more in the future.”
                      You do not seem to grasp that – ultimately ALL TAXES are paid by those at the bottom.
                      Tax the rich or tax business – and they pass the cost on to you in higher costs for goods and services.

                      The correct corporate tax rate is ZERO. That negatively impacts the costs of goods and services the least,
                      Allows businesses to invest – which is very good for all of us, and should they pass profits on to shareholders as dividends – those get taxed at individual rates.

                      “After all they enjoy the protection this country offers by paying less.”
                      No they do not. That is just nonsense. This is just leftist BS.

                      First the benefits of this country – come primarily from the people – not the government.
                      And businesses are net benefiical to the people – or they would not exist.

                      You would buy nothing if you did not beleive you were getting more value than you paid.
                      Businesses benefit YOU.

                      “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages”

                      Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature & Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Vol 1

                      Svelaz – you are incredibly economically ignorant.

                      Start here – it is an easy read.
                      https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465060730

                      HEre is something much shorter and an even easier read that is free.
                      http://leeconomics.com/Literature/Henry%20Hazlitt%20Economics%20in%20One%20Lesson.pdf

                  2. S. Meyer, “ I am concerned with how much of the $1.9Trillion is going to NEEDY Americans that are looking to recreate their lives.”

                    These are not “needy” Americans. That’s your first mistake in characterizing these Americans. They are not needy. They are the ones who will have the most difficulty dealing with the financial consequences of the pandemic. It’s not neediness.

                    As I pointed out nobody is going to end up “destroyed” or whatever apocalyptic description you use. What is going to happen is these people will be able to spend that money to improve or alleviate their situation. Spending the money is what will help the economy as a whole.

                    Most will be slightly better off temporarily, but that influx of new spending helps the economy recover faster and therefore may keep their better position in a more sustainable outlook.

                    Costs can be dealt with when the economy improves.

                    1. “These are not “needy” Americans. “

                      Are you nitpicking definitions? The reason for Covid relief funds is because the Covid situation and our reactions to it caused people to lose their source of income. That made them temporarily needy.

                      ” They are the ones who will have the most difficulty dealing with the financial consequences of the pandemic. It’s not neediness.”

                      That is what is making them needy at this period in time. If they weren’t needy there would be no need for the Covid relief package.

                      “Spending the money is what will help the economy as a whole.”

                      Every action has a reaction. Every action has trade offs. If spending was the answer give everyone $100,000 and we will even be better off. Why don’t we give everyone $100,000? Read Bastiat on Broken Windows.

                      If you wish to assert that spending money is the solution why spend only $1,400? Why not spend $100,000 per person? That, according to your economic logic will be even better.

                      You still haven’t answered the question. How much of the $1.9 Trillion is going to people to provide assistance?

                    2. What nonsense.

                      The cost of the “stimulus” is about 6K/person – in todays dollars – it will ultimately be more in future dollars.

                      Those most impacted by C19 are unskilled and lowskilled workers in blue states – and that harm is from government policies – not C19 itself.

                      Most people earning between 50K and 100K have had little fiscal impact. Those most severely effected earn under 35K.

                      Further if you wish to deal with the impact – then deal with unemployment compensation – oops, they DID do that.

                      So nearly the entire stimulus is giving money to people who have not been significantly harmed.

                      Regardless – just end the harm. We are nearly day 365 of 15 days to stop the spread.

                      You failed.

                      Learn from failure instead of doubling down.

                      Do what is actually needed – and end the lockdowns.
                      Rather than just burning money.

                    3. You can point out all kinds of things.

                      They do not matter unless you are right.

                      We have dumped 6T into the economy – while reducing production.

                      No one anywhere ever has done anything like this before.

                      It is not possible to know whether this will prove apocolyptic. Though there are many economists predicting it will.

                      I suspect it will ultimately be bad – but not apocolytic.

                      But I could be wrong – neither you nor I can be certain.

                      After the fact – it will seem obvious. But claims that this will not be harmfull now are hunris.

                    4. You seem to think that it is possible to buy things that have not been produced.

                      Do you think there is 2T of goods lying arround waiting for someone to buy them ?

                      If not then all this will do is drive prices up.

                      I think almost every economist is predicting a significant rise in inflation.

                      What we do not know is how much.

                      Regardless, Keynesian stimulus does not work. Look at 2009. Despite ARRA Obama had the weakest revovery since the great depression.

                      I would further note – the current economy does NOT need stiumulus.

                      Again just about every economist thinks there is significant pent up demand.
                      But that demand will not be able to produce results until you end the lockdowns.

                      The demansd already exists.

                  3. It is actually quite simple – government spending is inefficient – ALWAYS.

                    All government spending will generate less benefit than if it were left int he hands of those who earned it.

                    6T in spending will generate value – something less than 2T in real value.

                    But it will still cost 6T. And one way or the other that cost will be paid – and likely with interest.

                    I can find little agreement on the immediate economic future.

                    But there are two things that there is near universal agreement on.

                    A recession is coming
                    Inflation is coming.

                    How soon is in great debate. Many economists see a steep boom first.
                    How big the recession will be, and how great the inflation will be is also in debate.

                    I am less inclinded to be even that specific.
                    I am only predicting “It will be bad”.

                    The Obama economy proved less bad than I expected.
                    It was still BAD – and for a long time.

                    Biden’s policies are LESS rational.

                    Worse, the biden administration does not seem to care.

                    They beleive the economy is magical – it will do as it is told – or they do not beleive that it matters if the economy goes to hell – they are doing their gods work, so what if people are screwed even die ?

                    We are seeing a mess at the border – a predictable one.

                    Biden and Psaki are trying to blame Trump – really ?

                    And Svelaz thinks Trump is a liar ?

                    The border problems are the trivially predictable results of Biden’s public remarks.
                    This would have occured with Biden’s election – even without his early stupid immigration EO’s.

                    Biden campaigned on substantially greater immigration and less enforcement of existing laws.
                    And these people beleived him.

                    And so here they are – lined up at the border.

                    And the Biden admin is taking over convention centers for illegal immigrants accross the country – why ?
                    Because democrats deprived Trump of the money to build beds for these people – and now there are none.

                    All this was foreseable.

                2. “S. Meyer, we have had ever increasing debt for decades and the same arguments have been made that your children will be paying it somehow. I bet your own parents were told YOU would be paying for the ever increasing debt.”
                  Correct.

                  “Have you experienced this massive requirement to pay it all back? Of course not. It won’t happen the way you think. As long as we have a population that is productive and an economy that is still producing we will have the ability to borrow.”

                  Only partly correct.

                  In the 80’s and 90’s as government sought to reignin debt we saw growth spie to almost 4%.
                  In the 21st century as we have returned to ever more profligate spending – we have seen growth decline to below 2%.

                  We ARE PAYING – and will pay for a long time.

                  Nouriel Rubini – years ago demonstrated that as debt levels rise governments become increasingly ineffectual and the economy sputters and stagnates. Rubini posited a threshold at 80% of GDP and an irrecoverable point as 100% of GDP. Historicallly no country has ever recovered from those debt levels.

                  I think the scale of the US economy and its critical role in the world gives the US an advantage that Greece as an example does not have.
                  But an advantage is not a repudiation of the laws of economics.

                  regardless the bill is already coming due. We have already lost growth – we are all poorer, because of our high levels of debt.

                  We – not our children have already started paying.
                  Further that burden has fallen hardest on those at the bottom – the cost of government debt is paid in part by freduced growth and that impacts the least well off the hardest.

                  But we are only at the start. Despite a weak economy and high debt we have been blessed for 2 decades with incredibly low interest rates.

                  These make high debt afforadable and mitigate the negative impact on us all.

                  But low interest rates are not a right. Inflation has been low the past 20 years. But low inflation is not a given.
                  For the past 10 years we have been engaged in a massive monetary experiment.

                  Immediately after the 2008 financial crisis that easy money policiy was justified – and it appeard to work – though it was not matched with good fiscal policy.

                  But we have continued that easy monetary policy to balance the bad fiscal policy – and so far that has worked.

                  But there are strong signals that is coming apart. And that should not surprise – easy money, low growth, low inflation and high debt is not a sustainable situation – or a good one.

                  Currently inflationary expectations are very high.

                  In very many ways we are currently repeating the mistakes made in the 50’s and 60’s and 70’s that resulted in stagflation.
                  But not exactly – we are doing so far faster and on a far larger scale.

                  We are about to test whether MMT – an economic theory that makes no sense, actually works – or doesn’t.

                  If it does not we faced serious trouble.

                  We have not had significant inflation in 40 years. Beliving that it has been banished forever would be a mistake.

                  It appears prepared to return – and it is a bear. Worse it is self sustaining. It is a positive feedback loop.

                  If we start to have inflation – we can exist significant inflation – even possibly hyper inflation.

                  Regardless – you try to pretend that debt is free – it is not, we are already paying a very high price. We are inarguably worse off than we would have been.

                  But we might be only at the start of paying.

                  Not our children – but US – SOON.,.

                  Republicans are hypocrits and profligate spenders when in power.
                  But they pale compared to democrats.

              2. No one will ever do a cost benefit analysis on government pandemic responses – because they KNOW the answers already – the costs of Pandemic policies greatly exceeds any benefits.

                No one will do a cost benefit analysis of the stimulus – because the cost greatly exceeds the benefits.

                1. John, do you think Svelaz has the ability to understand the simple video presented by Stossel?

            2. Are you able to read ?

              I clearly stated – “I care what they cost real people”

              The reason government spending matters is because ultimately REAL PEOPLE pay for it.

              If Government actually was an independent person of its own – without the power to confiscate the property of others – neither you nor I would have any say in what it spent.

              Regardless, you are being deliberately obtuse, and quoting me out of context for the purpose of misrepresentation.

            3. “Covid spending is benefiting real people.”
              Of course it does – it also HARMS real people.

              And the net harm is far greater than the benefit.

              “The fact that even a majority of Republican voters support the bill and it helps them as well is proof.”
              AGAIN – not a republican.

              Republicans have done many stupid things.

              Further, we both know the poll is crap.

              Nearly every single government spending poll gets significantly more than majority support – until you tell people what it is likely to cost THEM.

              As you noted – all government spending must be paid for.

              Either it is paid for in taxes now,
              Or it is paid for by inflation – which is a broad regressive tax on everyone.
              Or it is paid for by future taxes.

              Regardless it must be paid for.

              Current national debt is just shy of 85K for each man woman and child in the country.

              One way or the other Government is going to get that 85K from YOU – and that is in addition to all the other taxes that you already pay.

            4. “$2000 makes a difference”

              It does ? If you need 2000 – then go earn it, or borrow it.

              Since when does the rest of the country owe you a living ?

              “especially for those affected by the economic fallout of the pandemic.”
              Grow up – life is not fair. I can list dozens of bad things that have happened in my life that are worse than the pandemic.
              They do not entitle me to anything from you or others.

              These payments are doubling down on stupid.

              Government failures caused the economic harm – NOT Covid.

              Covid did not shut the economy down. Covid did not enact draconianian polices that harmed most of us – especially the least well of.

              Government is STEALING from all of us to avoid being held responsible for its misconduct.

              You have accused me of being a Trump supporter – This is one place where I strongly part company with Trump and Republicans.

              While they are STILL the lessor evil – they are evil. I have no problem with the Tax cuts – they were wise, but should have been bigger.

              I have problems with the spending. Whether it is done by democrats or republicans.

              Let each of us keep as much of our own wealth as possible – we need very little for government – the rule of law, that is all.
              The rest we can provide for ourselves. Either own our own or in voluntary groups or by exchange with others.

              We know from massive real world data that in the long run that is what raises standard of living for all the fastests.

              The failure of socialism is self evident – that ANYONE can still be selling it is a sign of total idiocy.
              But Socialism is merely a FORM of big government – and ALL big government fails – for many reasons – but ONE of those is because it is inefficient. Government can not meet your needs better than you can – no government can know what you want and need – because we are NOT all the same. We are not equal. We are not Ants, were are not interchangeable cogs in a machine. We are each unique.

              The woke left demands respect for very specific tiny portions of our uniqueness. Regardless, some of us are black, some are women, some are gay some are trans.

              It is also true that some are intelligent, some are artistic, some are athletic, some are beautiful. Regardless, none of us are alike.
              We do not have the same needs, wants, desires, abilities.

              That is how it is.

              It is not “fair” – but it is good. Again – we are not ants.

              It is near certain that there will eventually be a strong backlash over the REAL mishandling of the pandemic – the lockdowns, the mandates, the theft of our individual liberty, the destruction of jobs, the destruction of our lives – all of which and more add up to far more than any possible benefit from those actions.

              You, the left, democrats – got away with this nonsense because you scared the shit out of people needlessly.

              Life is dangerous – pandemics happen. 3.3M people died in 2020 – only a small portion of Covid. People died from car accidents and heart attacks and just getting old. Regardless, no one gets out alive. Government can not fix that.

              It is unlikely that the actions of govenrment would have been a fair trade off had they worked – but PREDICTABLY – they did not.

            5. “Your objection or disagreement seems to rest on the level of wealth of the recipients.”
              You know that HOW ?

              Why am I asking ? You are simply wrong.

              I am opposed to ALL government spending outside of that necescary for the rule of law.
              That is the only government spending that produces value.

              Giving people – anyone 2000 dollars or 2,000,000 dollars – does not create any value.

              Our standard of living is Measured in dollars – but what is measured – the number of green slips of paper you have ?
              Or the wealth that you are able to acquire ?

              Standard of living rests SOLELY on what we produce that we value.
              Government has spent $6T in the past year.

              We produced about 21T in actual wealth – the same as in 2019.

              That 6T of spending did NOT change the wealth we produced.

              Whether you like it or not – you can not buy what is not produced.

              Money is not wealth – you can dump all the money you want into the economy.
              All that does is changes the ratio of dollars to wealth.

              It does not result in more wealth.

              Absolutely the past years has been devastating to poor minorities.

              But it is not Covid that devastated them – it is stupid government policies that cost them their jobs.

              It should be self evident by now that had the US done NOTHING about C19 – it MIGHT have spread faster, and there might have been more deaths sooner – though probably not – C19 hit those states that did NOT lockdown hardest in the fall of 2020. It mostly hit states that locked down hardest sooner. Probably this has more to do with latitude and population density. Regardless, even the claim that C19 would have spread faster is hard to support based on the data – though that claim appears to be intuitively correct.

              What is certain from the data is that no government policy worked. No government policy reduced the number of C19 deaths.

              Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things.

              Adam Smith

            6. As of today Sweden’s deaths/Million are 1291.
              Most of Europe has SUBSTANTIALLY higher death rates.
              The US and the UK have substantially higher death rates.

              The one country that chose to do NOTHING by government mandate is doing better than most of europe.

              Again it is self evident that all government efforts to reduce Covid deaths FAILED – The US and every other country.

              Absolutely I care that the least well off have been F’d NOT buy Covid – but by the stupid choices of ALL governments – choices YOU support.
              That can not be fixed by money.

              What CAN be done is that they can get angry – because they have been LIED to – YOU lied to them, YOU destroyed their jobs.

              A price must be paid – by those who failed – Government.

            7. “Trump himself advocated for $2000. It was HIS idea ironically and democrats gladly adopted it.”

              Correct – it was a stupid idea at the time. It remains a stupid idea.

              The ONLY proper actions was to NOT shut the country down.
              That should be self evident by now.

            8. “$50,000 would have been an impossible goal given the current makeup of congress.”
              Really ?

              You are incapable of grasping that 50,000 is not just politically imposible it is STUPID ?

              AGAIN – wealth is the VALUE WE PRODUCE – the ruler we use to measure it is Dollars.

              But the wealth produced does not change because we stretch or shrink the ruler.

              The only wealth available to people in 2020 was what we produced – dumping more money into the economy would have reduced the value of money – it would not have altered the wealth available one iota. It would not have altered standard of living one iota.

              Are you completely clueless ?

              Wealth is PRODUCED – it does not magically appear.

              You have food because someone tilled the soil planted seeds, fertilized them harvested them and brought them to market.

              You can acquire that food because YOU did something that others found valueable and they gave you money which only has value because of what you and everyone else has done to earn it, and you can use that money as an intermediary to trade the value you produced for the value that you want.

              Genesis 3:19
              By the sweat of thy brow thou shalt earn thy daily bread, till thou return unto the dirt; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

              “A man said to the universe:
              “Sir, I exist!”
              “However,” replied the universe,
              “The fact has not created in me
              A sense of obligation.””
              Stephen Crane.

              In more modern terms – “there is no free ride”

      2. Now he is comparing one set of fake data to another.

        He has no clue what he is talking about.

        The 2018 Tax cut delivered only small benefit to the bottom 50% of tax payers – because they pay almost no taxes.

        The average federal income taxes paid by the bottom 50% in 2018 was $646. The total contribution to Federal revenue was $45B
        A drop in the bucket of the 1.53T in total tax revenue

        Further the actual tax receipts show that tax revenue has increased FASTER after the tax cut than before.

        The FACT is that Federal tax revenue has been disconnected from tax rates for almost a century. Why ?
        Because so long as the upper marginal rate is higher than the revenue optimizing rate upper margin tax cuts can not reduce tax revenues, and in most instances increase them.

        For the past near century Federal tax revenues really do not correlate to tax rates – they correlate to growth in the economy.

        When the economy growth tax revenue rises – no matter what the rates are or who is taxed.
        Though in the US regime since atleast the 50’s – lower tax rates with a rising economy have always meant MORE tax revenue than projected.

        As upper marginal tax rates have declined the share of the cost of govenrment paid for by the top earners has increased radically.

        Today the bottom 50% pay less than 3% of the cost of the federal government.

    2. Under Trump’s tax law, nearly half the benefits went to households making $308,000 or more in 2018.

      Under Biden’s covid stimulus, 70% of the tax benefits go to households making $91,000 or less in 2021.

      Well, you’ve checked your talking point mills this morning.

        1. “you use the same nonsense every day.”

          Anonymous the Stupid, apparently you haven’t read the law. About half the money being spent has nothing to do with Covid. Much of the rest is wasted with much of the money being misdirected and counterproductive.

          How anyone can be so ignorant and talk so much is beyond belief.

          1. S. Meyer tells us something more about himself.

            “How anyone can be so ignorant and talk so much is beyond belief.”

            He needs to take those words to heart.

            1. “S. Meyer tells us something more about himself.”

              True, Anonymous the Stupid. My words tell you that I am able to think whereas you are not.

    3. Real US household median household income by year:
      1999: $62,600
      2016: $62,898
      2019: $68,700

      For 17 years globalism stagnated middle incomes. Trump fixed that. And blue collar workers recognized it. An NBC News poll released last week shows that between 2010 and 2020, the Republican share of blue-collar votes rose from 45% to 57%, Hispanic vote went from 23% to 36%, while its black working-class vote went from 5% to 12%.

      In 1992, Bill Clinton carried 49% of counties where at least 25% of the workforce was employed in manufacturing. In 2016, Donald Trump took 95%.

      Democrats are the party of Wall Street. Who else wants open borders and is willing to pay Biden so much for it?

      1. Democrats are the party of Wall Street.

        Casino banking is a big part of who they are. They’ve also got the tech companies (whose culture was libertarianish 20-odd years ago), the media and entertainment complex (notice how Gainesville and Paint Chips whine about the very existence of the redoubts they do not control), the higher education apparat, the school apparat, the social services apparat, the mental health trade, every sort of NGO operating acccording to O’Sullivan’s law, the federal tax collectors, and portions of the security state. They’ve also got a surprising number of flag-rank officers in their pocket.

        1. Democrats are the party of working Americans, as voting data shows (average Trump voter wealthier than Clinton and Biden voter) and the Covid relief bill vs Trump tax cut shows. Typical GOP party act is tax cuts for the wealthy and nothing for workers.

          Facts are facts.

          1. The differences in income between the parties have diminished over time.

            Democrats have a small but declining advantage among voters earning under 50K
            A larger advantage from 50K-99K
            and a small disadvantage from 100K up.

            1. Read my lips Walworth:

              Democrats are the party of working Americans, as voting data shows (average Trump voter wealthier than Clinton and Biden voter) and the Covid relief bill vs Trump tax cut shows. Typical GOP party act is tax cuts for the wealthy and nothing for workers.

              Facts are facts.

              It is not a fact that blue collar workers are now Republicans, just white blue collar workers. When they discover you have nothing for them but xenophobia and cult loyalty, they won’t stay.

              1. JF, where did I write that the 57% of blue collar voters who voted for Trump were registered Republicans?

                Trump ran a populist campaign, just as Obama did.

                Populism is an anathema to the establishment elites in both Parties because they are statists. Statism is the polar opposite of populism.

                But populism is not only not going away, it is becoming much more prevalent.

              2. Facts are facts. And your claims are correct only in cherry picked framing of the question.

                Democrat/republican voting by income:

                <30K 53% 41%
                30-50K 51% 42%
                50-99K 46% 50%
                100-199K 47% 48%
                200K-250K 48% 49%
                250K+ 46% 48%

                This is 2016 data. In 2020 republicans did better down income and worse up income.

                And for every billionaire funding republicans – I can name 10 funding democrats.

                For every big corporation funding republicans – I can name 10 funding democrats.

              3. Romney lost Union voters to Obama in 2012 by 18%. Trump lost them to Clinton in 2016 by 8%.

                In 2020 Trump/biden were a dead heat in private unions, and Biden won the union vote overall solely because he dominated public employee unions.

                You know the ones FDR said should not exist.

              4. I do not recall doctors and lawyers and CEO’s at the capital protests that you are so afraid of.

              5. I doubt AnonJF is much familiar with Texas. The GOP there has plenty of Hispanics and whether they consider themselves white or not, is besides the point.

                With an open borders policy that invites migrants to dash for the border, Biden is helping save the GOP in Texas. Texans want a secure border. The working-people, especially.

                  1. Typical Anonymous the Stupid interpretation of policy. ‘We don’t have an open door policy. The doors are closed but anyone can open them and come right in.’ Dumb, Dumb,Dumb.

                    1. Typical Stupidity from Anonymous the Stupid. My comment wasn’t abusive it was correcting a Stupid comment.

                      “Typical Anonymous the Stupid interpretation of policy. ‘We don’t have an open door policy. The doors are closed but anyone can open them and come right in.’”

                    2. Anonymous the Stupid, I don’t “harasses anonymous commenters” though I do correct Stupid anonymous commenters.

                    3. Whatever you wish to call Biden’s policy – it is failing – unless failure was the intention.

                      What is most disturbing – it this was trivially predictable.

                      Why should anyone expect anything democrats do to work – if they do not get that declaring a 100 day moratorium on deportations is a gigantic red flag scream come here NOW to both potential immigrants AND to cartles who wish to send gang members into the US

                      Nothing that is occuring right now is unpredictable.

                      Either this is what democrats wanted, or they are completely clueless.

                    4. For any program one should be focusing on how the incentives work are and the incentives of those charged with carrying out the program. Biden fails miserably on all counts.

                    5. Looking at incentives requires deeper than first order thinking.

                      those on the left are not capable of that.

                      Regardless, CANDIDATE Biden said – I think that 2M immigratns would be fine.

                      President Biden is shocked to find that immigrants beleived him.

                  2. Correct – he has no sane policy at all.

                    Regardless dealing with immigration is TRIVIAL.

                    FOLLOW THE LAW. That is what Trump did. That is why you hate him.

                    If you do not like the law – change it. The process of crafting new law is supposed to force us to confront the flaws in our new laws and to address them – before making things worse.

                    Biden has a disaster at the southern border of his own making. Obama did much the same thing – though on a smaller scale.

                    Democrats spent the past 4 years sending a message to central and south america that if they took power people should come.

                    Guess what they beleived you. Including drug cartels that are sending an army of teenage soldiers.

            1. You’re fond of saying “___ does not mean what you fancy it means” when you have no argument to make.

              When you insisted that dictionary writers are illiterate because they gave a definition you don’t like, should I tell you The term ‘illiterate’ does not mean what you fancy it means?

              1. We now have an organized effort to preserve paper dictionaries from the 60’s or earlier – why ?

                Because the ease with which online dictionaries can be altered has resulted in the Orwellian destruction of the meaning of words.

                Anyone telling you that some word does not mean what you think it does – is likely both right and wrong concurrently.

                He is right because in a world were the meaning of words is stable and durable – you are out on a limb sawing the branch behind you.

                The left is a triumph of chaos, destruction – and the destruction of the meaning of words is at its core.

                Constantly we are confronted with you or you ilk using words in entirely different ways than in the past.

                Fundimentally words are symbols – and it does not matter much which words mean what.

                But it does matter than the meaning of those symbols – words is both shared and stable. When that is not the case – we have babble – we can not communicate.

                This is BTW pretty much the same nonsense as the claim that 2 + 2 = 5 can be true because they are just symbols and symbols can mean anything.
                Of course it can – but not without massive disruption and cost.

                Further, just like the assertion that 2 + 2 = 5 mangling the meaning for words is a form of censorship. it is a means to attempt to destroy ideas, thoughts meaning that you do not like.

                Describing this all as orwellian is not an accident. The destruction of stable meaning for words is central to Orwellian distopias.

                1984 was meant to be a warning – not a howto manual.

      2. For 17 years we followed a balanced budget with typical GOP tax cut red ink and de-regulation into a real estate bubble and worst financial crash since 1929, then the longest period of growth since WWII into Covid Trump’s crash. 80% of lost manufacturing jobs were from automation, not globalization.

        From a 2016 Financial Times article:

        “…The US did indeed lose about 5.6m manufacturing jobs between 2000 and 2010. But according to a study by the Center for Business and Economic Research at Ball State University, 85 per cent of these jobs losses are actually attributable to technological change — largely automation — rather than international trade.

        The think-tank found that although there has been a steep decline in factory jobs, the manufacturing sector has become more productive and industrial output has been growing.

        “Simply put, we are producing more with fewer people,” notes Mireya Solís, a senior fellow at Brookings….”

        https://www.ft.com/content/dec677c0-b7e6-11e6-ba85-95d1533d9a62

        1. ““Simply put, we are producing more with fewer people,” notes Mireya Solís, a senior fellow at Brookings….””

          Brookings, the think tank with close ties to China.

          We are producing more with less people but Trump brought jobs back from China so that we could produce more with American workers while we produced more with less people. The problem with JF is that he can’t think and chew gum at the same time.

          1. Trump did not bring jobs back from China.

            “….Four years later, it’s clear that Trump’s trade policies have failed U.S. workers. Instead of more good jobs, his ever-escalating trade wars have led to higher costs, lost markets, and more plant closures. Economic Policy Institute research shows that nearly 1,800 U.S. factories disappeared between 2016 and 2018.

            In manufacturing-heavy Ohio, Trump’s tit-for-tat tariff battle with China was a major factor in the drop in annual job growth from 36,200 in 2016 to 3,700 in 2019, according to a new report I co-authored. Average weekly earnings for Ohio manufacturing workers also declined during this period.

            In Michigan, Fiat Chrysler, General Motors, and Ford have all closed plants since Trump’s brash campaign trail commitments. Auto companies as a whole reduced their investment in the state by 29% over the three full years of Trump’s presidency, compared with the previous three years under Obama.

            Trump tariff battle with China hurts
            Where were U.S. manufacturing companies investing? China. Trump’s war of words with Beijing has done nothing to stop American companies from pouring resources into this fast-growing market.

            In 2019, U.S. firms invested $14 billion in China — more than in 2016, the year Trump was elected. Tesla and General Motors led the pack, with massive investments in electric vehicle production. These two companies’ decisions to expand in China were motivated in part by Beijing’s consumer subsidies for pollution-reducing technologies.

            But Trump also bears personal responsibility for encouraging offshoring because of the corporate tax cuts he pushed through Congress in 2017. U.S.-based companies no longer owe Uncle Sam anything on offshore profits up to a certain threshold. Above that level, they owe a federal tax rate that’s just half of what they’d pay for domestic profits.

            As a result, corporations can save on their IRS bills by shipping jobs overseas. Big companies like General Motors took their tax break and then shipped thousands of jobs out of Ohio, Michigan, and other states…..The jobs haven’t come back. But even as he doubles down on his failed trade war with China, Trump continues to reward the corporations that offshored jobs there.”

            https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/09/17/donald-trump-trade-policies-damage-american-workers-column/5807633002/

            1. All one has to do is look at the U6 and U3 numbers before the Covid pandemic. Trump policies created jobs one way or the other. No need to play the type of game you are playing. You don’t like the numbers because they are clear comparisons showing Obama’s economic responses to be poor and Trump’s to exceed anything expected.

            2. And yet your Brookings claim is that none of this is true – that manufacturing job loses were due to automation.

              Make up your own mind.

              Regardless ECONOMICALLY Tarrifs and trade wars are a bad idea.

              Economically we should lift all sanctions – against Russia, Iran. North Korea, China.

              But economics is not the reason for any of those Tarrifs or sanctions.

              1. Slow down John Say. It is possible – and is true – that 85% of jobs lost since 2000 were lost due to automation and that Trump’s trade policies lost more jobs.

                Understand? Think about and I’m sure you can handle it.

                1. Possible and true are not the same.

                  In 2000 there were 113M employed in the US.
                  At the end of 2019 that was 130M
                  Today it is 123M

                  You keep making this “trump Trade Policy Job loss claim”.

                  It is bogus. I have been over the false claims that there were losses in agriculture.
                  The data does not support that.

                  Commodity prices are driven primarily by supply variations, world demand for food is near fixed – there are almost 8B people – they must all eat. China refusing to buy food from the US just means someone else will.

                  Where is it you think this massive jobs loss occured – it is not in the data anywhere.

                  Economically Trump’s trade policies are a mistake. They do not work as he sold them and they are not good for US workers in anyway but psychologically.

                  But every bad idea is not the worst idea in the world.

                  Further Trump’s trade policies – particularly towards China have objectives that have little to do with US jobs.

                  The US has been shifting its forign policy from Europe/Russia focused to Asia/China focused for more than two decades.

                  Trump’s focus on China is not unique. Trump is merely responsible for pushing us over a long over due tipping point.

                  China under Xi has going from moving towards freedom to moving back to totalitarianism. China is emerging as a super power – a badly behaved one.

                  It already appears that Biden will keep all or most of Trump’s policies toward China.

                  The Biden admin might not sell its stance towards China in daily tweets, but its actions are unlikely to be significantly different.
                  Just as I would be shocked if Biden managed to revive the stupid Iran deal. Doing so would destabalize the mideast.

                  Trump has transformed US foreign policy in incredibly positive ways. No president has ever been as effective in foreign policy – not Nixon, not Carter, not Reagan. Biden appears to be rapidly coming to the realization that much of that is not reversable without dire consequences.

                  Maybe Biden will soften rhetoric and roll back some Trade policies. But the US is going to be at loggerheads with China for a long time – atleast so long as Xi rules. Trump did not create that. He merely dealt with it far more effectively than Obama.
                  Biden will have to deal with it – whether he likes it or not.

                  Economically Trumps China Trade policies are bad – though we STILL should not misrepresent them as worse than they are.

                  But they have non-economic justifications.

                  I would further note that Trump has taken a page fromt he left’s playbook.

                  Trump has made it crystal clear to blue collar workers that is “feels their pain”.
                  He has acted to give them what they want – even if it is not in their own interests.

                  Just as democrats have sold minorities free stuff – that is not free and is not in their interests.

                  Regardless, I will be happy to join you in criticising Trump’s trade policies – but not if you can not get your facts straight.

                  They have not had a consequential effect – positive or negative on US jobs – either in agriculture or manufacturing.
                  That was predictable.

            3. Such economic ignorance – as well as poor arguments.

              Tax cuts and trade policy have about as much to do with each other as prostitution and hersey’s chocolate.

              The left rants that corporations are not people – in fact they are – they are people acting in groups for a specific purpose.

              Regardless, corporate taxes are economic idiocy. Ultimately all taxes are paid by PEOPLE – individuals.
              Not corporations, not businesses.

              Taxing corporations and businesses subjects income to double taxation, thwarts investment and is horribly inefficient.

              Trade and taxes have little to do with each other. Your argument is fallatious crap.

              I will be happy to agree with you that Tarriffs are bad ECONOMIC policy.

              But I had to listen to 4 years of your ranting about more sanctions on Russia.

              Clearly you have no problems with trade barriers.

              Unless they are by republicans.

              1. John say, says, “ Ultimately all taxes are paid by PEOPLE – individuals.
                Not corporations, not businesses.”

                That’s after saying, “ The left rants that corporations are not people – in fact they are – they are people acting in groups for a specific purpose.”

                “In fact they are”? I guess those “people” don’t pay taxes, but the rest of the “other people” do. That’s some pretzel logic worthy of a sideshow.

                1. When you misrepresent of misquote me – you are lying.

                  50% of people – pay a bit over 2% of all federal income taxes.

                  There are no “airquotes”

                  There is also no “I guess” – the data is from the IRS. It has varied little for most of the past 20 years – maybe longer.
                  It is not “pretzel logic” – it is reality. You dislike of reality does not alter it.

                  And actually my statement is incorrect –

                  50% of TAX PAYERS pay 2-3% of all federal income taxes.

                  More than 50% of americans did not pay any tax at all and did not file a tax return.

                  Of those about less than 1/3 are under 18.

                  I have no problem with the tax distribute as it is.

                  But I do have problems with those like you who seem to think that substantial income taxes are paid by most people.

                  I would note that the current distribution of taxation has LOOSELY been true in the US for most of the time we have had an income tax.

                  Initially income tax rates were low and only applied to the rich. That changed with the great depression Where government, and stayed that way through to Reagan.

                  Your plan of heaping high tax rates on the rich is always followed by raising taxes on the rest of us – it has to be.

                  There are only two ways to ACTUALLY boost tax revenue.
                  Grow the economy,
                  Raise taxes on the 50% who pay little and can not avoid taxes.

          2. What is interesting is that the remarks of the Brookings author are a tautology know for centuries and JF behaves as if it is a new revelation of the left. While at the same time failing to understand the true significance.

            Standard of living ALWAYS and ONLY improves when we produce more value with less human effort.

            I have stated that here for several years and elsewhere for many more.
            But it is not an original observation. It predates even Adam Smith.

            I would note that Brookings does make an error.

            Many US manufacturing jobs moved to China when the wage difference was extreme.

            Many of these moved back to the US when Automation shifted the competitive advantage.

            If you look at only the begining and the end points – all you see is jobs lost to automation.

        2. “For 17 years we followed a balanced budget”

          I do not beleive the federal government has had a balanced budget since early in the 20th century.

          “with typical GOP tax cut red ink”
          I would suggest that you check the data. In the real world Tax cuts do not result in deffict increases – there has NEVER been an OMB or GAO prediction the revenue consequences of tax cuts or tax increases that has EVER been correct.

          Nor is their likely to be. Current US Taxes are slightly HIGHER than Economist Christine Romer (Obama’s Cheif Economic Advisor) revenue optimizing maximum. Absent a substantial cut or substantial increase there will be negligable impacts on revenue.

          And decades of tax and revenue data confirm that.

          “and de-regulation”
          The most deregulatory president was Jimmy Carter. The next most deregulatory was Bill Clinton.

          “into a real estate bubble and worst financial crash since 1929,”

          Not this idiotic trope. Deregulation had absolutely nothing to do with the housing bubble.
          Even the claim is ludicrously stupid.

          The housing bubble was caused – JUST LIKE THE GREAT DEPRESSION by bad monetary policy – Too easy money.
          all or nearly all systemic economic failures are caused by “easy money” – which is nearly always a GOVERNMENT FAILURE.

          “then the longest period of growth since WWII”

          Where do you get this nonsense ? The longest sustained period of economic growth was from Reagan through to mid Bush.

          The Obama-Bush era is the WEAKEST growth that has ever been seen in this country.
          With Obama averaging just 1.8% growth. Average 20th century growth was 3.5%. 19th Century was about 7%. Bush was 2%.
          Trump’s precovid Growth was 2.8% – not spectacular but far better than Bush or Obama. 2019GDP was 21T, 2020 GDP Was 20.5T
          A roller coaster ride for sure, but almost unchanged from 2019. Average Growth for 4 Years of Trump still exceeds average growth under Obama.

          Do you just make this nonsense up ?

          “80% of lost manufacturing jobs were from automation, not globalization.”
          EITHER is an excellent reason to NOT raise the minimum wage.
          But go ahead. See how well that works for you.

          BTW it really does not matter what the direct cause of the loss is.

          Standard of living rises when more of what humans value is produced with LESS human effort.

          A free market will ALWAYS seek a better more efficient lower cost means of producing the same or greater value.

          There is not, nor should there be such a thing as a good stable well paying job. That is stagnation by defintion.

          Whatever you are doing you had BETTER be trying to produce more for less over time. If you can not your job will be automated, outsourced, or replaced by an immigrant.

          And that is a GOOD thing not a bad thing. You will lose your job whenever there is a better way to do that job.

          That is what we WANT. It means that all the goods and services that we want have become cheaper, better or more abundant – or all of the above.

          Conversely as you are no longer engaged in inefficiently doing whatever you were before – you can seek a new job where you deliver new value.
          While the left is full of nonsense about an abundance of high paying green jobs. And they are inherently stupid in deliberately destroying jobs – that is only done beneficially by the market not government. They are correct that we should all be looking to constantly either do the job we have more efficiently or to seek a more valuable job.

          You can not raise the standard of living of a country without raising the value of what is produced.

          Fixating on job losses due to globalization vs. automation vs anything else is meaningless.

          If you are not constantly improving – SOMETHING is going to take your job.

          That is basic economics.

          If as an example you raise the minimum wage to $15/hr – no job that is not worth $15/hr will continue to exist.
          If a job that currently pays less than $15 was worth $15 it would pay $15.

          “Simply put, we are producing more with fewer people,” notes Mireya Solís, a senior fellow at Brookings….”

          Wow! Mises or Ricardo, or Say or Smith could have told you that over a century ago!

          In the 1800’s the vast majority of people worked producing food. today it is less than 2% yet we produce far more food than ever before.

          You “think tank” finding, is BASIC ECONOMICS

          A properly functioning economiy is ALWAYS going to destroy innefficient jobs and create efficient ones.

          1. John say, “ The housing bubble was caused – JUST LIKE THE GREAT DEPRESSION by bad monetary policy – Too easy money.
            all or nearly all systemic economic failures are caused by “easy money” – which is nearly always a GOVERNMENT FAILURE.”

            That “bad monetary policy” you’re referring to is deregulation. It’s exactly what allowed that “easy money” to be had. Less regulation less barriers to the greed that causes the pursuit of that “easy money you speak of. Parsing words doesn’t change the fact that deregulation is what promotes such behavior.

            When California deregulated its energy sector it created the very conditions that produced rolling blackouts and the Enron fiasco. There are plenty of examples refuting your disagreement that deregulation isn’t the problem.

            1. “That “bad monetary policy” you’re referring to is deregulation. It’s exactly what allowed that “easy money” to be had.”

              Svelaz, please don’t respond. I am not criticizing nor affirming what you might believe.

              Things are not so simplistic as many imagine. Let me provide one example: In order for a bank to loan money “easy money” the bank has to first have the money in hand. Aside from reserves where do you think a lot of that money comes from? Then think why that money existed in that location and what incentivized that money to be placed there in the first place. Think of what you and many people did with their own money. Think of the things that impact rates of return. Risk is one of those things. Concentrate on risk.

              1. This is not really all that complicated.

                The federal reserve sets the interest rate that Banks can borrow money from it.

                Setting that rate accomplishes many things – including controlling the money supply.

                But with respect to the housing bubble what matters is that the interest rate that the Fed charges sets three interrelated things for the Bank (an other mortgage lenders).

                1). It sets the interest rate for all types of mortgages.
                2). It sets the volume of mortgages that can be written.
                3). It sets the price that will be charged for each level of risk.

                The lower the Fed rate the more Mortgages that can be issued – because banks can afford to borrow more money from the Fed.

                Using a hypothetical

                If the average prime mortgage is 200K and there are 10,000 qualified prime mortgage requests, and a Fed rate of 4% allows the bank to issue 5,000 mortgages at 200K – then the bank will reject half the prime applications it receives. And issue mortgages to only the best of the best.

                If the FED lowers the rate to 3% and that allows the bank to issue 10,000 200K mortgages – it will issue mortgage for ALL prime applicants.
                The bank will have increased its risk – but only a little – because alll 10,000 mortgages it wrote were prime mortgages – low risk.

                If the Fed drops its rate to 2% the Bank can now issue all Prime mortgages and 20,000 qualified sub prime mortgages averaging 50K each.

                The Banks risk has increased substnatially – because it has issued more riskier mortgages.

                Easy money as very little effect on low risk loans – those are issued whether the rates are high or low. Though there might be a small drop in demand when rates are higher – though mostly not – because mortgage rates and house prices are related – high mortgage rates drive home prices down, low mortage rates drive home prices up – that BTW is another negative side effect of easy money.

                It not merely increases the amount of risky loans that are made – by ALOT, it also increases the price of assets – including risky ones.

                Further every drop in interest rates causes the bank to make a bigger move into even riskier mortages.

                All the above is the “too low” part.

                Now the too long.

                Too low will drive banks to riskier mortages,

                But Too Long does much the same thing.
                The longer rates are down the fewer low risk mortgages are available to write, and the more high risk mortages get written.
                And the greater the percent of the mortgages are high risk.

                All of the above HAPPENED exactly as described.

                I forget what it is called but there is an indepth exposee of Countrywide.

                Which was the single largest writer of mortgages for more than a decade prior to 2006.

                At the start Countrywide was writing good mortgages, and infact they countinued to write primarily good mortgages through out.

                But the longer they wrote mortgages the longer the housing boom lasted the lower the quality of mortgages became – because nearly all the low risk buyers were sold houses and mortgages early when prices were lower.

                The longer the housing boom continued two bad things happened concurrently – the mix of mortgages Countrwide had available to write – the people demanding mortgages increased in risk AND the mortgages increased in size – house prices rose.

                Until in the last two years before the housing bubble burst Countrwide wrote Billions of dollars worth of almost entirely subprime mortgages – because there were just not that many prime mortgages left to write.

                And then slowly mortgage defaults started to rise. Initially this was not a problem – again interest rates are the PRICE OF RISK – and sub prime mortgages have higher interest rates than prime mortgages – because more subprime mortgages default normally.

                But soon defaults were running double and then 5 times what the interest rate could bear.

                I would also note that an over supply of money for mortgages not only results in writing riskier mortgages, it also slowly sates the demand for houses.

                When demand for houses drops – because there are fewer people looking to buy, house prices drop.

                At the same time the drive to write more and more mortgages as demand for mortgages drops drives to more and more risk and more and more defaults.

                It is estimated that a 1% increase in the Fed Rate in 2004 would have avoided the financial crisis.

                too low for too long.

                Everything that i write abouve happened, as written – no one even on the left disagrees. They just spin it different.

                Further everything above is just normal supply and demand – BUT were the FED controlls the supply of money.

            2. “That “bad monetary policy” you’re referring to is deregulation.”

              You are correct.

              Now, who was President when that deregulation occurred?

              Answer: Bill Clinton

              Bush 1 provided the perfect set-up for Clinton when he defunded the enforcement arm of the NASD as part of his budget cuts.

              Then while Clinton was in office his Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin persuaded Clinton to sign the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, which eliminated Glass-Steagall, and the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, which allowed derivatives and credit default swaps to to be traded with no regulation.

              All in all, it was a very bi-partisan effort, and a lot of lobbyists were richly rewarded for their efforts. As were lots of Democratic and Republican politicians.

              So, Bill Clinton was the President who created the so-called “Financial Crisis” in 2008.

              Then Obama came in and earned his keep as the greatest Wall Street bootlicker to ever occupy the Oval Office.

              1. No he is not correct – the financial crisis was caused by the housing bubble, and the housing bubble was caused by monetary failure.

                I do not think there is an example of an economic downturn anywhere ever that did not have a monetary cause.

                I do not like Bill Clinton – he was abysmall in foreign policy. But he generally was excellent domestically.

                Though he and …… Andrew Cuomo at HUD made serious fiscal mistakes REGULATING housing. Those mistakes did NOT cause the 2008 recession. Though they did distort the housing market, and they probably made the housing bubble burst slightly sooner.

                Many of the bad thongs that were occuring in subprime mortgages were ALSO taking place with prime mortgages – but the scale of the problem was smaller – thought he issue was just as serious.

                A 2% default rate on Prime mortgages is as bad or worse than a 10% default rate on subprimes – because there are far far more Prime mortgages than Subprimes.

                Cuomo/Clinton regulatory housing policies increased the number of SubPrime mortgages – and their percent of the market.

                But the problem was not too many subprime mortgages – it was that the price of those mortgages – the interest rate was too low.

                The interest rate on a mortgage is the price of the risk.

                The market engages in high risk transactions all the time. There is nothing wrong with a high risk tranaction – so long as the price of the transaction is correct for the risk involved.

                Control of interest rates rests with the Federal REserve – and it is MONETARY, not fiscal policy.

            3. “The finacial crisis occured because Banks – the same people who would have held the mortages int he past, now held the mortgage backed securities – i.e. NOTHING REALLY CHANGED.”

              John all this is very complex so it is difficult to deal with in short replies that necessitate responses that aren’t complete.

              “NOTHING REALLY CHANGED”

              I think a lot changed but that change is from another perspective based on many different laws, rules and regulations. It doesn’t mean that what you were trying to say is wrong.

              It is also based on perception because it was our government that wanted to loan more and thereby caused the bundling. The bundling was perceived by many to be safer (government was pushing it) though as you say that would be impossible for it to be safer. The total risk remained the same though packaged differently.

              When banks hold a loan, they worry about the loan and the ability of the borrower to carry it. When they can quickly dispose of the loan wrapped up in a nice looking package their concerns disappear. That disappearance is demonstrated by the inability to deal with homeowners who went under. Many contracts were not found.

              1. So let me clarify – on the macro level NOTHING CHANGED.

                In the past – banks owned mortgages.
                In 2008 Banks owned Mortgage backed securities.

                In both instances large scale defaults would devestate the financial industry.
                The precise details of which banks would be devasted would change – but the scale of the harm to the financial system would be the same.

                The left wiggs out over MBS’s and CDO’s and CDS’s.

                All financial instruments are ZERO SUM.

                Cettain forms of deritivates can cause the holder to lose MASSIVELY – but there is always a matching winner who wins the same amount the loser loses.

                Enron collapsed over really poor derivative investments. But others benefited from Enrons collapse to the same extent as Enron lost.

                What happened between 2006 and 2008 was NOT zero some.

                We can not look in zero sum arrangements for real net losses.

                There are myriads of aspects of the financial system that are crazy complex and opaque and extremely dangerous to those invovled.

                But they are not SYSTEMICALLY dangerous.
                We saw with Gamestop and much earlier with the london whale what happens when participants int he financial system try to drive values up or down. If the power of the financial system to move the value of securities is very low – how is it that you think that are able to inflate the value of houses by 11T ?

                You do not have to understand the ins and outs of the financial system to understand that its dangers are to those inside it and nearly always zero sum – and where they are not the deviation is small.

                The financial system does not create credit – at most it decides who gets it.

                “Inflation is Always and Everywhere a Monetary Phenomenon”
                Milton Freidman

                and echoed by most everyone of consequence in economics and banking.

                Home prices rising beyond value is inflation.

                If you want a cause – it MUST be monetary.

                The entire financial system is highly vulnerable to undetected inflation in the assets that underpin securities – whether those are mortgages, MBS’s or stocks.

                But that is an EXTERNAL problem. and it can not be fixed by regulating the financial system.

                  1. The point is that from 20,000 ft. there is no difference between banks owning mortgages and banks owning Mortgage Backed Securities.

                    There is an enormous amount of complexity as you get closer – but NONE of that complexity changes the overall picture.

                    If there is no difference between a Bank owning a mortgage and a Bank owning the equivalent value of MBS’s then securitization can not have caused the financial crisis.

                    For a number of reasons that require looking closely – MBS’s CDS’s CDO’s etc probably made the financial system MORE resilient, not less.

                    Regardless, they MIGHT have something to do with Why one Bank failed and another did not. But they do not have anything to do with systemic failure.

                    There are no examples of systemic failure as a consequence of market forces – systemic failure requires everyone to move int he same direction. That just never happens naturally. It requires government to get everyone moving the same way.

                    In fact – everyone moving the same way is BAD, even when they are generally moving in a good way.

                    Essentially the adage “toom much of a good thing” is true.

                    1. John, there is a significant difference but I wouldn’t argue that the difference was the primary cause.

                      However the systemic failure was accelerated because by creating the junk they did loans were able to be turned over faster leaving room for more loans.

                      There are a lot of other things to be considered but that requires time I am not willing to put in.

                      John Allison was President of CATO but before that he was President of BB&T. Aside from his book I had a chance to speak with him. He filled in some details that were not pleasant and not apparent to even the educated public.

                    2. “there is a significant difference”
                      Not in any way that matters.

                      “but I wouldn’t argue that the difference was the primary cause.”
                      Of course not, The differences between MBS’s and mortgages are zero sum. At best the change WHO the winners and losers are not whether there are winners and losers.

                      It should not require an argument to grasp that a security can NEVER bring down the financial system.

                      Not stocks, not bonds, not MBS’s not CDO’s not CDS’s.

                      The very name ‘security’ comes from the FACT that a security is something whose value is determined by something else.

                      A stock is a portion of the ownership of a company. An MBS is a portion of the ownership of a mortgage.

                      If the value of the company goes down the value of the stock goes down. if the value of the company goes up – the value of the stock goes up.

                      The 5th grade version of the Great Depression – that it was caused by trading on the margins – is horsepucky.
                      Absolutely marginal trading increased volatility. But it does NOT change VALUE. The stock market collapsed because the US had built more manufacturing capacity than consumption at the time could support. The value of companies declined – because they were in oversupply. This proved beneficial when WWII started as the US had enormous dormant manufacturing capacity.
                      And the oversupply of manufacturing was caused by a 15 years of easy money – interest rates too low for too long.

                      With the great recession – the malinvestment was in housing rather than manufacturing. Otherwise it was much the same.

                      Absolutely there were very bad government FISCAL policies. These drove the malinvestment into housing – rather than somewhere else,
                      And the drove more investment into riskier mortgages – though interest rates too low for too long will do that entirely on their own.

                      MBS’s, CDO’s CDS;s etc were market tools to manage risk. They did not create risk. A mortgage is actually riskier than MBS’s.
                      With a mortgage you have all your eggs in one basket.

                      To the extent the financial industry erred, it was in failing to understand that there is no amount of risk mitigation that the financial industry can do to be able to absorb an 11T drop in the value of a long term durable asset – housing.
                      You can not insure against 11T in loses. You can not socialize them into insignificance.

                      “However the systemic failure was accelerated because by creating the junk they did loans were able to be turned over faster leaving room for more loans.”

                      The market will ALWAYS develop the means to invest as quickly as credit allows.

                      The amount of credit available was determined almost entirely by the federal reserve. It and it alone is responsible.

                      The financial markets did not create Junk – MBS’s and CDO’s and CDS’s even derivatives are VALUABLE tools.

                      Again read “The mystery of Capital” – while it is not about the financial crisis it is about how incredibly important it is to leverage the value of fixed assets like homes. The entire economy is built on leveraging fixed assets. The difference between the west and under developed countries is the ability to leverage the value of fixed assets. Even the fact that the US grew faster than the UK is because we had more real property AND our system of property values was less ancient and less stolified – and we were better able to leverage it.

                      Leverage – securities, etc are a GOOD thing – not a bad thing. But it is specifically because they are so important that it is critical that we do not artificially inflate the value of real property like homes.

                      “There are a lot of other things to be considered but that requires time I am not willing to put in.”
                      There are – but they are not causes.

                      “John Allison was President of CATO but before that he was President of BB&T. Aside from his book I had a chance to speak with him. He filled in some details that were not pleasant and not apparent to even the educated public.”

                      I do not know what Allison’s views are. But the FACT is the great recession was caused by the FED.

                      ALL consequential financial downturns are MONETARY.

                      This should be trivial to understand – though it is not by many in the financial industries – probably because they do not wish to admit to their own problems.

                      The FED was put into place to prevent the downturns of the 19th century – yet the track record of the FED is no better than the mess we had before – and it was a mess.
                      Overall low level volatility is a GOOD thing – constant small rough spots force us to reassess. The absolute worst thing that can occur in the economy overall is steady even growth. Small errors in growth and risk pricing compounded over many years results in a massive misallocation of investment. The worst possible situation is when people are saying something is safe because it has always been that way.

                      The economy is like a bathtub – ripples are not a problem – but when all the water starts moving in concert in the same directuion – something bad is going to happen. the longer that occurs the worse it will be.

                      That is exactly what happened in the period before the great depression – and the period before the great recession.

                    3. >>“there is a significant difference”
                      >Not in any way that matters.”

                      I’ll laugh and leave it at that.

                    4. SM – this is an important discussion.

                      There are numerous competing claims regarding the 2008 recession.

                      It is quite important to determine which are valid and which are not.

                      Congress completely failed. Dodd Frank does not even attempt to address the causes that the LEFT has made.
                      It is a bunch of new regulations that for the most part have absolutely nothing to do with anything that occured in 2008 – except that was used to justify them.

                      I have made the claim that all serious recessions are monetary.
                      Whether that is correct of not is important.
                      Actually understanding the causes of recessions is important.

                      It is near universally agreed by economicsts today that Friedman was correct and in 1929 an inevitable recession was turned into a depression by poor monetary policy. But Friedman only examined why there was a depression – not why there was a recession.

                      2008 proved a test for Friedman – again not regarding the cause of the recession – but in avoiding making it worse. Bernanke followed Friedman’s advice – atleast loosely, and likely prevented a depression.

                      But that does not address the cause.

                      Addressing the cause is important. It is certain that if we do not understand the cause of downturns we will have further downturns.

                      There is some evidence that there is natural – or other structural causes for a cyclic economy that are NOT driven by government.
                      But these are ripples on a pond – they are not recessions – or even if they reach recession level they are very mild.
                      It is reasonable to expect that steady growth is not possible. In fact I have already argued essentially that too much of any good thing in economics is with certainty bad.

                      Regardless we want the valleys to be shallow and short.

                      The position that all significant downturns are monetary is not my invention, it is shared by a significant portion of economists – if not by consensus.

                      The argument I have made to you is that it is actually impossible for MBS’s etc to have caused the finanicial crisis.

                      There are differences between MBS’s and mortages – and inarguably those impact how a collapse in home prices will impact the market.
                      But they do not change WHETHER a collapse in home prices will impact the market.

                      MBS’s do not change a FUNDIMENTAL fact – a significant portion of the financial system is SECURED by the value of homes.
                      If the value of homes collapses – this MUST have a large impact on the financial system.
                      The only way this is avoidable is to avoid using the value of homes as security for credit.

                      One of the reasons I keep refering to “The Mystery of Capital” is because that explains why using the value in a home to secure credit is a massively possitive benefit and those countries where that is difficult or impossible are the lest well developed countries in the world.

                      If you accept that a robust thriving financial system MUST use home values as security. You have already accepted that a collapse in the value of homes will be devastating to the financial system – that a signficant negative impact is unavoidable.
                      Whether the financial system uses mortgages or MBS’s or both.

                    5. >>>>“there is a significant difference”
                      >>>Not in any way that matters.”

                      >>I’ll laugh and leave it at that.

                      >SM – this is an important discussion.

                      John, I guess what I originally said has significant meaning, “there is a significant difference”

                      Flexible vs non flexible: Each type of arrangement has its own costs, but the more flexible the more risk entailed. Creating the junk bonds we saw was the result of trying to be more flexible and increased the risks. But more than that it decreased the transmission of knowledge. A gullible public, being pushed by financial interests that make money with an up or a down, bought in. why wouldn’t they? Everyone was jumping on the bandwagon. …And when everyone jumps on people run to make sure they get a spot even as the real value of that spot is falling.

                      Each step has its own separate incentive. I count 4 separate incentives though not all are completely distinct.

                    6. “John, I guess what I originally said has significant meaning, “there is a significant difference””

                      Not in the context of the causes of the financial crisis.

                      Absolutely in the context of who gets hurt.

                      MBS’s distributed/socialized the harm – they work somewhat like insurance.
                      The only exception being that some investors deliberately chose higher risk MBS’s as they also performed better – lower cost fir higher return. Those investors got hit the hardest – that is appropriate.

                      “but the more flexible the more risk entailed.”
                      NO!
                      There is no relationship between flexibility and risk.
                      You can have both high flexibility and low risk and low flexibility and high risk.
                      They are independent variables.

                      “Creating the junk bonds we saw was the result of trying to be more flexible and increased the risks.”
                      First this was not about Junk bonds – that was Miliken.
                      Further there is absolutely nothing wrong with “junk bonds”. Miliken’s conviction was complete idiocy.
                      In the real world Miliken’s “junk bounds” outperformed expectations.
                      They were merely more volatile than expected and many investors suffered large losses for a short time which were ultimately made up.

                      I would note that as a generalization MBS’s are LOWER risk than mortgages.

                      Regardless, MBS’s made it easier to group and sell mortages by risk class – note easier does NOT mean the samething could not and did not occur with mortages.

                      Regardless, the risk of a class of MBS’s is the risk of the mortages that make it up. MBS’s do not ADD risk,
                      The only thing they do is distribute it. Which means better risk control – that is a good thing not a bad thing.

                      The difference between MBS’s and mortgages is the differences between diversified holdings and having your eggs in one basket.

                      Total systemic risk is unchanged. Individual risk can be higher – BY CHOICE, or Lower – BY CHOICE, or Other combinations – BY CHOICE.
                      But systemic risk is UNCHANGED.

                      This is PROVEN – The risk is that the borrower will default. That is NOT altered by anything that occurs on the backside of the mortgate.

                      The borrower either pays the mortgage or does not. The Borrower is governed by the mortgage – not the MBS’s that are behind it.

                      One way to visualize this is imagine that all mortgages must be sold to a single company.

                      The mortgages become the assets of that company. The company then issues ownership shares – each share represents ownership of the company – and therefore to a peice of the revenue from each mortgage.

                      That is fundimentally hove MBS;s work. they are shares of ownership of a block of mortgages.

                      There is complexity beyond this – but ALL that complexity goes towards better grouping,. quantifying and pricing the risk.

                      “But more than that it decreased the transmission of knowledge. ”
                      It increased the transmission of knowledge, not decreased it.

                      “A gullible public,”
                      Had nothing to do with this.

                      one of the wierd things about MBS’s is that they were fundimentally bought by the same banks that issued mortgages.
                      These were not bought by retirement funds, or little old ladies or 401K’s.

                      While I am not aware of a reason that they could not have been, that is not what happened.

                      Basically banks, and mortgage companies sold their mortgages to investmment bankers who securitized them and then the same banks bought back the MBS’s which were now just shares of ownership of a pool of risk matched mortages.

                      There was no one naive involved.

                      ” being pushed by financial interests that make money with an up or a down, bought in. why wouldn’t they?”
                      Contra the left and public nonsense – this was NOT about “greed”.

                      Some parts of securitization – were driven by regulations such as the CRA.

                      And certainly banks and mortgage companies once FORCED to write more risky mortgages, found ways to profit, and found ways to protect themselves from the risk.

                      Ultimately this is little different from government idiocy about “payday loans”.

                      NORMALLY different lenders – ones who are highly risk tolerant and expect higher returns to cover their risk get into high risk markets.

                      Payday loans are not written by wall street banks.
                      They are written by mom and pop shops. They are risky – and therefore the money is lent at high interest.
                      Pawn shops are similar – though there the money is loaned on collateral – the item being pawned.

                      What was “different” in the early 21st century is that Andrew Cuomo – yes that Andrew Cuomo as Sec. HUD was forcing major banks and mortgage companies to get into the riskier markets. Once they were forced to – they did as all businesses do and figured out how to profit.

                      But none of that is related to the finanicial crisis.

                      “Everyone was jumping on the bandwagon.”
                      Because government compelled them to.

                      “…And when everyone jumps on people run to make sure they get a spot even as the real value of that spot is falling.”

                      And here is the big issue. The real value did not fall because of the CRA or MBS’s or the move to riskier loans.

                      There is absolutely nothing that prevents banks or anyone else from writing lots of mortages to poor people, and making money at it and not introducing systemic failure.

                      The problem has NOTHING to do with writing risky loans – that happens all the time. Just as there was nothing wrong with Miliken’s junk bonds – beyond a misperception of their volatility.

                      Even in high risk markets – assuming risk is priced correctly, volatility has little impact so long as those holding risky investments can wait out the storm.

                      AGAIN – look at TARP – Banks NEVER sold their MBS’s. They knew damn well they were worth far more than current market value – if they could just hold them a bit longer. And they were right.

                      I previously addressed AIG with you – AIG had massive exposure – BUT few if any banks ever tried to collect on CDS’s
                      They were not going to surrender their MBS’s to AIG in return for essentially an insurance payment that was pennies on the dollar.

                      And I would note – Greenberg was not stupid when he concocted this in the first place. He was well aware that the only time anyone would ever try to collect on a CDS would be a financial armegedon that ACTUALLY brought the whole system down – including government..
                      In otherwords CDS’s were “free money” for AIG – AIG insured against a disaster that if it actually came governments would be falling.

                      The problem was that the Fed kept interest rates too low – that created a bubble in asset prices – specifically housing.
                      AND it increased the volume of mortgages that were written – Remember only the Fed can create limitless credit.
                      Banks and investors create credit – but they can not create credit beyond the assets they hold. Only the Fed can.

                      The housing boom, the size of the mortgage market, the eventual bust and the enormous portion of mortgages that were undercapitalized is entirely the result of Fed policies.

                      “Each step has its own separate incentive. I count 4 separate incentives though not all are completely distinct.”

                      Incentives only matter where the ability to deliver on them exists.

                      The source of the credit – the ability to deliver, comes from the FED.

                      Higher interest rates would have meant:
                      Fewer mortgage written.
                      Higher average quality of mortgages.
                      Slower increases in price.
                      No price bubble.
                      The ability to sell the collateral for those mortgages that failed for prices that would recoup the loan.

                      Notice MBS does not appear anywhere above.

                      I would further note – that even without the CRA – this likely still would have occured.
                      Even without MBS’s
                      Even without mortgage companies.
                      Even without lending to poorer buyers.

                      It just would have taken longer – probably.

                      The data tells us that the collapse of housing prices caused a substantial increase in defaults on prime mortgages,.

                      The rate of increase was about the same as subprimes.
                      But a factor of 3 increase in defaults on prime mortgages is a far smaller number than a factor of 3 increase on prime mortgages.

                      The incentives to write subprime mortgages – made the bubble rise and collapse faster – laws of supply and demand.

                      But the rise and fall were driven by interest rates, money supply and available credit – i.e. THE FED.

                    7. I would note – there have been few if any monetary failures ever caused by the market.

                      Martkets are too volatile naturally – you can not get everyone going in the same direction and keep them doing so for long periods of time.

                      Only government can do that.

                    8. “Government is an institution. The market place is not.”

                      I agree.

                      How does that factor into the causes of the great recession – or Recessions generally ?

                    9. >>”Government is an institution. The market place is not.
                      >How does that factor into the causes of the great recession – or Recessions generally ?

                      John, I am not trying to factor anything into being the main cause of a recession or anything else. Government by being an institution can set crazy policies that can do almost anything. Just look at the Trillions of dollars recently spent which will cost more life days than the inflated costs of Covid. The marketplace doesn’t create policy.

              2. With respect to your analysis.

                Banks (or mortgage companies) wrote mortages – just as ever before.

                In the old system – Banks held the mortages.

                In the new one – Banks held mortgage back securities.

                There are lots of subbtle differences, but NONE that changes the fact that things will go to hell if the value of the collateral is not higher than the value of the security.

                A collapse in the value of housing will ALWAYS obliterate banks.

            4. “That “bad monetary policy” you’re referring to is deregulation. ”
              Nope. It is the Federal reserves keeping interest rates too low for too long.

              You do not seem to know the difference between monetary and fiscal.

              Monetary policy is policy regarding MONEY – Since 1916 in the US it has been Entirely the domain of the Federal Reserve.

              Fiscal policy is what Congress does with Money.

              “It’s exactly what allowed that “easy money” to be had.”
              Deregulation does not and can not create “easy money”.

              “Less regulation less barriers to the greed that causes the pursuit of that “easy money you speak of. Parsing words doesn’t change the fact that deregulation is what promotes such behavior.”

              You are correct – parsing words has no effect. You are quite simply WRONG.

              It should be obvious. Dodd Frank did not seek to reverse ANY of the “deregulation” that you think was the cause.
              It is all present today.

              “When California deregulated its energy sector it created the very conditions that produced rolling blackouts and the Enron fiasco.”
              Actually no. CA only partially deregulated. It left power companies paying market price for energy, while charging regulated prices to consumers, while being regulated in production. That resulted in nearly bankrupting CA energy suppliers.

              It had little to do with rolling blackouts at that time. Those had to do with CA having insufficient capacity and power companies in other states being unwilling to provide CA with power.

              More recent rolling blackouts have to do with environmental policies preventing Power companies from clearing their own powerlines. That is also causing fires, as well as continued bad energy policies that leave CA under capacity.

              Plenty of states have fully or nearly fully deregulated energy without CA’s problems.
              The claim that deregulation caused CA’s problem is thoroughly refuted by the fact that most other states have substantially deregulated energy without CA’s problems.

              I would further note that CA has the highest energy prices in the country – and is still in short supply and has the least reliable power grid int he country. I pay about 1/2 what californian’s pay for electricity, and if I shopped my deregulated market I could probably pay about 30% less.

              California is not the world.

              Enron was about mismanagement. Guess what that happens. businesses fail all the time – some Failure is actually a requirement of properly functioning free markets – I would refer you to the economist Joseph Schumpeter. All that was unusual about Enron is how fast they collapsed. Regardless the oppotunity to succeed can not exist without the opportunity to fail.

              This is one of the fundimental differences between government and business. Businesses are and should be free to fail. That is a requirement if they are also free to succeed. Conversely governments CAN NOT FAIL, that is why they also CAN NOT have the freedom to do whatever they please. Government is supposed to be limited and inefficient – that is the price we pay to avoid government failure.

              Kodak and polaroid also failed – they just took longer to do so. Regardless people lost their jobs and their investments – just as with enron. It just took longer.

              Enron’s managers were incompetent – guess what – that happens. Incompetence is not a crime. It is also not without consequence. Enron FAILED, that is what badly run businesses are supposed to do. Shareholders lost lots of money – that is how risk and investment works.
              Investing is just a form of gambling. But it is one where there is a greater chance of winning, and where winning means not merely making money but creating value for others. Regardless – we do not win ever bet. Businesses fail. The process of failure is a major factor in how we learn – and how we do better in the future.

            5. “There are plenty of examples refuting your disagreement that deregulation isn’t the problem.”

              Then you could produce them – you have not so far.

              We have centuries of experience with business and regulation.

              You note that businesses fail – that is correct, it is part of life, and it is a requirement that some businesses fail in a free market.

              It is not new – it has happened throughout history.
              It is not less prevelent in regulated conditions.

              In fact there is no evidence that regulation has ever produced a result that would not have happened on its own anyway.

              Long before there were government regulations – businesses sought to provide better products, and to treat workers better.
              Long after regulations – businesses continue to do the same – well beyond what regulations require.

              If you think that environmental regulations are necescary – you should go back to 16th century london to live – the city was so poluted and unsanitary that working class life expectancy was below 30. All of that improved over time – long before the first government regulations.

              I would note that Carter – not reagan was the most deregulatory president ever – and he was incredibly successful.

              While the US has the worst passenger rail in the world – Amtrak is still government owned and highly regulated. The US has BY FAR the best freight rail in the world – and that vastly subsidizes Amtrak which could not exist otherwise. At the time Carter Deregulated freight – the US freight system was failing. It is now the envy of the world.

              Trump was big on dergulation – has out air become more poluted ? Has our water become dirtier ? Are more people dying ?
              The answer to all of these is no. In fact our air continues to become cleaner as does our water, and mortality slowly declines.

              Trump was a disaster for people who beleive in regulation – but his deregulation had no ill effects.

              Even in areas like CO2 emmissions – which really do not matter – US CO2 declined significantly under Trump.

              The fact is the world just does not work the way you beleive.

              “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages”

              ― Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature & Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Vol 1

            6. I have noted that failure is commonplace in business.

              What does NOT occur in an actual free market is SYSTEMIC failure.

              Systemic failure does not occur Because failure is commonplace and because markets are free – therefore in a free market there is ALWAYS someone betting against the trend.

              You claimed that deregulation cause the financial crisis – it is self evident that it did not.

              The critical fact regarding the finanical crisis (and housing boom and bust) – as well as the great depression, and all monetary failures, is that everyone was going in the same direction. That is like oscilations in a bathtub – when everyone is going in the same direction – even when that appears to be a good direction – there will ALWAYS be failure.

              It is ALWAYS bad to have everyone going the same direction.

              That never happens in truly free markets – someone ALWAYS bets against the grain.
              There is failure – plenty of failure, plenty of enrons. But no systemic failure.

              Systemic failure requires government pushing everyone in one direction.

            7. With respect to Deregulation – I would suggest reading the Nobel Prize winning work of George Stigler on Regulation.

              https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/633f/d235de1d167c4d0810e8dccd14909e3986cd.pdf

              Stigler examines only one of the many reasons that regulation will always fail – regulatory capture.

              Stigler demonstrated that the laws of supply and demand dictate that government regulators and regulations will always be captured by large interests seeking to create disadvantages for smaller interests.

              We can even see this isn the Recent Covid nonsense.

              Accross the country governors found ways to assure that big retail entities – Walmart, Home Depot, Costco remained open while small businesses providing the same services were required to close.

          2. John say, “ A free market will ALWAYS seek a better more efficient lower cost means of producing the same or greater value.”

            I don’t think you really appreciate the irony of the argument you’re making.

            The reason why jobs are going overseas is exactly what your statement produces. “More efficient lower cost” means taking production to where labor costs are lowest. China and many other Asian countries provide that. American companies have been doing exactly what you state, taking advantage of lower costs and more efficiency. Job losses in America are further aggravated by companies here trying to compete by automating as much as possible. This has been especially true in manufacturing. Anonymous JF has a valid argument.

            An automaker today requires fewer workers to produce more due to automation.

            1. “John say, “ A free market will ALWAYS seek a better more efficient lower cost means of producing the same or greater value.”

              I don’t think you really appreciate the irony of the argument you’re making.”
              No Irony at all – I am well aware of what you think is irony.

              Regardless the statement is not only true, it is a fundimental law of economics.

              “The reason why jobs are going overseas is exactly what your statement produces. “More efficient lower cost” means taking production to where labor costs are lowest. China and many other Asian countries provide that. American companies have been doing exactly what you state, taking advantage of lower costs and more efficiency. Job losses in America are further aggravated by companies here trying to compete by automating as much as possible. This has been especially true in manufacturing.”

              While your observations about are incomplete – they are otherwise correct – and we benefit from them.

              Addressing what you are missing:

              First you have a tense problem regarding China – Today the net benefit of lower priced chineses labor is only a 15% reduction in manufacturing cost – While there is more than a 15% difference in labor costs – labor is only part of the total cost of products, and the net cost sanvings for manufacturing in China TODAY is only 15%.

              The 15% number is significant – as that is a threshold number. 15% is the tipping point at which it makes economic sense to move manufacturing – at 16% savings manufacturing goes to China, at 14% it returns to the US.

              Why ? Because just as the labor cost is only a portion of the production cost, the production cost is only a portion of the final cost.
              Goods made in China must be shiped to the US. Manufacturing in China creates a very long supply chain. That and myriads of other factors such as the longer lead times for chinese made goods result in an additional need for warehousing of chinese made goods in the US to buffer supply chain issues.

              Today we are seeing significant moves of manufacturing AWAY from China, some is returning to highly automated manufacturing in the US, some is moving to cheaper labor in other parts of asia. Some is moving just to diversify the supply chain.

              I would note that though not in exactly the same way much the same thing happened with respect to Japan in the late 20’s century.
              In the early 80’s it was near gospel that Japan was going to eat the US for lunch, Everything signaled the Japanese overtaking the US in a few years. That never happened. Japan was able to come close to the US but never exceed it broadly. Many of the same factors – and then some preclude China from overtaking the US.

            2. Directly addressing what you think is irony – which is just fact.

              Absolutely a free market will ALWAYS shed jobs in any narrowly defined industry.

              It MUST do so. You can not raise standard of living if you are permanently producing the same value at the same cost.
              That is zero growth. That is no raises ever, that is no increase in standard of living ever.

              Whatever you are doing – if you expect to live better in the future, you had better be figuring out how you can do that job better faster at higher quality and for lower cost. If you do not, you will not have your job long. I can assure you that you Boss is trying to figure out how to do exactly that. If he is not – his business will fail.

              What you seem to think is ironic is the mechanism that constantly raises standard of living forever.

              When the US grew 1.8%/year under Obama – that meant that we produced 1.8% more value each year with the same amount of effort.

              When the economy grew by 3.5%/year average during the 20th century – that meant we produced 3.5% more value each year with the same amount of effort.

              At 1.8% growth it takes 40 years for the standard of living to double. At 3.5% growth it takes 25. At 7% growth it takes 15 years.

              During the 19th century in the US standard of living doubled every 15 years.
              During the 20th century it doubled every 25 years
              During the 21st century it is taking almost 40 years to double standard of living.

              Directly addressing your “Irony”.

              It is absolutely true that during the 19th century – and 18th, Workers were losing the jobs constantly to improved production.

              Weaving machines replaced weavers working in farms and homes.
              A few years later new weaving machines produced more cloth with 1/6 the number of operators, and a few years later – the same again.

              Constantly the same factory was producing more and more with fewer people.

              That pattern continues right to the present. It is also true of every free market country in the world. It is even True in China.

              So why has that not resulted in fewer and fewer people working ?

              Because producing more value at less cost means we can invest in producing even more value.

              If a new weaving machine produces 6 times as much product with 1/6 the labor – 3 times as many new machines will produce 18times as much product with 1/2 the labor.

              Further machines todate are task specific – while they often have inumerable advantages over labor, They still do one job – and one job only.
              Humans do NOT become useless when they lose the job they are currently doing.
              If you made buggy whips yesterday you can make windsheild wipers today.

              Though it was unwise for her to sahy politically – Hillary clinton was absolutely correct that coal miners jobs were going away.

              In 1950 the US produced 500Billion Killograms of Coal per day. In 2008 is was more than double that – but with a tiny fraction of the jobs.
              Today it is STILL about 700B Kg/day – with even less people.
              The US produces 50% more coal today than in 1950 – with less than 1/20th the people.

              If you have a job – doing anything, you will either become more productive or you will lose the job. And you could lose the job to a machine no matter what.

              But that machine can not adapt to a new job. Humans can and do.

              There is absolutely no limit to the ways in which humans can be used to produce value.

              When labor is freed up through improvements in efficiency or outsourcing – that labor can ALWAYS be used to do something else.

            3. You correctly note that various different forms of increased efficiency – automation being only one of those.

              Result in people losing their jobs.

              In 1970 the US had about 650,000 full time jobs.
              Just before the pandemic that was 130M, today it is about 123M
              Regardless it is more than double 1970.

              First we are producing more with less people.
              Next we have more people producing than ever before.

              Real GDP (inflation adjusted) has grown from 5T in 1970 to 21T today.
              During the same time population has grown by 60%.

              Standard of living has significantly more than doubled between 1970 and the present.

              There have been massive job losses all over the place.

              But there is no limit to the jobs that can be created

              There are very few things in economics that are actually zero sum – Jobs are not one of those.

            4. From 1982 to 2008 we had sustained ecoonomic growth averaging 3.1%/year over 26 years
              From 2009-2019 we had sustained economic growth of 2.1%/year over 10 years.

              The period from 1982 to 2008 is commonly called “the great moderation” – it REMAINS the longest period BY FAR of sustained economic growth in US history.

              During that period there were 2 recessions – but those recessions were so mild that we STILL averaged 3.1% growth over the entire period

              I have no interest in nonsensical claims that try to make the Obama era into a good economic period.

              The Obama presidency is a FAILED economic recovery. What should have taken a few years took the entirety of his presidency.
              Trump exaggerates the strength of his economy – it does not compare to that of Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush
              But he did manage 2.7% growth from 2017-2019 and over 2% for his entire 4 years INCLUDING the pandemic – which is better than the 1.8% growth of the Obama era.

              Further the period from 1982-2000 Had a growth Rate of 3.8%/year.

              That is what a long strong economy looks like.

              Data From Federal Reserve.
              https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPC1/

              So can we quit this nonsense that Obama had a historic economy ?
              The only thing Historic about Obama economically – was that he had the weakest recovery from a recession since the great depression.

          3. John Say’s statement, “ Whatever you are doing you had BETTER be trying to produce more for less over time. If you can not your job will be automated, outsourced, or replaced by an immigrant.

            And that is a GOOD thing not a bad thing. You will lose your job whenever there is a better way to do that job.

            That is what we WANT. It means that all the goods and services that we want have become cheaper, better or more abundant – or all of the above.”

            What he is ignorantly promoting is pure nonsense. The claim that all goods and services we want have become cheaper , better, or more abundant”. Not exactly true. Services have become more expensive, lower quality, and more abundant. To maximize profit companies cut corners and produce “mission statements” that rarely prove to be true.

            1. “What he is ignorantly promoting is pure nonsense. The claim that all goods and services we want have become cheaper , better, or more abundant”. Not exactly true. Services have become more expensive, lower quality, and more abundant. “

              Since there is some variation the word “ALL” puts both statements in some jeopardy but overall and with time almost all services have decreased in cost when taking into account inflation, government costs and the ultimate expansion of the service.

              What you first have to do is recognize what a service is and what it was years ago. I’ll take an easy one. Trading stocks. I’ll let you run the numbers. You can think about all the other services and render an opinion.

              1. The word all is only a problem if you can provide an exception.

                I know that you do not like broad generalizations. Something that is nearly always true, is also ALWAYS true – unless there is an exception.

                That said – ALL goods and services have not become cheaper, better or more abundant – that is an over generalization.

                It is ALWAYS true in an actual free market over a long enough time. But it is not true if markets are not free.

                In the US most markets are freeish. that is NOT good enough to get to ALL.

                1. “I know that you do not like broad generalizations. Something that is nearly always true, is also ALWAYS true – unless there is an exception.”

                  All is not a proper word for almost all or nearly all.

                  In a libertarian world of limited size and growing population do land prices get cheaper or more expensive?

                  In general I would think the relationship of scarcity and desire (real or presumed) determines prices more accurately where the free market tends to ultimately permit the best relationship between scarcity and desire.

                  1. “All is not a proper word for almost all or nearly all.”

                    The diference between all and nearly all is the the presence of an exception.
                    Absent that exception – All is justified.

                    “In a libertarian world of limited size and growing population do land prices get cheaper or more expensive?”
                    This is not a question where there is a libertarian specific answer.

                    In the real world – most land has declined in price while property in cities has increased – as people concentrate in cities.

                    “In general I would think the relationship of scarcity and desire (real or presumed) determines prices more accurately where the free market tends to ultimately permit the best relationship between scarcity and desire.”

                    I would suggest reading Coases theorum.

                    In a frictionless system free bargaining ALWAYS produces optimal results.

                    We do nto have a frictionless system.

                    HOWEVER, if we ignore the fake frictions created by government – technology the internet etc, have radically reduced friction.

                    1. >>”“All is not a proper word for almost all or nearly all.”

                      >The diference between all and nearly all is the the presence of an exception.
                      Absent that exception – All is justified.”

                      All is justified until it bites you in the a$$. All our cars have breaks unfortunately yours is the one that doesn’t….CRASH#!

                      “I would suggest reading Coases theorum.”

                      It doesn’t change the law of supply and demand.
                      —-
                      “In a frictionless system free bargaining ALWAYS produces optimal results.”

                      Everything being perfect generally leads in that direction.

                      —–

                      We live in a world of imperfection so the perfect theories don’t always work out as intended. The excuses are imperfections. That’s fine but imperfections always exist.

                    2. I do not expect my use of all to bite me in the ass.

                      This is little different from the tiff that ATS is throwing over guns in the capital.

                      The more he argues the more he digs in the more clear it is that nothing within 10,000 miles of an armed insurection occured at the capital.

                      ATS wants to rant that Sanborn saying she was unaware of what the DC police might have is proof that there were guns in the capital.
                      It is not. It was a deft evasion on her part. An effort to avoid saying – there were no guns found inside the capital.

                      But lets say DC police produce a gun found int he capital – does that change anything ?

                      NO!

                      An armed insurection is not one guy with a gun. It is not 10 guys with a gun. It is hundreds of guys with a gun.

                      Regardless ATS keeps digging himself in deeper.

                      Wow! – there was a bit of Bear Spray recovered, or a taser!

                      My point is that it is often a win in a debate to say ALL (or NONE) and have your opponent dig frantincally to come up with a response of
                      “No, No, you are wrong – see here I found this miniscule and meaningless exception”.

                      Often the exceptions prove the rule.

                      In many many arguments the difference between ALL and 99,99% of the time is inconsequential Both constitute a compelling claim.

                      In a debate related to you.

                      There are significant differences between Mortgages and Mortgage backed securities.
                      But in the context of the housing and financial crises they have no consequential difference.

                      And all the differences between MBS;s and mortgages are at a macro level inconsequential and zero sum.

                      An 11T loss in value of an asset that is foundational to the financial system will take the financial system down. It will do so whether that asset secures Mortgages or mortgage backed securites.

                      To the extent there is a difference – MBS’s are better – they will function like insurance and socialize the harm. Mortgages concentrate it.

                    3. ATS is an ignorant fool who like a broken clock is sometimes right but he doesn’t know when and if he did he wouldn’t know how to apply it. He looks for insignificant gotchas, familiarizes himself and then tries to act smart but one can most of the times see a lack of depth and an inability to think logically about things in the abstract.

                      Regarding how much the overvaluing of property was I cannot answer so you can apply whatever value you wish to it. The fact is that when a property crashes it still has real value that is greater than the value speculators buy it at.

                      From Allison’s book and from Allison the question came up of defaults such as AIG. Allison didn’t want BB&T to get government funds. The bank was forced to take them. During the Crisis the bank was in a good position with regard to real value of the reserves but the government made it clear that if the bank didn’t take the funds they would force it to by altering the requirement of the amount of reserves that had to be on hand. His bank took the funds and I think was the first to give the funds back.

                      Regarding AIG BB&T had a lot of Aig perhaps more than most other places but that didn’t concern him and the risk of Goldman Sacks running into trouble was fallacious. In fact when all was said and done Goldman I believe made a lot of money.

                    4. “Regarding how much the overvaluing of property was I cannot answer so you can apply whatever value you wish to it. The fact is that when a property crashes it still has real value that is greater than the value speculators buy it at.”

                      That is why the original version of TARP failed. Government tried to get banks to voluntarily sell MBS’s at 0.25:$ and they refused.

                      One of the things forgoten about the finanicial crisis is that the Banks had Black balance sheets, and most had black income statements for 2008. In fact many investment banks or investment banking divisions of commercial banks mad lots of money in 2008 – hence the bonuses that infuriated everyone.

                      Banks were REGULATORIALY insolvent. They did not have enough liquid reserves to meet statutory requirements.

                      We had a financial market wide liquidity crisis – caused by bad laws. Steve Forbes has made a compelling case that the Mark To Market provisions of Bassil II which took effect in Nov. 2007 were the difference between a mild recession and a very severe one.

                      I am not sure if he is 100% correct – but I fully agree that without MTM things would have been less bad.

                      The other failure was that of the SEC putting a stop on short sales. Everybody hates shorts. But shorts are the canary in the coal mine – they tell us when things are going to hell.

                      Worse still stoping shorts deprives the market of the information they provide. Short Sales tell us how bad things are. Without them we are blind and are likely to assume worse than things really are.

                    5. A small item to demonstrate the fall out from certain actions: Banks were not foreclosing on condominium properties. Among other things they didn’t want the monthly fees and the market for the sale of such housing wasn’t good. The condo owner knowing his time was limited didn’t pay his dues. The condo got stuck with less revenue which had to be passed onto the remaining owners, many on fixed incomes (whose asset value was lower than it should have been).That caused some of them to fail and the problem spiraled.

                      That type of dip was artificial since people that were totally solvent became insolvent based on paper. Had the banks been forced to foreclose and sell the property the speculators would have come in earlier. A floor would have been created which would have prevented further downward spirals in this small part of the marketplace.

                      I think that was a large part of Marty Feldstein’s basic idea. He wanted to create a floor so that the artificial fall of home values stopped. The quicker a floor is established the quicker capital would have entered the market and prices would have risen.

                    6. “A small item to demonstrate the fall out from certain actions: Banks were not foreclosing on condominium properties. ”

                      I am not familar with unique issues regarding Condo’s.

                      But assuming your facts are correct – Foreclosing would have meant certain failure.
                      Not foreclosing – by your facts sometimes resulted in failure.

                      There is a complex debate on what should be done regarding Condo’s in default.
                      There is a moral hazard to not foreclosing, but Moral Hazards are about the FUTURE, not the present.

                      Regardless, my point is if all your facts about Condo’s are correct how is failure without forelosure worse than failure with foreclosure ?

                      This general point is ONE of the major reasons that all the market problems have nothing to do with the causes of the financial crisis.

                      Lots of mistakes were made – before during and after. This is not actually unusual.
                      Regardless, those mistakes did NOT change the magnitude of the problem. At worst they picked the winners and losers.
                      But the scale of the loss was predetermined.

                    7. “Regardless, my point is if all your facts about Condo’s are correct how is failure without forelosure worse than failure with foreclosure ?”

                      John, the lack of foreclosure pushed costs onto others and those costs then exceeded their ability to pay. The value of their asset, the home, fell and they couldn’t borrow on it so they stopped paying costs as well causing a downward spiral.

                      If the banks foreclosed they would have to pay the expenses sparing the rest of the condo members and if they sold, a bottom would have occurred earlier than it did. Speculators are looking for the lowest price and when they find it they buy and prices go up. With prices going up those individuals that couldn’t hold on suddenly can hold on until prices return to normality.

                      Remember only the latest purchases and the latest loans on assets were overvalued and causing the bubble. The rest is in the mindset of the people and has a much lesser effect on such happenings.

                    8. “John, the lack of foreclosure pushed costs onto others and those costs then exceeded their ability to pay. ”

                      You have claimed that – you have not demonstrated it.

                      Specifically WHAT COSTS ?

                      Failure to foreclose MIGHT impose a cost on Banks. It does not impose a cost on Condo associations.

                      If I buy a $4M condo, and I have positive cashflow, then I can pay the mortgage. PERIOD.

                      The value of the asset dropping does not FORCE me to default.

                      Regardless, what COSTS are pushed onto condo participants by a failure of banks to foreclose ?

                      This argument makes no sense. But so many of the Financial crisis argument are illogical.

                      “The value of their asset, the home, fell and they couldn’t borrow on it”
                      So ? I was unable to borrow against equity in my rental property for about 5 years after 2008.

                      Had I needed to – that could only be because I made a huge mistake buying it – or the rents were too low.

                      “so they stopped paying costs as well causing a downward spiral.”
                      If you are borrowing to pay operating costs – you are already in a downward spiral.

                      “If the banks foreclosed they would have to pay the expenses”
                      Nope.
                      The obligations of the new owner – the bank, after foreclosure are the same as the prior owner.

                      “sparing the rest of the condo members”
                      Condo members are ALWAYS responsible for operating expenses – that is how a condo works.

                      “and if they sold, a bottom would have occurred earlier than it did.”
                      This defies logic.

                      Any investment property with positive cashflow, never defaulted, regardless of changes int he value of the property.

                      In fact – from both the actual data and personal experience – the rental market EXPLODED after the financial crisis.

                      People must live somewhere.

                      In my community there was a BOOM in building condo’s and appartments – anything that accomodated the people who either did buy and lost their homes or would have bought but the market was dead.

                      But that Boom did NOT match the collapse of home construction.
                      Further that boom was negatively impacted by ARRA which stripped commercial construction of engineers stopping projects.

                      Again something I witnessed personally/

                      “Speculators are looking for the lowest price and when they find it they buy and prices go up. With prices going up those individuals that couldn’t hold on suddenly can hold on until prices return to normality.”

                      I can not make out what you are saying.

                      Some speculators get hit by unexpected market downturns.
                      Some speculators take advantage of all the market ups and downs.

                      None of that is new.

                      I have neither animus nor sympathy for speculators.

                      Their impact is on themselves.

                      “Remember only the latest purchases and the latest loans on assets were overvalued and causing the bubble.”
                      The collapse in values was between 25-50% – that is NOT just the latest.

                      Regardless, what matters is the size of the value adjustment – that was approximately 11T.

                      We reduced the value of a core economic asset by 11T – there was going to be a recession.

                    9. “Specifically WHAT COSTS ?”

                      Fees and assessments.

                      I skipped most of the rest of your response because I don’t think you know the market in a practical sense. Your ownership of properties does not give you that experience.

                    10. “I am not the one blurring expenses and liabilies.”

                      You simply didn’t include them.

                    11. I have a friend who was a banker at this time.

                      He took advantage of the fact that asset prices were rising and interest rates were not, to create a mortage that paid itself off faster than normal by borrowing more than was necescary and investing the rest and using the investment income to pay down the mortgage.

                      This worked incredibly well for more than a decade.

                      His company was obliterated by the collapse in home values – his more recent clients found themselves in far worse circumstances than a conventional mortgage. He did not beleive the situation was permanent, and beleived that if he and his clients could hold out long enough that things would be fine – This BTW proved true with MBS’s.
                      With his company floundering he sought and outside investor and tried to get her to loan him 3M to keep everything afloat long enough that everyone would recover.

                      But the State AG at the time was looking to make and example of bankers and he was arrested and convicted.

                      He was arrested and convicted because hundreds of people lost their homes.
                      But that was not illegal. The ACTUAL conviction was for securities fraud – the claim was that he failed to fully disclose everything he was legally required to disclose to the woman who was prepared to provide him a bridge loan.

                      But the loan never happened – so that should have precluded criminal charges. Further it remains debatable that if the loan had gone through and he had been able to hold out for another year or two that he might have recovered and everyone would have been better off.

                      But the State AG needed a banker scalp.

                      I would note that my friend tried to get me to mortgage my home through him.
                      I looked at his product and decided that it was too risky, That I was not prepared to borrow money to invest.
                      I would note many people do that successfully all the time. But I chose not to.
                      I would further note than probably a couple of thousand people bought his product over the years – and the overwhelming majority of them were very happy. But anyone with a significant balance at the time of the housing bubble bursting was obliterated.

                    12. “But the State AG needed a banker scalp.”

                      It appears he was dealing with sub prime lending.

                      Take your statement leaving blanks to be filled in.

                      *But the XXX needed a YYY”

                      Now substitute for X
                      NYC, NYS, DOJ or others for X

                      Now substitute for Y
                      Howard Root, Many physicians, many pharmaceutical manufacturers (excluding oxycontin) Donald J Trump, a host of names in the financial field.

                      The state or any of them need a scalp and they find one to intimidate others. Any name can be added to the list if a settlement will bring funds to the government agency or intimidate others from doing things that are totally legal.

                      https://www.howardroot.com

                    13. I am very familiar with Howard Root.

                      Yes, DOJ, AG’s take scalps.

                      Nearly always they take the scalps of people who SERVED us all.

                      “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages”

                      ― Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature & Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Vol 1

                      People do things that make life better for OTHERS – because it is in their OWN interests.

                      Howard Root made money giving people medical equipment that reduced costs and saved lives.

                      In the leftist parlance – Root was greedy and deserved to be punished.
                      Only government is allowed to help others – only badly,
                      and only government cronies are allowed to profit from it.

                      Howard Root —- Henry Reardon.

                    14. “I have a friend who was a banker at this time.”

                      John, like many others he saw money in the sub prime market (government policy right or wrong creates the marketplace), overextended himself and collapsed. Likely, he didn’t have the necessary money to fight towards a win or a settlement.

                    15. He was not working in the sub prime market.
                      He was selling a mortgage product in the prime market.

                      There was absolutely nothing wrong with his product – assuming that you understood that its upside came with higher risk.

                      Thousands of people were mortgaged by him and paid off their mortgage with lower payments or faster or both.

                      But the collapse of housing prices caught hundreds in the downside risk scenario.

                      This is how things work.

                      My friend did not over extend himself – atleast not until things started to go badly.

                      For more than a decade he made money for himself and reduced mortgage costs for most of his clients.

                      But all investments have risks, and when his investment hit that downside risk, instead of stopping, he tried to rescue those he had sold his mortgage to.
                      Initially he put his own money back in to buy time – not for himself, but for others. Then he tried to get other investors – and that is what he was convicted for.

                      I strongly suspect that the downside was sufficiently large he could not have kept afloat long enough to get to the otherside.
                      HOWEVER, there is actually no doubt that even his “riskier” mortgage would have done OK if you could hold out long enough.

                      Which is precisely what banks did with MBS’s – to large profits.

                      You’ve got to know when to hold ’em
                      Know when to fold ’em
                      Know when to walk away
                      And know when to run
                      You never count your money
                      When you’re sittin’ at the table
                      There’ll be time enough for countin’
                      When the dealin’s done

                    16. “He was not working in the sub prime market.
                      He was selling a mortgage product in the prime market.”

                      Then why weren’t the people getting conventional loans from banks? He also may not have been considered the primary lender which substantially increases the risk. During that time a bank would only take so much of a risk not enough for the homeowner so another lender would take second or third place permitting the bank to provide a lower interest rate, for the risk they were willing to take. That means when the person goes bankrupt the bank gets the property and the others get what remains which at the time was very little. That is probably what he was doing.

                      “Initially he put his own money back in to buy time – not for himself, but for others. Then he tried to get other investors – and that is what he was convicted for.”

                      He likely was running a sub prime lending group with other investors that early on made very high returns but when the crash came there was not enough money and the investment groups ownership of the property couldn’t keep him afloat. He may have run afoul trying to prevent a collapse.

                      I don’t think you have a firm understanding of what he did nor that investment vehicle vs a MBS so I will end here.

                    17. “Then why weren’t the people getting conventional loans from banks?”
                      Lots of people got mortgages from mortgage companies.

                      Mortgage companies ask me to refinance several times a week.

                      Countrywide wrote sweatheart mortgages for about 1/3 of the democratic politicians in the country – and lots of republicans.

                      Regardless. my friend had a product that significantly reduced payments and term. And it workd for a long long time.

                      “He also may not have been considered the primary lender which substantially increases the risk.”

                      Even banks were – often are not the primary lender. most mortgages then and now are sold.
                      Most banks – like mortgage companies get a fee for writing a mortgage.

                      This has been going on for 30 years.

                      “During that time a bank would only take so much of a risk not enough for the homeowner”
                      False. Though more defaulting mortgages were written by mortgage companies – they were written by banks too.

                      “so another lender would take second or third place permitting the bank to provide a lower interest rate, for the risk they were willing to take. That means when the person goes bankrupt the bank gets the property and the others get what remains which at the time was very little. That is probably what he was doing.”
                      No. He was convincing people to refinance their homes, and then investing the refinanced equity and using the procedes of the investment to pay down the mortage. This resulted in lower payments – sometimes almost none.

                      “He likely was running a sub prime lending group”
                      No most if not all his clients were prime.
                      My friend had been president of a bank for decades.
                      He started a mortgage company when he retired.
                      This was not fly by night. It was by someone conservative who knew what he was doing.
                      He merely made the mistake of assuming that something that was true for decades would be true for ever.

                      Franklyif the Fed had not caused the housing bubble – he would have continued forever – and his customers would ALL be very happy.

                      “I don’t think you have a firm understanding of what he did nor that investment vehicle vs a MBS so I will end here.”

                      I am not claiming he was involved in MBS’s – he was not. He had a completely different mortgage model.
                      One that worked – until it did not. It failed with the collapse of the housing bubble.

                    18. “Lots of people got mortgages from mortgage companies.”

                      Lots of people can’t get mortgages from banks though for some the mortgage company might be preferable. But in the case of your friend I think I know what he was doing. I’m quite familiar with it.

                      “Regardless. my friend had a product that significantly reduced payments and term. And it workd for a long long time.”

                      Yes, until the end it was a good idea. Everyone does well in an uptrend.

                      “Even banks were – often are not the primary lender.”

                      Banks have to be careful because they must maintain certain reserves.Having a second or third mortgage means that the first mortgagee gets paid off first and the second gets what’s left which might be nothing. In order for the property not to go to the bank first
                      the second mortgagee has to assume all the costs.

                      “False. Though more defaulting mortgages were written by mortgage companies – they were written by banks too.”

                      The problem is my statement was not false. I don’t think either of us know the actual numbers especially if you don’t tell us what you consider to be a mortgage company and what type of security was being held. Non prime loan investment companies were destroyed in Florida.

                      The ones in the hotspots had gotten tremendous loans some with balloon mortgages. I don’t think you know exactly what your friend did.

                      “My friend had been president of a bank for decades.
                      He started a mortgage company when he retired.”

                      That gives your friend credibility and lots of training. One wonders why he strayed over the line. I’d like to know the thing that wasn’t true for decades. Generally lawyers are involved that specialize in this area.

                      “Franklyif the Fed had not caused the housing bubble – he would have continued forever – and his customers would ALL be very happy.”

                      That is possibly true but we know intervention by government exists so any prudent investor takes account of government intervention. What was the change that did him in? More likely it was the fall in prices and he didn’t have the needed liquidity.

                      “One that worked – until it did not. It failed with the collapse of the housing bubble.”

                      Lots of models failed during the housing bubble. I’d like to know exactly what did him in.

                    19. “That type of dip was artificial since people that were totally solvent became insolvent based on paper. Had the banks been forced to foreclose and sell the property the speculators would have come in earlier. A floor would have been created which would have prevented further downward spirals in this small part of the marketplace.”

                      I am not getting how the consequence you claim occured.

                      I bought an investment property at the peak of the housing bubble.
                      I paid way too much. But I did my due diligence and the property was profitable regardless.
                      I was never squeezed by the fact that the property value was lower than what I paid for it.
                      Today it is worth double what I paid.

                      Regardless, how is this not true of those you are citing ?
                      The conditions I cite on my investment property are no different for homes.

                      If you buy a home – paying too much and the price collapses – so long as you are able to pay the mortgage – you are not at risk.

                      If I bought a 100K home – putting 20% down, and paying about 650/month in mortgage, and the price drops to 75K – I have temporarily lost my personal equity in the house and I am about 5K underwater. But the mortgage is still only 650/Month.
                      If I could pay it before – why can’t I pay it now ? Further it is with near certainy a wiser choice to hold the protperty, continue to pay the mortage and to wait for the value to recover than to walk away an lose your investment.

                      Trying to address your Condo speculator example.

                      There is only one type of housing speculator that was massacred when the housing bubble burst – that was people who bought property, holding it for short periods and reselling at higher prices.

                      I deal with the people who own apartments, apartment complex’s, condo’s retail leased property, … all the time.

                      Fluctuations in the property value do not drive them to foreclosure. The worst that happens to them is that they typically refinance every 4-7 years – either cashing out gains or reinvesting them in additional properties. A collapse in property values delays refinancing and reduces their profits. It does not push them into insolvence.

                    20. “I bought an investment property at the peak of the housing bubble.”

                      “I have temporarily lost my personal equity in the house and I am about 5K underwater. But the mortgage is still only 650/Month.”

                      “Fluctuations in the property value do not drive them to foreclosure. “

                      John, you forget. In condo / coop situations there are two fees under discussion. The mortgage fee and the monthly fees. Suddenly those monthly fees sky rocket because others stop paying. The value of the unit falls below the mortgage. Some people say why pay the mortgage or the building fees, cash out, and still live there undisturbed (some can no longer afford it). That causes the building to cut back on maintenance and makes that absolute value of the building fall. Now we have devaluation due to the marketplace and actual building devaluation.

                      Think about it. But what would have happened if speculators came in before things got so bad? The fall in value wasn’t real for most tenants because they bought at a lower value where the costs would not have risen. It only involved those that bought during the creation of the bubble.

                    21. “John, you forget. In condo / coop situations there are two fees under discussion. The mortgage fee and the monthly fees. ”

                      The mortgage fee is fixed.

                      And the monthly expenses are driven by REAL costs.
                      They do not actually rise because the mortgage is not paid.

                      “Suddenly those monthly fees sky rocket because others stop paying. The value of the unit falls below the mortgage. Some people say why pay the mortgage or the building fees”

                      Only idiots. There is always someone who does something stupid.
                      Regardless you are talking about a part of the housing market that was IMMUNE to the housing crisis – just as I was.

                      “cash out”
                      People with decent credit ratings and anything left to lose do not cash out at a loss from investments that even though technically in the red have positive cashflow.

                      “and still live there undisturbed (some can no longer afford it). That causes the building to cut back on maintenance and makes that absolute value of the building fall. Now we have devaluation due to the marketplace and actual building devaluation.”

                      I am not going to say this did not happen at all – many stupid things happened – atleast somewhere.

                      But I will claim it was not common place. AGAIN people with assets to loose, and a decent credit rating do not bail when they have sustainable positive cashflow.

                      Just as the banks refused to sell their MBS’s.

                      “Think about it.”
                      I have – from the perspective of actually being there.

                      “But what would have happened if speculators came in before things got so bad?”

                      You have things backwards – the people crushed by the housing bubble bursting were mostly short term speculators.

                      Investment properties BOOMED after the housing bubble burst.

                      “The fall in value wasn’t real for most tenants because they bought at a lower value ”
                      Not relevant to cashflow.

                      “where the costs would not have risen.”
                      Costs Did not rise.

                      This is core to your claim – and you have not demonstrated it.

                      In any investment property scenario. the current price of the property dictates my abilty to”
                      Cash out at a profit.
                      Cash out to expand my investment.

                      Quite litterally the realestate investment model is to:

                      A). Hold for 4-7 years. Refinance, convert the recovered capital into personal profits.
                      Rinse Repeat.
                      B). Hold for 4-7 years. Refinance, convert the recovered capital into new investments in new property – this results in exponential growth.
                      Rinse Repeat.

                      Drops in property value DELAY A or B.

                      Cash flow is mortgages and other expenses less rents or condo fees.
                      Cashflow never turns red from property value changes.

                      Casflow – rents and fees increased during the recession.

                      You are manufacturing a counter factual scenario.

                      I am sure there is atleast one instance where that happened – there are stupid investors.

                      But it was not even close to a norm.

                      I was reading commercial housing literature, news, magazines – and they were celebrating during the bust.

                      It was GOOD for them – not bad.

                    22. You were not going to get a floor under housing values quickly.

                      There are two independent aspects of the housing crisis.

                      The first is the price collapse – and the 2nd is the rise in defaults.

                      The price collapse was a real demand problem that is typical of asset bubbles.

                      Easy money drove increased home buying. The longer that heightened demand lasted the more the mix of buyers shifted towards those with higher risk – because credit is always extended to those with good credit first. the longer interest rates remained low the more than mix changed.

                      I forget the title – but there is a book about the Countrywide debacle – and in addition to the story there is lots of data demonstrating how the overall quality of Countrywide’s loans got dramatically worse near the end – because it was harder and harder to find good credit buyers – they had already bought in.

                      Without easy money – which misprices risk – lenders would never have loaned money to higher risk buyers. And higher risk buyers would not have bought even if they did – interest rates would have been higher.

                      Regardless, good credit buyers were never at risk of anything – except a lower return on their housing investment.

                      The only people with good credit who defaulted were short term property speculators. and their numbers are small.

                      BTW there is nothing wrong with that – we have massive amounts of that today.

                      There are TV channels devoted to HOWTO flip homes for profit.

                      But short term property speculators will go bankrupt en mass if prices dip for too long.

                      Condo’s, rental properties are solvent and have positive cashflow – regardless of property values.
                      The negative impact on them is a period of reduced profitablity. Not bankruptcy or default.

                      The same is true for homeowners. If you could afford the house when its valuje was high – you could continue to afford it when it was low.

                    23. “You were not going to get a floor under housing values quickly.”

                      That was the problem throughout all the markets but the housing market in particular. That is what Marty Feldstein’s solution was trying to address. I thought it was brilliant even thought it may have needed a lot of work.

                    24. Any top down solution was bound to fail.

                      I do not know fedlstein – and you have not told me his sollution.

                      Regardless, I can cover what was actually needed – easily.

                      1). Ignore the housing market – there is nothing that needs done there.
                      It will recover on its own,

                      2). Get rid of MTM bank requirements. They are a fake requirement, they have nothing to do with actual solvency.

                      3). Provide any bank with a black income statement, and positive cashflow, with necescary liguidity. Basically let it borrow as needed from the FED. This essentially prevents bank runs for banks that are cash poor but otherwise solvent.
                      Let everyone else fail.

                      Do those things and you will get the closest to a V shaped recovery possible.

                    25. I am more pragmatic than you and less interested in theory. I like solutions, in part because that is where the money is made.

                      Marty Feinstein’s solution came relatively quickly and needed to be adjusted. It is simple but too difficult to explain on the blog yet I am sure an explanation is out there that is easy to understand. He satisfied many of the problems that was spiraling the marketplace in a downward direction. It is not theoretical . It is practical so you might not be interested in it.

                    26. Libertarianism is the only theroy of political economy that works in practice – even bad practice.

                      I do not know fienstein – but you have not sold me either.

                      Regardless. top down solutions nearly always fail – because they are top down.

                    27. I wasn’t selling you on Feinstein, only one of the interesting ideas that arose in that time period. You deal in theory and so do many professors that cannot practice their field of interest in real life. I deal in the real deal and have to survive from day to day in a world where one political ideology doesn’t control everything.

                      I don’t deal with top down solutions. Mostly my solutions are grass roots. You sound like those who won’t give blood to a child when the child is going to die without it. Their faith in another solution is similar to yours.

                    28. No S.Meyer – I deal in reality.

                      That said I expect that claims about reality will make sense.

                      Humans do periodically act for stupid reasons. But we do not do so for long periods against failure.

                      One of the key attributes of the free market is that it accurately rewards those things that humans broadly value while punishing those they do not.

                      That is how theory works in the real world – and it absolutely works.

                      You are constantly getting lost in the weeds.

                      Life is complex – markets are incredibly complex.
                      But patterns are not merely present, but often crystal clear.

                      In the current debate – while I think you are in error about some of your claims – though I can not be sure – because your claims are not that clear, at the same time – even if true, or more true, they are NOT causes of the financial crisis.

                      I am going to dispense with the term “condo” – because you use it to mean many different things, and use the term “Bifurcated ownership”.

                      As that Accurately covers all those things.

                      Someone concocts a project. Eventually there are building with places for people to live in them.
                      The project owner SELLS part of what he owns to people, and retains part.

                      The exact line does not matter much. in terms of the financial crisis.
                      The project owner can only default on loans for what he owns. Banks do not loan money to one person for things owned by another.
                      Or atleast they do not do so through secured loans – mortages.

                      If the bank forecloses on the project owner – they take over HIS property – the collateral. They are STILL obligagted to honor the property and agreements with regard to they home owners – no matter how you define Home.

                    29. “No S.Meyer – I deal in reality.”

                      John, if you believe so, that is fine. Some of your statements were wrong, but that is OK.

                      “One of the key attributes of the free market is that it accurately rewards those things that humans broadly value while punishing those they do not.”

                      That is true but that was not what the discussion was about since we both agree with the free market and a lot of the theory being bantered around. However, sometimes the theory doesn’t match the reality of the day.

                      “That is how theory works in the real world – and it absolutely works.”

                      It’s called theory because no one knows that it will work all the time. Reality means that a lot of things interfere with that theory causing things not to work out as planned.

                      “You are constantly getting lost in the weeds.”

                      If you mean the weeds of your responses that go all over the place, that might happen occasionally.

                      “In the current debate – while I think you are in error about some of your claims – though I can not be sure – because your claims are not that clear, at the same time – even if true, or more true, they are NOT causes of the financial crisis.”

                      My claims are reasonably accurate for our purposes and clear given the fact that they were made without proof reading. I don’t claim to be a professor of the subject, but I am experienced in it. In any event I never claimed any of them to be the cause of the financial crisis though they were a part of it. My statements were examples limited to two localities Florida and NYC so no reasonable person would assume that those two regions and the limited examples could possibly be the universal reason for the financial meltdown that occurred all over. You are reasonable, Right?

                      “I am going to dispense with the term “condo” – because you use it to mean many different things, and use the term “Bifurcated ownership”.

                      I use the term condo in the way it is used in NYC and Florida. I think that usage is similar all over the country. I don’t think you have much experience with condos, coops, or high rise buildings going into default. Condos and coops differ in the legal way the units are owned.

                      “If the bank forecloses on the project owner – they take over HIS property – the collateral. They are STILL obligagted to honor the property and agreements with regard to they home owners – no matter how you define Home.“

                      With respect to this statement and the ones preceding it along with our earlier discussions regarding condo’s and coops I think your understanding is a little weak. It’s difficult to say based on the most recent wording but in coops and condos there can be more than one mortgage. For example, the unit owner can have a mortgage and the building itself can have a separate mortgage. This is quite common. Additionally it is not just the mortgage for the building and maintenance that individual unit owners have responsibility for. They also have responsibility for assessments, their own mortgages and other things. The unit owners maintenance fees are set but can change.

                    30. SM – if my statements were wrong – demonstrate that.

                      Your condo argument is muddled and impossible to follow, it reflects confusion about who ownes what and confusion about the difference between a liability and an expense.

                      When I pointed this out – you claimed that confusion was mine. It is not and can not be – to the extent there is anything clear about your claims regarding condo’s – it is that you do not know who owns what and you intermix liabilities and expenses as if they are the same.

                      But that is not all. Fundimentally you have failed to make the argument that condo’s are critical to the financial crisis.

                      This is an error you make throughout this debate.

                      Markets are imperfect – a working market is full of mistakes. It is ALWAYS possible after a disaster – to find some market failure and claim that was the cause. It is never true.

                      The question is not – were there market errors.
                      It is did they cause the systemic failure – the answer is obviously no. Those very same market failures continue to exist today.
                      Mortgages are still written in the same way as in 2005. About the onlhy thing that has changed – and not by law is that banks have higher standards for loan approvals. Of course that will end when we go back to rants of redlining and racism against banks – which is near certain already coming.

                      Regardless, we are looking for a cause – not merely something that went wrong – lots of things go wrong all the time.

                      The disconnect from reality is yours not mine.

                      You constantly revert to “its complex” – Markets are impossibly complex and trivially simple concurrently. The rules that that govern the market are not complex. But the trillions of concurrent transactions are impossibly complex.

                      I would suggest reading “I, Pencil” or watching many of the youtube videos.

                      Impossibly complex and quite simple – concurrently.

                      Regardless the causes of the financial crisis are NOT in the complexity – they can not be.
                      The core to all economic downturns is the near uniformity in which large segments of the economy are moving lockstep in the same direction. That does not occur in the complexity. It occurs in the simplicity.

                      That is BTW all REAL WORLD.

                    31. “Your condo argument is muddled and impossible to follow, it reflects confusion about who ownes what and confusion about the difference between a liability and an expense.”

                      It is not, John. You tried to relate condo and coop, two different things to the tenant relationship you have regarding property that I think you own.

                      Laws change from state to state and even from condo/ coop to condo / coop, but the basic principles remain the same.

                      In the condo situation an entity can have ownership of their own unit. They generally can own a mortgage for their unit. There are common areas that are paid for through fees from condo owners. The building itself can have a mortgage and that is generally how the building is financed when the condo is first created. The usual fees are relatively stable, however, building costs can not all be accounted for so there are additional assessments that may occur.

                      The coop is similar but one has to understand that though they occupy one unit their ownership is in shares of the building. That changes certain legalities. Rentals of units can occur but the coop is far more restrictive than the condo

                      All the above is very general and not different from what I told you before. Don’t tell me what I said is muddled. Instead copy the phrase and ask the question where confusion exists.

                    32. “But that is not all. Fundimentally you have failed to make the argument that condo’s are critical to the financial crisis. “

                      That, John, is your problem. I never said the condo was critical. It was a part like all parts are, but it wasn’t the basis for the financial crisis. I am saying that here and I said that elsewhere. I never said what you think I said. I did talk about localities so it would be foolish for you to assume a locality situation would affect the world in the fashion it did/

                    33. ” I never said the condo was critical. It was a part like all parts are, but it wasn’t the basis for the financial crisis. I am saying that here and I said that elsewhere. I never said what you think I said. I did talk about localities so it would be foolish for you to assume a locality situation would affect the world in the fashion it did/”

                      You raised Condo’s – I did not. Assuming we have both accepted that they were not a cause – lets move on.

                      The details of Condo’s or Coop’s etc. have no bearing on the financial crisis.

                      If you have some other “locality” that you wish to argue was a cause – make that case.

                      I do not otherwise care about localities in the context of the financial crisis.

                      I am not debating whether there was error, malfeasance or failures unique to specific “localities” – only that they were not root causes.

                      Long term sustained easy money inevitably means that the supply of credit will exceed the demand of good creditors and banks. mortgage companies etc will rapidly increase the loans they write to less qualified borrowers.
                      That should be a tautology – it is just application of the law of supply and demand.
                      It also matches what happened.

                      It also means inflation of asset prices – again, exactly what we saw.
                      So you have a double whammy – increasing prices concurrent with increasing less qualified buyers.

                      Why would anyone be surprised by failure.

                    34. “You raised Condo’s – I did not.”

                      John, once again, I have already explained that. You digressed probably into property rights and a few other things. I try to keep things tighter but occasionally will go on a tangent if I find it interesting, but your posts consist of one tangent after another. That is not a complaint for tangents are fine with me, but if you are complaining about tangents you should stop most of the tangents you engage in.

                      “The details of Condo’s or Coop’s etc. have no bearing on the financial crisis.”

                      This statement was unnecessary. On several occasions I have mentioned that condos were not the cause of the financial crisis.

                      “If you have some other “locality” that you wish to argue was a cause – make that case.”

                      Again, unnecessary, as I didn’t indicate that any specific locality caused the financial crisis. If you don’t like tangents, stop creating them.

                      “I am not debating whether there was error, malfeasance or failures unique to specific “localities” – only that they were not root causes.”

                      That has already been stated by both of us on various days. We need not argue these trivialities. I like reading what you write which, barring a few mistakes, is quite knowledgeable and informative. You are an addition to one’s knowledge.

                    35. SM – the entire digression into Condo’s was yours not mine.

                      I do not care about the difference between condo’s and coops – it is irrelevant to the starting thesis – neither was a significant factor in the financial crisis.

                      I would further note you recently interoduced coops.

                      We are chasing your tangents – not mine.

                    36. “SM – the entire digression into Condo’s was yours not mine. “

                      It was responsive to your initial digression. The condo question was explained earlier (AGAIN) to demonstrate ON A SMALL SCALE scale how prudent people could be badly hurt through no fault of their own and how that happened. I think it was based on the discussion involving property values

                      “I do not care about the difference between condo’s and coops – it is irrelevant to the starting thesis – neither was a significant factor in the financial crisis.”

                      The reason I brought up coops was that you seemed confused as to the legalities relating everything to your limited experience in small individual rentals. Such a relationship was wrong. I brought up coops because you didn’t know certain things about condos and with the confusion you could have melded condos with coops because in a coop one doesn’t own their own unit. That is closer to the owner tenant relationship though is nowhere near the same.

                      “We are chasing your tangents – not mine.”

                      If tangents bother you, don’t go on tangents.

                    37. “Mortgages are still written in the same way as in 2005. About the onlhy thing that has changed – and not by law is that banks have higher standards for loan approvals.”

                      Here we have something that is tangential to the basic discussion. If I respond to this tangential element in a way that you may not have meant your tangent to go you will claim something like the following…

                      “The disconnect from reality is yours not mine.”

                      However, I will have no way of knowing what the exact disconnect was or even if there was a disconnect. For that reason alone (others exist) the disconnect is caused by your inattentiveness to the discussion at hand. You provide loads of tangents that stray from the topic so stop complaining when you think a reply is to the topic rather than the tangent. All you have to do to rectify the problem is to ask a question or copy a phrase with whatever comment you wish to make.

                    38. ““Mortgages are still written in the same way as in 2005. About the onlhy thing that has changed – and not by law is that banks have higher standards for loan approvals.”

                      Here we have something that is tangential to the basic discussion.”

                      No the argument being made is that congress had the oportunity to change the way mortgages were written.
                      It did not.

                      It is reasonable to conclude that what congress did not change it did not beleive was a cause.

                    39. “““Mortgages are still written in the same way as in 2005. About the onlhy thing that has changed”

                      Though quoted in response to me, you were the initial one to make the statement. It’s placement was unexplained so it makes things a bit confusing when one responds back to you. It was given back to you by me as an example of your tangents. My response even said: “Here we have something that is tangential to the basic discussion….” but there was no distinction of who said that (which was me), further confusing the issue. I looked it up, but that is not fair to make another figure out what you are saying so because you didn’t bother to state who said what, when.

                      “No the argument being made is that congress had the oportunity to change the way mortgages were written.
                      It did not. ”

                      I don’t have the slightest idea how this popped up nor who you are talking to here since I don’t believe I touched on that subject. I am not going to add any opinion on that subject because that would add another tangent that you seemed to start from nowhere.

                    40. “I would suggest reading “I, Pencil” or watching many of the youtube videos.”

                      Don’t be condescending. You know I have read “I. Pencil”. If I didn’t read the original you know that Milton Friedman extensively discusses “I, Pencil”. We have discussed many times about my reliance on Milton Friedman.

                    41. The point is that markets are so complex that no one can fully understand them
                      while at the same time being almost trivially simple.

                      I raise I. Pencil – because you are constantly arguing exactly the opposite.

                      Regardless, systemic failures are only complex in top down systems that are inherently fragile in their complexity.

                      I would also suggest reading Nasseem Talib on Anti-Fragility.

                      All complex systems are not the same. Sustainable complexity requires “anti-fragility” – a form of “what does not kill me makes me stronger”, systems that get stronger with stress. Most of the systems of complex organism improve with stress.
                      Free markets, bottom up systems thrive on stress. Top down systems fail with stress.

                      That is a tangential point in “I. Pencil” but one that is present – complexity, yet resilliance and simplicity at the same time.

                      I raise this because your constant refrain is – some permutation of “but the devil is in the details” – that is rarely if ever true of systemic failures.

                      I will give you another reason why the financial crisis was not caused by market failure.

                      The housing bubble burst in late 2005. It took 3 more years for the financial crisis.

                      Free markets – spent 3 years trying to overcome the fed induced systemic error.

                      Steve Forbes has compellingly argued that but for Basil II Mark to Market the Financial crisis would not have occured.

                      Basil II did not take effect until Nov. 2007 – and immediately after than banks started to teeter.

                      I beleive there was a recession coming NO MATTER WHAT.
                      But specifically the financial market collapse was the result of too much, not too little government regulation.

                      free markets are anti-fragile – they deal with stress well on their own. the fail when they are not allowed to deal with it on their own.

                    42. “I raise I. Pencil – because you are constantly arguing exactly the opposite.”

                      It’s nice to know I am arguing the exact opposite when I am not, but if that were so you would be telling me where I did that. You are an intelligent guy so I find this type of argument beneath your abilities.

                      The rest of your argument is a tangent. I never tried to provide a reason for the failure, nor did I suggest a market failure as a cause. I have suggested that externalities had a lot to do with it and that markets are cyclical in nature. I also implicated Mark to Market. You don’t seem to read what I have written and you seem to be off track on the discussion.

                    43. Everything you say in your last paragraph is true and with some clarification makes my point.

                      There are sharp edges between the organization owners and the condo residents.

                      While those edges do not have to be in the same place in every condo – they are ALWAYS sharp.

                      The project owner does not have the ability to bankrupt the residents. Bank foreclosure does not change that.

                      Nor do they have the ability to drive condo fees infinitely.

                      The contracts, mortgages, sales agreements cover all of this.
                      There are likely some bad agreements – and maybe what I am saying is not universally true. But it is sufficiently close that it can not be a systemic problem.

                      This is what you keep missing. As I said before – Markets are always full of error – even when things are going well.

                      Error that is always present to some extent can not be the cause of a systemic failure. There are many reasons for this,
                      but the fact that the error is always present without systemic consequence is alone sufficient to prove it is not a cause for systemic failure.

                      MBS’s and CDO’s and CDS’s despite the fact that most of use do not fully understand them – are not causes – they are actually good things not bad, regardless the inability of ordinary people to understand them is not the same as failure – just as the inability of an ordinary person to understand a pulse oximeter does not preclude its being a valuable tool.

                      Further Financial instruments are zero sum. If there is a big loser – there is a big winner,

                      The primary reason for the financial collapse – the connection to the housing crisis is that the value of homes is used to “secure” other investments. this is a critically important GOOD thing. not a bad one. It is the core reason the west has outperformed the under developed world. People have been about to use the value of their home as a secure asset to borrow against to start businesses.

                      The double edge to that is that if homes function as an asset securing loans – when the value of the asset drops the value of the security collapses too.

                      This is what happened in 2008, it is also what happened in 1929. In the first case it was home values, in the 2nd it was the value of companies. Homes provide security for mortgages and MBS’s, Companies are the asset backing stocks.

                      Again this is a GOOD thing. Mortgages, stocks, MBS’s are all MONEY, and they are a better form of money than fiat money.
                      Their value IS secured.

                    44. “Everything you say in your last paragraph is true and with some clarification makes my point. There are sharp edges between the organization owners and the condo residents.”

                      Actually earlier, John, you tried to make that point with a misunderstanding of the condo/ coop legalities and added an error that there was only an individual fee such as the one seen in a rental agreement. I suppose you made that error because I think on a small scale you are used to rental agreements dealing with a tenant owner relationship. At the time I tried to explain to you that the renting tenant to owner was different than a unit owner of a condo / coop to the building as a whole.

                      You kept insisting you were correct (but you were wrong) and didn’t bother to adequately address what I said even though I repeatedly explained the different concepts to you.

                      “The project owner does not have the ability to bankrupt the residents. Bank foreclosure does not change that.”

                      Once again no one said that, though you seem to have imagined it. However, if the condo / coop unit owners do not pay their fees then building management financial security is in jeopardy. I believe “project owner” is the wrong term and concept. Once again I believe you are looking at your own relationship with your renting tenants. In that case you are the “ project owner” In a coop things are clearer. All the “owners” own a specific number of shares in the building so all own the building and the so called “project owner” is anyone with ownership of shares. There is a difference in the condo situation but it can vary too much for the present discussion because ownership is not determined by shares and there is more diversity as to the common property outside of the units.

                      You jumped to another subject in your response and it only adds to your confusion. You have a tendency to discuss things where you have uncertainty and then switch to theory or something else where you have a better grip.

                      One reference to what you said at the end of your response: Mark to market was a big problem. That is one of the reasons Feldstein made his suggestion which in theory might have stopped the fall of housing prices placing the price in the approximate area they belonged.

                    45. You keep jumping back to this condo/coop argument.

                      You raided Condo – I addressed condo.
                      Then you claimed I was confusing Condo and Coop, which is still false and irrelevant.
                      The argument you made had more meaning for Coop’s than Condo’s.
                      I am not the one that confused them.
                      Condo;s have buifurcated ownership – Coops do not – as you note.

                      I would further not that like MBS;s and CDO’s and …. Condo/Coop is not trivial.

                      They are the creation of contracts. Teh probab ility of near infinite hybrids exists.

                      Regardless, Condo, Coop – neither have any bearing on the causes of the financial crisis.

                    46. “ You keep jumping back to this condo/coop argument. You raided Condo – I addressed condo.Then you claimed I was confusing Condo and Coop, which is still false and irrelevant.”

                      I previously quoted some of the relevant points about this discussion which you appear to be totally disinterested in, though you continue to make claims that aren’t valid. You had insufficient knowledge but I think now you are becoming increasingly more knowledgeable on the subject but you want to pursue it to turn wrong into right. If that suits your needs go ahead, but your confusion appears to stem from your understanding of landlord tenant dealings while previously not understanding that condos and coops were different.

                      “ Regardless, Condo, Coop – neither have any bearing on the causes of the financial crisis.”

                      That is something we both agreed on from the start. I guess you are looking for something to hang your hat on.

                    47. You keep talking about people like Feldstein without refering to what they argued.

                      I am interested in Forbes argument – because the argument hold water – not merely because forbes made it.

                      I can not evaluate Feldstein without knowing what he claimed – and you refuse to state that.

                      I am not going to chase down the arguments of someone I have not heard of before. without some clue about them first.

                      If you are going to make an apeal to authority – you can atleast repeat the argument of the purported authority.

                    48. “You keep talking about people like Feldstein without refering to what they argued.”

                      I only brought up one name in the same context. I explained to you that it was too difficult to explain another person’s suggestions, but I brought it up because he was trying to put a floor on the falling prices relatively early in the game. The other names were brought up solely as an interest point since both were very involved in dealing the the financial meltdown in real time (one was libertarian and the other a Democrat). None of them were discussing the cause of the meltdown. One was the IG and the other a bank president whose bank had a lot of AIG and didn’t want the federal funding.

                    49. >>“John, you forget. In condo / coop situations there are two fees under discussion. The mortgage fee and the monthly fees. ”
                      >The mortgage fee is fixed.

                      “And the monthly expenses are driven by REAL costs.
                      They do not actually rise because the mortgage is not paid.”

                      Who said they did? The fees are the revenue condo’s and coops use to run the building. In addition to those fees there are intermittent assessments. When some of the owners stop paying the fees and assessments the building has difficulty meeting costs causing a deterioration of the building (which is what happened to many) and increased fees to the remaining group that covers the buildings’s expense. The increased fees and loss of jobs, investment income causes more owners to fail. If the units are not sold by the banks then the bleeding continues. There are legal solutions but many stumbling blocks. The downward spiral frequently is at a faster rate than the legal solutions.

                      >>“Suddenly those monthly fees sky rocket because others stop paying. The value of the unit falls below the mortgage. Some people say why pay the mortgage or the building fees”
                      >Only idiots. There is always someone who does something stupid.
                      Regardless you are talking about a part of the housing market that was IMMUNE to the housing crisis – just as I was.

                      They are not idiots. I don’t think you understand the condo and coop market. Nor do you understand the market where homes were being bought based on assumed future value where the loans were based in some fashion on future value.

                      >“cash out”
                      People with decent credit ratings and anything left to lose do not cash out at a loss from investments that even though technically in the red have positive cashflow.

                      Again, your comment lacks understanding of that market.

                      >>“and still live there undisturbed (some can no longer afford it). That causes the building to cut back on maintenance and makes that absolute value of the building fall. Now we have devaluation due to the marketplace and actual building devaluation.”
                      >I am not going to say this did not happen at all – many stupid things happened – atleast somewhere.”

                      Of course it happened. It was seen very seriously in the Florida markets.

                      “But I will claim it was not common place. AGAIN people with assets to loose, and a decent credit rating do not bail when they have sustainable positive cashflow.”

                      Many homes were upside down and the way the loans were structured caused many people in the housing market in Florida (I use that example because Florida was one of the worst hit) to abandon properties.

                      “Think about it.”
                      I have – from the perspective of actually being there.”

                      I don’t want to get into a pissing match with you about “being there”, but your experience is very limited.

                      “>>But what would have happened if speculators came in before things got so bad?”
                      >You have things backwards – the people crushed by the housing bubble bursting were mostly short term speculators.

                      They were engaging in speculation that they could turn over homes that were severely over priced and the loan structure was absolutely crazy.

                      The real speculators come in secondarily buying up buildings being built that are under and have to sell at low prices. They have money behind them so they can hold out until the crisis is over. That is done with individual condo’s as well sometimes to gain control over the building. In NYC gaining control through tenants by “paying them off” so they vote to change the building’s status is how they were able to take a building from rental to coop or condo.

                      I’m not going to go further as most of what you are saying is wrong at least in the markets I am familiar with though what I say probably exists almost everywhere. Your experience is too limited.

                    50. Why are you keeping this up ?

                      I have already addressed this thoroughly.

                      You do not/did not have the situation you claimed.

                      Delaying foreclosure is bad for the bank. But if they choose that freely I am fine with it.

                      It is NOT bad for those being foreclosed on.

                      Nor those dependent on those being foreclosed on.

                      Whatever the ownership structure of the condo – what the occupants own remain theirs even after the bank forecloses.

                      I saw a real world version of what you are claiming in NJ a few months ago.

                      There was no foreclosure – because that would have accomplished nothing.
                      The city came in declared the Condo blighted and took everyone’s condo’s by eminent domain – because the bank could not.

                    51. “Why are you keeping this up ?
                      I have already addressed this thoroughly.”

                      You missed fees and other costs. You missed the reduction in incoming funds. You missed the boat

                      “You do not/did not have the situation you claimed.”

                      Study Florida.

                      “Delaying foreclosure is bad for the bank. But if they choose that freely I am fine with it.”

                      Yes, but the situation in parts of Florida were desperate. You are judging things based on your knowledge of N=1. Moreover your knowledge is lacking and much of it erroneous. The political philosophy of Libertarianism can only take you so far.

                    52. You missed the forest for the trees.

                      The Financial crisis was not cause by Condo Fees.

                      I do not think the details of your argument are correct – you are pretty unclear on your claims.
                      But it does not matter. small problems are not big problems.

                    53. “You missed the forest for the trees. The Financial crisis was not cause by Condo Fees.”

                      John, I am sure your confusion is only temporary. No one made such a statement. That would be ludicrous considering condo fees are a tiny subset of commercial and residential spaces. This error of yours might be due to so many tangents in your replies which are fine. The problem is that I was probably discussing a tangent and you got a bit distraught because your understanding of my discussion didn’t relate to your personal ownership and tenant rental (also not the cause of the financial crisis) That led to still another tangent which also had little to do with the cause of the financial crisis. Your confusion about condos and coops also were not the cause of the financial crisis. 🙂

                      I think you want to talk about the theory as do I but there are a lot of practical things that end up being discussed as well.

                      No matter, we do not have substantial disagreement.

                    54. “John, I am sure your confusion is only temporary. No one made such a statement. That would be ludicrous considering condo fees are a tiny subset of commercial and residential spaces. ”

                      Correct, and I argued that.

                      “This error of yours might be due to so many tangents in your replies which are fine.”
                      You introduced Condo’s.

                      “Your confusion about condos and coops also were not the cause of the financial crisis. ”
                      No confusion. The distinctions do not matter – neither was a cause of the financial collapse.

                      We did not get into this because of my tangents – but yours.

                      You claimed that too much credit for too long was not the direct cause of the financial collapse and that other factors in a complex market were consequential.

                      To be clear, other factors decided WHO would be winners and who would be losers.
                      Other factors made some things worse and some better.

                      But they were not causes.
                      The majority of wallstreet and banking is near zero sum.

                      i.e. the value of the stockmarket rises and falls because the value of companies rise and fall.
                      Not because of the different ways wall street leverages the value of stocks.

                      Financial crisises are caused by bubbles in the value of durable assets used to secure private money – stocks, mortages, either securities.

                      If you inflate the value of an asset that is the collateral for a security – when that asset value collapses their will be DOUBLE or more, the economic consequences – because it is collateral.

                      “I think you want to talk about the theory as do I but there are a lot of practical things that end up being discussed as well.”
                      This is not “theory” this is how things work in the real world.
                      There was a REAL housing bubble, a REAL financial crisis.
                      Not understanding the REAL causes has REAL consequences.

                      “No matter, we do not have substantial disagreement.”
                      I agree.

                    55. “Condo’s, rental properties are solvent and have positive cashflow – regardless of property values.
                      The negative impact on them is a period of reduced profitablity. Not bankruptcy or default.”

                      If I understand you correctly, you are wrong.

                      Condo’s and coops are different from rental properties. The former is generally self ownership. The latter is ownership to rent to another and take profit. I explained why and how they fail earlier.

                    56. They are not different from the perspective of cashflow.

                      I would further note – they are not really different at all in most instances.

                      In most condo’s you do not own the actual building – you own a right to live their rent free.

                      But it does not matter.

                      I work for banks doing property assessments all the time.
                      Some are condo’s.

                      What is mortgaged is what the management company owns.

                      As an example I have done several mobile home parks – which better fit the way you claim condo’s work.

                      The mobile home is owned by the “tenant”. They rent the land it sits on and they pay for water, sewer, and property maintance fees.

                      The “owner” typically has a mortgage on the land – not the mobile homes.

                      If the Owner – owns the townhouses – he mortgages them. If he does not he mortgages what he does own.

                      Either way – whatever rents or service fees he collects pay the mortgage on whatever he has mortgaged.

                      If that is not positive cashflow – he never would have gotten a mortgage int he first place.

                      Next – even if the “owner’ screws up and defaults – the bank comes in. They are STILL obligated to whatever agreements there were with condo owners.

                      Further if a “owner” decided to pocket fees that were supposed to go to debt service and go into default – he would risk being charged with fraud – BY THE BANK.

                      You are making the same mistakes the left does again – presuming that Criminal, civil, and tort law do not already have remedies for the problems you see.

                    57. “In most condo’s you do not own the actual building – you own a right to live their rent free.“

                      Actually a condo is individual ownership in a multi dwelling building. It differs from the coop in that the coop one owns so many shares with the right to the apartment, There’s more flexibility in a condo.

                      A coop and condo can hold a mortgage regarding the building as a whole while the individual can own a mortgage as well. Generally both require maintenance fees and can assess all the owners.

                      “What is mortgaged is what the management company owns.” That is not correct with regard to condo’s and coops which was what the discussion was about in my example.

                      I don’t have the slightest idea where the following belongs in our discussion.

                      “You are making the same mistakes the left does again – presuming that Criminal, civil, and tort law do not already have remedies for the problems you see.”

                      You do not understand the problem or how it occurs.

                    58. I am not interested in your definitions.

                      I deal with this as part of one of my businesses.
                      If the client and the bank call it a condo – that is fine with me.

                      Regardless, from individual home ownership through various permutations to rentals,
                      The situation you posit might exist – but it will be rare, because it is stupid.

                      People with decent credit and positive cashflow do choose to screw their credit and lose their investment for the heck of it.

                      I am not buying that condo management companies quit paying mortgages and were not foreclosed on, in any consequential scale.

                      My tenants are not that smart and barely working class. Yet through this all they have struggled mightily to pay the rent.
                      Because even though they have $hitty credit, they know that if they do not pay – eventually they will be evicted and they will not be able to rent anything near as nice for years – and my apartments are not the taj mahal.

                      So you think that condo investors are less fiscally wise than my tenants ?

                      There are bad incentives and moral hazed introduced by government througout the economy – this is not one of those.

                    59. “I deal with this as part of one of my businesses.”

                      As I said before I don’t want to get into a pissing match with you but you are wrong on too many things and I don’t have the time to sort them out because there are so many variables in each reply. Suffice it to say my experience in this field is multiples of yours. I hate to use that in argument but you have said too many things that are wrong and you even seem to lack the fundamentals.

                    60. “The same is true for homeowners. If you could afford the house when its valuje was high – you could continue to afford it when it was low.”

                      That may or may be true. You can lose your job, you can take losses on other investments, your tenant, if you have one, may not be able to pay the rent.

                    61. “That may or may be true. You can lose your job, you can take losses on other investments, your tenant, if you have one, may not be able to pay the rent.”

                      All true. Not one of which has anything to do with falling home prices.
                      These are all risks that were exactly the same BEFORE thehousing bubble bursts.

                      Further – investment losses are not relevant – unless they are part of cashflow ie. they are income producing investments rather than wealth building.

                      If I have a tenant and they do not pay the rent – they get evicted.

                      For most of the past 10+ years I can replace tenants in 2 weeks if I work at it.

                      Most larger places that is 2-3 days.

                      Right now there is a semi crisis at the bottom of the market.
                      Tenants with no credit have been told by government they can not be evicted – they have built up enormous back rent, and they can not be easily evicted.

                      With the exception of a few idiots (and very young adults who can not think) this problem is restricted to the bottom of the market.

                      Even there is ti complex – most are entitled to assistance. I have picked up about 75% of the lost rent of tenants who qualified for assistance and they will not be evicted. The biggest problem area is those who DID NOT lose their job, and have poor credit and took advantage of the situation. They will get evicted the first chance. And they will find it very hard to get a new apartment. And they should have problems.
                      They had the ability to pay. They just didn’t.

                      Massive moral hazard created by government.

                    62. John, one involved in business, though he may understand the theory, doesn’t care about what the theory says something is worth. He deals with the reality of what the entity is worth to him and what it is worth to the seller to sell at the time the purchase is considered. Though the theory might come up with one price the prices will vary considerably.

                    63. AIG never defaulted. Hank Greenberg was AIG’s CEO a bit before the financial crisis. He was driven out by Eliot Spitzer.

                      Post Crisis he tried to get back in and he and some other AIG shareholders sued the govenrment claiming that AIG never needed to be “bailed out”.

                      While in “theory” AIG had the largest liability – AIG held something like 80% of the CDS’s and CDO’s that insured against precisely what happened.

                      Greenberg argued two things:

                      First that the banks never called in their CDO’s and CDS’s even though they were aable to – just as they did not buy into TARP I.
                      For the exact same reasons – while the purpoted market value of MBS’s was about $0.25:$ EVERYBODY knew that over a few years they would all recover to $0.95 or greater – ulitmately nearly all MBS’s paid out in full

                      Second – had the banks cashed in their CDS’s and CDO’s – AIG would have received the MBS’s in return.

                      That is what CDS means – credit default SWAP. The Bank would have filed a claim against AIG – AIG would have had to provide the bank with some form of credit worth less than the face value of the MBS that “defaulted” and in return AIG would take ownership of the MBS at a heavily discounted price.

                      The POTENTIAL claims against AIG were about 140B – but ACTUAL claims on that scale NEVER materialized.

                      Greenberg sued the government for among other things a form of securities fraud.

                      The govenrment “took over” AIG – CLAIMED they recapitalized AIG – when in truth they never really put much in – because few banks tried to make claims against AIG – because the CDS’s required that the bank turn over the MBS at a discounted price that everyone knew was too low – even with the financial market collapse. So AIG’s real liabilities were quite low. But the government issued itself a large amount of prefered stock when it took over AIG and then required AIG to buy it back to escape government countrol. Yet the government never actually put in the money that was suppose to purchase the prefered stock – because it never had to.

                      AIG was not well managed after Spitzer pushed Greenberg out.
                      But Greenberg is likely correct – under his management post crisis, AIG would not have needed government help.

                      And if AIG would not – the Banks would not have either.

                      Just to be clear – there is an excellent argumnent that the financial crisis – was the consequence of regulatory failure – TOO MUCH rather than too little and bad regulation.

                      But a recession was happening no matter what.

                    64. AIG was not destined to fail, but we didn’t protect the people. We protected the financial institutions like Goldman. In the end Goldman made a lot of money. Barofsky wrote a book on how as IG of TARP he was prevented from doing his job.

                    65. I have not read Barofsky.

                      Though I suspect you are correct.

                      That said – TARP was unnecescary.

                      Further the Government shoudl NEVER be protecting people or banks from the consequences of their decisions.

                      That i a massive moral hazard.

                      It is part of what is wrong with the 6T we have spent.

                      It will become an expectation – in 6M or the next time.

                      We bailed out Unions
                      We bailed out state governments that failed.

                      These are MISTAKES.

                      Failure is a critical part of not only free markets – but a functioning society.

                      If we do not allow bad choices to have consequences – we do not actually learn from mistakes.
                      Not from our own, not from others.

                      We may even learn that mistakes are good and risk free ‘

                      When we get there – there is no one to bail out the federal government.

                    66. His book was a very interesting read and made one more aware of how things really work, not how we are supposed to work.

                      You have more energy than I, posting excellent discussion time after time, but I can’t deal with so many questions that involve thought. You will have to give me a pass if I don’t in the future respond to some.

                      When I respond to Anonymous the Stupid I don’t have to think and I can do so in one minute. That is why it is easier to respond to 100 of his comments to one of yours. Even without trying to think it is easy to be way ahead of Anonymous the Stupid who has absolutely no imagination or content. His repetitive patterns are relaxing permitting the mind to wander. Intellect has never been part of Anonymous the Stupid’s brain.

                    67. I am libertarian. One of the core personality attributes of libertaraisn that distinguishes them from other types is that they tend to be systematizers. They are not usually focused on details. – more accurately they know which details matter and which do not.

                      I am reminded of a story I once read about a famous westinghouse engineer.

                      Some powercompany was having major problems with a generator. They could not solve themselves.
                      So they called in westinghouse and they sent their best engineer.

                      He listened to the genorator for about an hour and then put a chalk mark on it and told them to move a bolt back to the chalk mark.

                      That sovled the problem.

                      He sent a 25K bill.

                      The power company asked for an itemized bill.

                      He responded

                      $1 – for placing chalk mark on generator.
                      $24999 for knowning where to place chalk mark.

                      In my business one of my forte’s is seporating the noise from the information relevant to the problem.

                      There is a massive amount of noise in the housing bubble.

                      All the noise is important – with respect to SOME problem.

                      But it is NOT with respect to the causes of the housing bubble – or the causes of the financial crisis.

                    68. I have not read allison and I do not want to be critical of something I have not read.

                      But while there was lots of stupidity in the financial community – and some large banks deserved to fail – some of those we bailed out,

                      The great recession and the financial crisis and the housing bubble were all caused by GOVERNMENT failures.

                      Market malfeasance can not be large enough ever or sufficiently coordinated to cause systemic failures.

                    69. “I have not read allison and I do not want to be critical of something I have not read.”

                      What did I say about Allison that you could be critical of?

                      The marketplace is cyclical so one expects recessions. I blame government for the majority of the downward trend and Obama for the slow recovery. There was over regulation, poor regulation, not regulating correctly and because government yields to those in power they yielded to the financial sector where the big guys made a lot of money.

                    70. “The marketplace is cyclical so one expects recessions.”
                      There is significant debate on that. There is some evidence of natural cycles.
                      There is some evidence of structural (non-governmental) cycles.

                      I personally accept that evidence – HOWEVER, the natural/structural causes are NOT fixed and immutable.
                      I beleive they – like all market frictions are slowly declining with time.

                      REGARDLESS. these cause cycles of higher and lower profits. The do not inherently cause recession and never depression.

                      “I blame government for the majority of the downward trend”
                      Bad fiscal polices strangle growth – they do NOT cause bubbles. That requires monetary policy – the Fed.

                      “and Obama for the slow recovery.”
                      Absolutely

                      “There was over regulation, poor regulation,”
                      Correct – but these lead to low growth not booms/busts.

                      “not regulating correctly”
                      If there is any regulation that is necescary beyond ordinary criminal, contract and tort law, I have not seen it.

                      Regardless even if I am wrong – all regulation may not be bad, but nearly all is.
                      Still that does not cause bubbles.

                      “and because government yields to those in power they yielded to the financial sector where the big guys made a lot of money.”

                      Look into George Stigler’s Nobel prize winning work on Regulatory capture.

                      But please do not look at the wikipedia page – they litterally have it backwards.

                      Big Bussinesses do NOT drive regulation DOWN, they drive it UP. They seek to create barriers to entry.

                      The growth of regulation is actively anti small business and pro big business.
                      The left thinks that is good.

                      But the left fails to understand the pareto distribution of innovation and why most innovation happens withing smaller businesses.

                      http://pirate.shu.edu/~rotthoku/Liberty/stigler_theory%20of%20econ%20regulation.pdf

                    71. Banks made enormous amounts of money during the Financial Crisis – the Fed gave them Billions at incredibly low interest to resolve their liquidity issues – this was what actually resolved the seizue of the markets.

                      And banks make money off the money the get from the Fed.

                    72. “”I would suggest reading Coases theorum.”

                      It doesn’t change the law of supply and demand.”
                      Of course it does not – it is the law of supply and demand in a different form.

                      It is also a proof of the merits of the law of supply and demand.

                      ““In a frictionless system free bargaining ALWAYS produces optimal results.”

                      Everything being perfect generally leads in that direction.”
                      It is not about perfection. Coase actually proved that in a frictionless system bargaining ALWAYS produces optimal results.

                      What is can not be proven with certainty, but is nonetheless true is that even with normal frictions – free bargaining will produce the best results.

                      If we compare and contrast free market libertarianism to socialism or any form of statism or big government.

                      Perfect libertarianism is perfectly optimal – whether it is acheivable of not.
                      Imperfect libertarianism is imperfectly optimal.
                      The closer to perfect the libertarianism is the closer to optimal the outcome is.

                      Conversely
                      We can claim that perfect socialism is optimal – but it too is unacheivable.

                      But unlike libertarianism – the more socialist or statist a political economy is the more it fails.

                      All of this is perfectly consistent with Coase.
                      All with the laws of supply and demand.

                      We can wish for perfection – but even in an imperfect world individual freedom outperforms top down planning – ALWAYS.

                      “We live in a world of imperfection so the perfect theories don’t always work out as intended.”
                      We do. Sometimes things do not work as expected – sometimes they do.
                      greater individual liberty always produces better outcome than less.
                      Greater statism always produces worse than less.

                      “The excuses are imperfections. That’s fine but imperfections always exist.”
                      Imperfection precludes our reaching utopia. It does not thwart the benefits of heading in that direction.
                      And we do know what utopian directions are actually towards heaven and which towards hell.

                    73. ““”I would suggest reading Coases theorum.”

                      It doesn’t change the law of supply and demand.”
                      Of course it does not – it is the law of supply and demand in a different form.”

                      I read a bit about Coarse’s theorem. Supply and demand are three words that provide an excellent explanation of a large part of the world. Coarse makes it more difficult and I will never completely learn his proofs no matter how long I spend on it. Not necessary. Short and sweet wins.

                    74. You do not need to follow Coases proofs. It is sufficient that others have and have been unable to find flaws.

                      The primary criticism’s of Coase – including his own. are that markets are not frictionless.

                      That criticism is correct – but not as meaningful as is claimed.

                      Markets are not frictionless – but they evolve towards ever lower transaction costs.

                      The internet did not exist when Coase derived his theory. even credit cards were mostly unknown.

                      Today we have massive amounts of incredibly low friction electronic transactions.

                      Further we are on the cusp of digital currency.

                      Whether that is Bitcoin or something else – it is coming.
                      Bitcoin transaction costs are 1/10 or less that of credit cards and debit cards.
                      Further they actually reduce credit – meaning credit is available elsewhere in the market.

                      When you buy with a debit or credit card the transaction does not clear – often for a day or two.
                      That means SOMEONE extends credit for that time – and that credit is not available elsewhere.
                      Crytpo transactions clean in about 2 sec. That means when you click PAY within 2 secs the money has moved from you to the person you are paying.

                      This is part of the stuff Coase was talking about with respect to frictionless transactions.

                      Most everything we do has far less friction than when Coase posited his law.

                      I would further note that though not clearly established, like most libertarain principles, Coases Law is likely NOT binary.

                      i.e. if it is true that in a frictionless system bargaining always results in the best possible outcome. It is likely true that more friction produces less optimal results and less produces more optimal results.

                      It is also likely true that in a frictionless systems bargaining ALWAYS produces the best results, it is near certain true that in a system with significant friction bargaining NEARLY ALWAYS produces the best results.

                    75. John, the friction costs generally go unnoticed but when dealing in larger terms it is meaningful. I generally kept the float. Carefully managed it can add up to a lot of money.

                    76. Regardless,
                      the market moves toward lower friction.

                      While NOT officially part of Coases law – because the law is proven and this can not be proven only demonstrated.
                      Free markets and bargaining outperform all other solutions even with friction – though obviously they work better the lower the friction.

                    77. “Regardless,
                      the market moves toward lower friction.”

                      Yes, but friction is just one variable. There is also risk and the amount of flexibility desired in whatever entity you are dealing with.

                    78. Again – go back and read coase.

                      Lower friction means – better market results and worse results from regulation.

                      Whatever other variables there are – the do not change that.

                    79. Go back and read Coarse, I am sure in his detailing of costs he will talk about flexible and non flexible types of agreements as they affect cost as well because they affect risk and the type of risk. Everyone wants a frictionless cost but costs occur none the less and are based on more than friction.

                    80. You keep making huge assumptions all over the place.

                      I am Sure he will – is NOT a reading of Coase.

                      The problem with confusing expenses and liabilities is YOURS not mine – I did not make your claim about Condo’s – you did, and your claim confuses expenses and liabilities all over the place.

                      It also confuses who owns what, and it presumes that when a bank forecloses on a Condo that it magically gains rights with respect to the individual unit owners that it does not have.

                    81. “You keep making huge assumptions all over the place.”

                      No, I respond to some of your tangents that take us from here to there and all over the place.

                      “The problem with confusing expenses and liabilities is YOURS not mine – I did not make your claim about Condo’s – you did, and your claim confuses expenses and liabilities all over the place.”

                      There was no confusion on my part but both of those terms overlap based on the nature of the discussion.

                      “It also confuses who owns what, and it presumes that when a bank forecloses on a Condo that it magically gains rights with respect to the individual unit owners that it does not have.”

                      I never claimed any of those magical rights that you must be dreaming about. In fact the object of my discussion had to do with banks not foreclosing. As I may have indicated before, too many tangents can lead to too many misunderstandings.

                    82. This has not been drive by my tangents.

                      You posited unspecified complexity and unspecified arguments made by specific writers/analysts as the causes of the financial crisis.

                      I am not looking to criticize those people – I can’t based on your assertion that they know the secret and I should read them to find out.
                      Maybe they do, BUT “Trust me, This guy has the answer” without even summarizing his claim, is not an argument.

                      We got into Condo’s because YOU went there. It was the closest thing to a testable claim you made.

                      If you make an argument you can expect me to RELENTLESSLY test that argument – whether you are on the left or the right.

                      I expect the same from you – whether you are on the left or the right.

                      That is how we test claims – in the crucible.

                      That is not personal – it is how we get to the truth.

                      It is also why the nonsensical fixation of leftists on safe spaces and micro agressions and feelings is actually EVIL.

                      The process of getting to the truth is often BRUTAL. It reguires brutal honesty. Many sacred cows get gored.

                      There is a separate debate hear about violence against asians and violence generally.

                      Today – 52.5% of all murders are committed by Blacks – even though they are only 11% of the population.

                      That alone explains the higher rate of interactions between blacks and police as well as higher rates of incarcertation.

                      Short of proving that the rates of violence for blacks are artificially inflated – or that all other races are artificially low,
                      The vast majority of claims of systemic racism in law enforcement MUST FAIL.

                      Either that or you must pretend that REALITY is RACIST.

                      Regardless, we can not address the problems caused by higher police interactions with blacks until we can address the root causes.

                      Why do blacks commit most murders ? I do not have the answer – but that is where we need to look.
                      And we need to look at all possibilities – no matter how unpleasant. Failure to do so leaves no hope of correcting the problem.

                    83. “This has not been drive by my tangents. “

                      If you say so, John, but I didn’t know there was a third party in this discussion. You brought up loads of tangents that took the conversation all over the place. That is fine and interesting but don’t expect me not to follow your tangents if they peak my interest.

                      “You posited unspecified complexity and unspecified arguments made by specific writers/analysts as the causes of the financial crisis.”

                      No I didn’t. You mentioned TARP, so I brought Barofsky the IG of TARP and Allison the President of BB&T, both that had to deal with TARP which started a tangent. Neither discussion was brought up as having to do with “the causes of the financial crisis.”

                      I brought up some of the complexities being faced in real areas, mostly Florida where condo’s were concerned.

                      Here is what I said: A SMALL ITEM (not a big one as you suggest elsewhere) is emphasized and placed in capitals.

                      “A SMALL ITEM to demonstrate the fall out from certain actions: Banks were not foreclosing on condominium properties.”… “That type of dip was artificial since people that were totally solvent became insolvent based on paper. “

                      I did not state a direct opinion as to the cause of the financial crisis but in line with the above I did state:

                      “Regarding how much the overvaluing of property was I cannot answer so you can apply whatever value you wish to it. The fact is that when a property crashes it still has real value that is greater than the value speculators buy it at.

                      It was that statement to lead me to my mention of Marty Feldstein whose importance was to show that a major part of our problem was we didn’t know where the bottom was. His idea was an attempt to create a bottom.

                      John, it’s not a good thing for you to change what was said by who. You are much smarter than that.

                    84. “We got into Condo’s because YOU went there.”

                      Yes, I did go there but it is clear from what I copied above that I was responding to property values and when I dealt with condos I did so along with the discussion of property values and as a SMALL ITEM I used condos as an example of solvent people going under because of the changes in the value of their paper along with rises in the amount of fees they paid (plus lower return on their investments). All I did was provide a real life example of how screwed up things were for people that were prudent.

                      In no way did I say condo’s were the cause of the financial crisis. You accused me of it elsewhere, but a review of what was written demonstrates you were totally wrong.

                      “That is how we test claims – in the crucible.”

                      The crucible is in black and white, what was written, and that proves you totally wrong. I don’t ask you to go back and look at what was written prior but I ask you to be more careful and have provided you with some of the prior words written.

                      In your same response you went on another distant tangent Asian murders. I agree with you. Anonymous the Stupid is an idiot and acts in a counterproductive fashion, but that is a tangent totally unrelated to our discussion on the financial crisis. Don’t get me wrong the tangent is fine with me, but recognize where the vast majority of tangents are coming from, yourself.

            2. “What he is ignorantly promoting is pure nonsense.”
              No it is fundimental economics.

              “The claim that all goods and services we want have become cheaper , better, or more abundant”. Not exactly true.”
              I did not claim that ALL goods and services we want become cheaper.
              Only that in a truly free market that will happen nearly all the time.

              We do not have a truly free market. Those goods and services – like education and healthcare that are MOST regulated by government have become more expensive in real dollars.

              “Services have become more expensive”
              Most have not.

              Price anything – service or goods, in the hours of median income or hourse of minimum wage income needed to acquire them – and except those strongly intertwined with government – they are cheaper.

              I bought a top of the line Amana refridgerator for 1200 in 1983. At the time the MW was 3.35 – so it took about 360hr of MW labor without taxes to buy that Fridge. Today a far better fride can be had at Home Depot for 999. It is several times more energy efficient, it has meat and vegetable drawers, and an icemaker – in the door, My 1983 Amana had none of these.
              That 999 HD fridge takes 137hrs of MW labor to purchase. And as noted it is higher quality.

              There are some things that are lower quality – though most are not.

              A toaster in 1965 cost about $12. It worked about as well as toasters today. BUT it was put together with screws and bolts and could be tken apart and repaired if it failed. A modern equivalent toaster costs about 19.99 – and will last longer before needed repaired but when it breaks it can not be repaired. BTW the 1965 Toaster can not be repaired today either – because we do not have small appliance repaimen anymore and because at $19.99 the cost to drive the toaster to the repair shop and pick it up – at most any value to your time – will exceed the value of the toaster.

              Inexpensive goods are built to last a long time and then be throw away. That is actually a WISE and efficient choice.

              I own a 2005 Audi. I love it. New it was a 50K car and it is still in good condition But if it requires repairs that cost more than $2000 – I will have the car hauled away and buy another. Because I only paid 2800 for it. Had I paid 50K for it – I would pay 2000 to repair it.
              It is not the car is not well made, nor that after repairs it will not be as good as before, and potenially last for decades more.
              It is that it just does not make economic sense to repair.

              “lower quality”
              There are a few things that are aactually lower quality – education as an example. But nearly everything that does not touch government much is better today that 50 years ago.

              “To maximize profit companies cut corners and produce “mission statements” that rarely prove to be true.”
              You are really clueless about manufacturing.

              Manufacturing today strives for and in myriads of instances acheive 6Sigma – that is a rate of manufacturing defects of 1 in 999999.

              If you can not consistently reach 6sigma targets many businesses will not buy from you.

              In 1965 a car engine would likely have to be rebuilt every 50000 miles, and most cars were junk after 100-150K miles.
              Today most cars are junked before 150K miles – only because relative replacement cost is so low – as with my Audi it makes no sense to repair. Many vehicles have an average life – WITHOUT any drive train repairs of of 150K, and between 300K an 1M miles – if you will rebuild transmissions and engines every 250K miles. I have a pickup with 337K miles on it that is going fine. That was unheard of in 1965.

            3. I doubt you can find 10 goods or services, that you think have increased in cost since 1965, meeting the following criteria:

              Price them in hours of MW labor – that is an excellent and trustworthy inflation adjustor.
              And you may only pick goods or services that are not highly regulated or intertwined with government – such as education and most healthcare.

              If you do not like 1965 – pick your own time period – longer than 20 years.
              BTW BLS has data covering more than 100 years of household budgets – and sometime ago the Atlantic did and article on it.

              The only things that are a greater portion of the household budget today than in 1917 are those were we have demanded more and better.

              Transportation is a larger portion of our income today – and we travel hundreds of times farther each year than in 1917.

              Housing is a slighly larger portion – and the average home size is about 4 times the size it was in 1917.

              We pay LESS for clothes, food and healthcare and we have far better clothes food and healthcare.

            4. What I am claiming MUST be true – because if it were not – standard of living would decline, and economic growth would be zero or negative.

              Lots of people beleive as you do.
              That does not make it true.

      3. Trump’s tariff taxes singularly disrupted the American grain markets. The second the election results finalized and it was clear Biden was headed into office, all the grain markets have been on an intense uptrend. Believe it or not, they like the prospects of being able to sell their product rather than being minimally bribed by the trump administration with secret stimulus because their buyers were driven away.

        Oh, and the way I know this is that I trade the grain markets daily.

        Elvis Bug

        1. Balanced budget:

          https://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/FederalDeficit1.jpg

          The surplus was the primary justification given for the budget busting tax cuts under Bush (see above).

          About those tax cuts:

          “While well-designed tax cuts may grow the economy (often not as much as tax reform), there is no case in which they could grow the economy enough to be self-financing. At best, tax cuts can finance a fraction of their costs through faster growth – and maybe not even that.

          In this paper, we show:

          There is no theoretical basis to suggest tax cuts could be self-financing. To do that, the economy would need to grow by $5 to $6 for every $1 of tax cuts.
          There is broad consensus among economic models that future tax cuts won’t pay for themselves. Some models find tax cuts would be partially self-financing, while others find the economic feedback would actually increase the deficit effect of tax cuts.
          Past tax cuts in 1981 and the early 2000s have led to widening budget deficits and lower revenue, not the reverse as some claim…”

          https://www.crfb.org/papers/tax-cuts-dont-pay-themselves

          1. As to the longest economic expansion John,

            “At 126 months, the United States is in its longest economic expansion in history, breaking the record of 120 months of economic growth from March 1991 to March 2001…”

            https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidmarotta/2020/01/21/longest-economic-expansion-in-united-states-history/?sh=285f11f62a2d

            The real estate bubble only turned into the lethal financial market buster when sub primes were allowed to be bundled and sold on the exchange.

            Obama produced more new jobs in his last 3 years than Trump in his 1st 3 years – hey, we’ll forget Trump’s last year when he set a record for job losses – and Trump’s GDP growth was only marginally better in his 1st 3 years than Obama in his last 3, and that’s with Trump’s Fat Cat Stimulus bill of 2017 which is projected to cost about what the Biden Covid bill does.

            You need to actually read stuff that doesn’t agree with your ieology sometime John Say. They’re called facts.

            1. “The real estate bubble only turned into the lethal financial market buster when sub primes were allowed to be bundled and sold on the exchange.”

              Also false – idiotically so.

              What you appear to be refering to is called “securitization”.

              It spreads risk out. It does NOT reduce risk.

              Sub prime mortages were mispriced based on their risk level.
              That is tautologically true and the collapse of the housing bubble proves it.

              Your claims regarding “bundling” are ludicrously stupid.

              Lets pretend that everything else was exactly the same – but sub prime mortgages were not bundled and sold on the exchange.

              We would have had very nearly exactly the same result.

              You seem ignorant of the fact that the financial crisses did not occur until more than 2 years AFTER the housing bubble burst.

              Once housing prices collapsed recession was inevitable.
              You can not correct the value of a major economic asset class by approximately 11T without triggering a recession.

              We had very nearly the same thing in 1929.

              In 1929 we had a bubble in factories – we built more than we needed far faster than we needed pretending that their values was greater than it was. Eventually we came face to face with the reality that we had factories capable of producing more than we could possibly consume.

              A classic bubble – much like the housing bubble.

              When the value of factories/corporations was corrected we had a recession. Various other monetary errors that fortunately were not repeated in 2008 converted that recession into a depression,.

              But the cause of the 1929 recession – like the 2008 one was monetary. The market can not on its own cause systemic mispricing of risk.
              That requires a monetary failure.

              When money is too tight – that causes credit to be overpriced relative to risk and that slows the economy.
              When money is too free – that causes credit to be underpriced relative to risk and that causes recessions.

              I am hard pressed to think of a recession anytime in history that was not monetary in origen.

              The worst recessions are cause by SMALL errors sustained over a long period of time.

              The Fed monetary policy from its start in 1916 through 1929 was too loose.
              The Fed monetary policy under Greenspan – from about 1996 through 2006 was too loose.

              Economist John B Taylor – the author of the “taylor rule” has thoroughly documented Greenspans failure and was warning of dire consequences before they occured.

              1. The below is simplified for John Say’s benefit. He has no idea how a $1.5 trillion dollar US housing bubble became a $50 trillion international banking and financial collapse.

                “…As part of the housing and credit booms, the number of financial agreements called mortgage-backed securities (MBS), which derive their value from mortgage payments and housing prices, greatly increased. Such financial innovation enabled institutions and investors around the world to invest in the U.S. housing market. As housing prices declined, major global financial institutions that had borrowed and invested heavily in MBS reported significant losses. Defaults and losses on other loan types also increased significantly as the crisis expanded from the housing market to other parts of the economy. Total losses were estimated in the trillions of U.S. dollars globally.[23]

                While the housing and credit bubbles were growing, a series of factors caused the financial system to become increasingly fragile. Policymakers did not recognize the increasingly important role played by financial institutions such as investment banks and hedge funds, also known as the shadow banking system. These entities were not subject to the same regulations as depository banking. Further, shadow banks were able to mask the extent of their risk taking from investors and regulators through the use of complex, off-balance sheet derivatives and securitizations.[24] Economist Gary Gorton has referred to the 2007–2008 aspects of the crisis as a “run” on the shadow banking system.[25]

                The complexity of these off-balance sheet arrangements and the securities held, as well as the interconnection between larger financial institutions, made it virtually impossible to re-organize them via bankruptcy, which contributed to the need for government bailouts.[24] Some experts believe these shadow institutions had become as important as commercial (depository) banks in providing credit to the U.S. economy, but they were not subject to the same regulations.[26] These institutions as well as certain regulated banks had also assumed significant debt burdens while providing the loans described above and did not have a financial cushion sufficient to absorb large loan defaults or MBS losses.[27]

                The losses experienced by financial institutions on their mortgage-related securities impacted their ability to lend, slowing economic activity. Interbank lending dried-up initially and then loans to non-financial firms were affected. Concerns regarding the stability of key financial institutions drove central banks to take action to provide funds to encourage lending and to restore faith in the commercial paper markets, which are integral to funding business operations. Governments also bailed out key financial institutions, assuming significant additional financial commitments.

                The risks to the broader economy created by the housing market downturn and subsequent financial market crisis were primary factors in several decisions by central banks around the world to cut interest rates and governments to implement economic stimulus packages. Effects on global stock markets due to the crisis were dramatic. Between 1 January and 11 October 2008, owners of stocks in U.S. corporations suffered about $8 trillion in losses, as their holdings declined in value from $20 trillion to $12 trillion. Losses in other countries averaged about 40%.[28]

                Losses in the stock markets and housing value declines place further downward pressure on consumer spending, a key economic engine.[29] Leaders of the larger developed and emerging nations met in November 2008 and March 2009 to formulate strategies for addressing the crisis.[30] A variety of solutions have been proposed by government officials, central bankers, economists, and business executives.[31][32][33] In the U.S., the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was signed into law in July 2010 to address some of the causes of the crisis….”

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis

                1. “The below is simplified for John Say’s benefit. He has no idea how a $1.5 trillion dollar US housing bubble became a $50 trillion international banking and financial collapse.”

                  Of course I do and I demonstrated it.

                  “As part of the housing and credit booms,”
                  End of debate YOU lose. If there is a credit boom there is a monetary boom.

                  ” the number of financial agreements called mortgage-backed securities (MBS), which derive their value from mortgage payments and housing prices, greatly increased.”

                  Again where does the value come from ? The price of the ASSET – the house.
                  There are some functional differences between mortgages and MBS’s.

                  But what is immuntable is that all securities of any kind that use houses as collateral derive their value from the value of the collateral.

                  You can play whatever games you wish with mortages and mortgage backed securities. The agregate values is STILL determined by the value of the collateral.

                  When housing prices collapse – the value of mortgages decline – the value of MBS’s decline. the value of EVERYTHING secured by housing DECLINES.

                  “Such financial innovation enabled institutions and investors around the world to invest in the U.S. housing market.”
                  Absolutely, but the value of all securities is limited to the value of the item securing them.

                  The value of every stock on earth is the share of the value of the company that issued that stock.
                  While that value fluctuates – it is still ALWAYS driven by the value of the company, and the flucturation is driven by changes int eh value of the company.

                  I would further note that there is absolutely nothing that the financial institutions can do – without government that will make a security like and MBS more volatile than most other securities – like stocks. Some of the most volatile securities in existance would be futures.
                  These are essentially bets on the future value of a comondity.

                  Yet accross the globe there are futures markets – in fact agriculture as an example depends on futures.
                  And yet the global economy has never been collapsed by futures.

                  “As housing prices declined, major global financial institutions that had borrowed and invested heavily in MBS reported significant losses.”
                  Exactly the same thing happened with the dot com bust – on an actually much larger scale – and the global markets did not collapse.

                  Regardless, you keep ignoring the operative portion of this – “Housing prices declined”.

                  You have accepted – even argued that the entirety of the financial collapse was driven by the collapse of housing prices.
                  So every single different claim you make regarding the financial crisis is nonsense.

                  The financial crisses occured because housing prices dropped.

                  There is absolutely no consequential reason to look more deeply into financial markets.

                  The specific mechanics of the failure of the financial markets are purely academic.

                  Once housing prices collapsed – the financial crisis was inevitable.

                2. You cite alot of facts that you clearly do not understand and claim the refute me, when over and over and over, they all reinforce exactly what I have said.

                  All that you have in this is some wailing and gnashing of teeth that magic should have somehow prevented a financial crisis when housing values collapsed.

                  While I guess that it is possible to conceive of some hypothetical market structure in which a collapse of housing values would NOT result in a financial crisis – I can not personally think of one. Further there is no world in which an 11T collapse in the value of housing will not result in a recession.

                  You also seem fixated on the US as the proximate cause of this. To some extent you are correct – but not specifically through US housing investment.

                  The US is not the only country that had a housing bubble or economic devastation that resulted from that collapse.
                  Europe, Spain, Italy, Ireland – substantial portions of the western world experienced the same bubble in the price of housing and the same collapse and the same economic devastation as a consequence.

                  Further foreign investment in US housing was NOT the cause of the global financial crisis.
                  The entire US residential real estate market was only 27T in 2019. The portion held internationally was a tiny fraction of that.

                  The finanical drisis was global – not because of the failure of US housing secured financial papers – but because most of the western world had inflated the value of housing.

                  Other countries in the world have entirely different laws and financial regulations – and still their economies tanked.

                  They did not tank from relatively small investiment in US housing. They did not tank because of US deregulation.

                  They tanked because not only was the US fed keeping interest rates – and therefore the cost of credit, too low too long, but US monetary policy polluted the entire world. With the same effect on housing throughout the world.
                  And the same economic and financial effect despite completely different regulations and financial laws.

                3. Please cite specifically what Dodd Frank does that actually addresses any of the left’s claims of the root causes ?

                  The left’s big claim was the repeal fo the last vestiges of Glass-steagal.

                  Well Dodd Frank did not restore Glass Steagal or anything like it. Banks are still free to have both commercial and investment banking divisions. In fact in 2008 – it was the investment divisions of commercial banks that preventing the financial crisis from being worse than it was. Contra leftist nonsense – most investment banks or investment banking divisions were highly profitable in 2008.

                4. You keep getting lost in meaningless details of your own arguments or those of your sources.

                  The gist of your claim – or the way you are trying to use your sources is that financial markets are complex and because you do not understand them – they are the cause of the failure.

                  Yet at the very begining you START with

                  HOUSING PRICES DROPPED.

                  A wise person would grasp that the consequences of housing prices dropping would be disasterous.

                  I would strongly recomend reading “The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else
                  Hernando De Soto

                  https://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Capital-Capitalism-Triumphs-Everywhere/dp/0465016154/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&hvadid=78477694924022&hvbmt=be&hvdev=c&hvqmt=e&keywords=the+mystery+of+capital&qid=1616097904&sr=8-1

                  It was written before the financial crisis. It is not about the financial crisis.

                  But you can not read it without grasping how absolutely fundimental the value of housing and the ability to leverage that value is to prosperity.

                  You fixate on the question – How did the collapse of housing prices result in the financial crisis – which is a purely academic question – if you alter the value of the most critical asset in a vibrant market economy by 11T- you will have a financial collapse no matter how that countries financial system is structured.

                  While ducking the more relevant question – what drove Housing values above real values ? What caused the “credit boom” you wrote of.

                  These are the questions that matter. These are monetary questions that have nothing to do with financial markets.

                  Banks will not loan money to anyone – whether they have good credit or bad – unless they have money to lend.

                  Credit does not “boom” without more money becoming available to lend.
                  Only government can create money out of thin air.

                5. Everyday in the morning sunlight slowly falls on plants triggering an assortment of biochemical process that result in the plants growing.

                  As the sun fades these processes slow and stop.

                  Your article – less some spin explains the process of that growth, it also explains why more sunlight will produce greater growth.

                  But most of us understand that as important as the biochemical processes are – the primary driver is sunlight.

                  The primary driver of everything good and bad that you cite is credit. And credit expands and contracts with money supply.

                  When you say credit boom – you are talking about increased money supply.

                  It is possible – though not likely, that we could completely isolate the housing market from price fluctuations due to changes in money supply.
                  If we were actually able to do so – fluctuations in money supply would STILL cause fluctuations in credit, and there would be a bubble somewhere else, and there would still be a financial crisis when that bubble collapsed.

                  Your article goes to a great deal of trouble to examine how fluctuations in housing values impact the financial markets.

                  It does not matter if the article gets that correct. Inevitably fluctuations in housing values will impact the financial markets.
                  So you wasted a ton of words to prove a tautology that is not indispute and to try to bolster a claim that is inconsequential.

            2. I would be surprised if you read a tiny fraction of what I have read.

              BTW my so called ideology has a different name it is called fundimental economics – FACTS.

              I am well aware of the idiotic securitization theory.

              Let me ask you several questions regarding it.

              If securitization – bundling mortgages and selling them on the exchanges caused the recession – how ?

              One of the very interesting things about mortgage bundling is that it really did almost nothing.

              Prior to securitization – banks loaned money and wrote mortgages. They held those mortgages or occasionally sold them.

              After securitization – banks lonaed money and wrote mortgages. These were then bundled ans sold on the exchanges – where they were primarily bought by banks.

              The financial crisis did not occur because Bill gates suddenly found himself holding billions in mortages that had lost much of their value.
              That would have had little consequence had it occured. The dot com bust which occured years early did not result in a recession. Why ?
              Because the most economically damaging type of loss of value is in a fundimental durable asset – like a factory or a house. A collapse in the value of internet companies does not substantially disrupt the economy as a whole – among other reasons – because it is NOT the consequence of monetary failure. Wealthy investors can endure the loss – and they are generally in it for the long haul – most of the stocks hit by the dotcom bubble eventually recovered. Just as mortage backed secuties also and predictably eventually recovered.

              The finacial crisis occured because Banks – the same people who would have held the mortages int he past, now held the mortgage backed securities – i.e. NOTHING REALLY CHANGED.

              If Securitization was the cause – why didn’t Dodd Frank – the law that was purportedly in response to the financial crisis – do anything about it ?

              None of the democrats and lefts claims of the causes of the financial crisis were addressed by the laws passed to try to prevent a future financial crisis. Why ? Because politicians may lie alot – but most of them are not stupid.

              Regardless, the FACT is that none of the left or democrats (and some republicans) claims regarding the financial crisis actually make sense.
              They are economic idiocy.

              If you wish we can go through the entire litany in great deal. It has been years since I have done so. But it could be fun to debunk all these nonsense claims again.

              As you say FACTS – learn some. And it would be wise to be skeptical of the self serving claims of politicians and those in government.

              Do you think anyone in government is going to admit they made the mess – even if they know that they did ?

              Just like those of you who wanted Biden to win the election are for the most part incapable of conceiving of the possibility that he did not.

              I have a substantial advantage over you – what you call “my ideology” is more than an ideology – it is a theory of political economy that has developed and been tested and refined repeatedly over the course of about 300 years. It is accurate, and cohesive. most of the flaws have been found and corrected long ago. It has been tested repeatedly and it works. Further it even works – though less well when it is followed BADLY.

              Your ideology – has none of that. i doubt that you actually have an ideology – just a personal mishmash of inconsistent ideas that appeal to you.

              I have seen no evidence that you have principles – just values that often conflict. BTW there is nothing wrong with conflicting values. But the absence of principles prevents you from resolving conflicts when they become apparent.

          2. You have already demonstrated complete and total ignorance about taxation.

            Look at your chart – What happened at the moment Bush drove the budget back into Deficit ?

            He drug the US into endless expensive wars in the mideast.

            While the stupid endless war nonsense of neocons – that far too many on the right and left bought into may not be the sole cause of deficits,
            it was the primary cause.

            Regardless the US federal government has a spending problem not a revenue problem.

            Merely limiting growth in government spending to the rate of economic growth will eventually result in a balanced budget.
            Though it will take a while.

            I have no idea what you think Tax reform is. So how are we to compare that to Tax cuts.

            Regardless, US top marginal tax rates are still above but sufficiently close to the revenue optimizing maximum that upper margin tax decreases will not decrease revenues, and given the gulf between the standard of living optimizing maximum and the revenue max could actually increase revenues. Further only an idiot – and the CBO and GAO beleive they can directly derive the changes in revenue as a consequence of tax cuts – and even they always add disclaimers – because they are bound to project revenue by formulas in the law that have no relationship to the actual economy.

            BTW the thesis for your paper is obviously bogus. It trivially fails a reductio ad absurdem.

            You paper presumes that tax revenue rises lineraly with tax rates. If that were true – the government could receive the most revenue with a 100% tax rate. But hopefully you are not so stupid as to beleive that.

            The relationship between tax revenues and tax rates MUST follow a curve. Tax revenue must be zero when tax rates are zero, and it must also be zero when tax rates are 100%.

            Inherently that curve must have an appogee, and tax rates above and below that appogee MUST reduce government revenue.
            Though it is likely that the change in revenue will be very small for tax rates in a reasonable proximity to that appogee.

            All of the above MUST be true. All of the above completely discredits the claims of the paper you provide.

            I would further note that the FACTS I cite above are fully consistent with the past 70 years of taxing experience in the US.

            We have ample instances where tax increases resulted in decreases in tax revenue – that happened to FDR and triggered a recession in the midst of the great depression. It is a tautology that if a tax increase decreased tax revenue a cut will increase tax revenue.

            What does it take for you to cease offering this shallow easily refuted economic BS.

            ALL Tax cuts are not “self financing” but all cuts to tax rates above the appogee are. And even leftist economists like Romer have determined that the US top marginal tax rate is STILL above the revenue optimizing maximum.

            Finally – why should the goal be to maximize government revenue ?

            That is a stupid and false presumption.

            To the extent government has any role int he economy at all – its role should be to maximize standard of living.

            We KNOW that total government spending above 20% of GDP reduces the rate of economic growth by about 1% for every 10% increase in spending.

            If the objective of government is the highest possible standard of living for citizens – then our government spends double what it should – and that includes state and local government. In fact the actual role of the federal government is quite limited.
            Nearly all the benefits of government come from local government. That is where law enforcement comes from. That is where our courts are funded. That is where the rule of law is delivered.

        2. I would suggest looking at the actual data for grain sales.

          There was no disruption in the grain markets.

          Corn sales as an example peaked at 843 in aug 2012, Was down to 350 at the start of 2017 an d up to 400 by election day.
          Trending up through the Trump presidency.

          Wheat went from 428 in 2017 to 598 on election day. It has DROPPED 25 pts since Biden was inaugurated.

          Nor should any of this be surprising. global commodity demand is near constant. Dramatic price fluctuations are driven by anticipated swings in supply – i.e. Crop failures and droughts. Not by tarrifs.

          If China buys Soy from Brazil rather than the US – those who bought from Brazil previously must buy from somewhere.

          Targeted Tarriffs increase the cost of commodity goods to consumers – the chinese as an example, as they have to purchase those goods from what is inevitably a less efficient source. But they have little effect on actual commodity sales.

          If you produce wheat, Soy, Corn or other grains and foods, Your price is not going to be driven by tarrifs, but by supply fluctuations.

          If US production is down and that of other countries is up – US farmers will sell less and they will be paid less for what they sell.

          If US production is up and that of other countries is down – US farmers will sell more and they will be paid more.

          Tarrifs will effect WHERE they sell, but not whether nor the price.

        3. EB – if you actually trade the grain markets daily – then you would no better than the nonsense you have written.

          Soy was at 920 in Jan 2017, and at 1153 on election day.

          Many prices – including some grains have spiked – STARTING in mid 202o, not election day. That spike is likely inflation expectations – we are seeing lots of that right now. what do you expect when you dump 6T into the economy without producing 6T of additional value.

          I have pointed out here REPEATEDLY, that Stimulus – especially in the current massive scale is complete idiocy.

          If we produce less we have less PERIOD. No amount of money will ever change that.

          If you beleive otherwise – why provide 2000 stimulus checks – why not 50,000 ? Why not 1M ?

          Maybe you trade in grain markets – but you are clearly economically poorly educated.

    4. Bar Stool Economics
      NOVEMBER 1, 2008 BY F&J STAFF33 COMMENTS

      Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

      • The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
      • The fifth would pay $1.
      • The sixth would pay $3.
      • The seventh would pay $7.
      • The eighth would pay $12.
      • The ninth would pay $18.
      • The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
      So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.”

      Drinks for the ten now cost just $80

      The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’

      They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay! And so…

      • The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
      • The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
      • The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
      • The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
      • The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
      • The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
      Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

      “I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!”

      “Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!”

      “That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

      “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!” The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

      The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

      And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

      David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
      Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

      https://www.funnyandjokes.com/bar-stool-economics.html

      Take note this has been written by many people so the real author is in question..

    5. Ajf…You really believe those Pravda numbers ?. 1.9 TRILLION DOLLARS , and only 9%…what wait NINE PERCENT of this boondoggle cash grab has anything to do with covid , let alone helping citizens. There is already $1 TRILLION on the shelf unspent from the last covid deal…yet senile lord darth biden of chyna and his puppet masters grab 91% more than is needed …in a bid to propr up goobermint and state union pensions…more pork , and earmarks back in the game for more graft unparalleled . You are one twisted tool to not see what this all is and what’s really going on. Spit out that jug of yellow dog liberal koolaide…wake up bro…you are a mouthpiece of propaganda for a party and pres with no soul. A party of blatant theft and race baiting of the likes we have never seen.

      1. Twisted? Yes, he is but that is not his problem here. Math is.

        If we divide the program by the number of people then for the $1,400 potential payment, each citizen’s per capita portion of the debt is $5,700.

        1. The American republic will endure until the day Congress discovers it can bribe the public with the public’s money – Alexis De Tocqueville

          1. Yeah, except De Tocqueville didn’t say that John Say.

            “It does not appear in any of de Tocqueville’s writings or speeches. Variations of the quote have appeared in print since at least 1951….the Daily Caller found no record of the statement attributed to him in the Facebook post in “Democracy in America,” or any of his other written works.

            “Nothing like this appears in ‘Democracy in America,’” Robert Tracy McKenzie, a history professor at Wheaton College, told the Caller in an email.

            “The sentiment contained in the quote you refer to sounds like nothing Tocqueville would have argued,” added McKenzie. “The entire thrust of volume I is concerned not with how the government might corrupt the people, but the ways in which popular pressure may corrupt democratic government and render it simply an instrument for the ‘tyranny of the majority.’”

            An internet search revealed that it may actually be a variation of a statement frequently misattributed to Scottish academic and author Alexander Fraser Tytler. He is credited with saying, “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.”

            This expression also seems to be spurious, according to “Yale Book of Quotations” editor Fred Shapiro…”

            https://checkyourfact.com/2019/10/08/fact-check-alexis-tocqueville-american-republic-congress-bribe-public-money/

            1. “Yeah, except De Tocqueville didn’t say that John Say.”
              Do not care – it is still true.

              Nor would I consider the Daily coaller much of a source.

              “An internet search revealed that it may actually be a variation of a statement frequently misattributed to Scottish academic and author Alexander Fraser Tytler. He is credited with saying, “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.””

              Good for Tyler.

              “This expression also seems to be spurious, ”

              Nonsense.

              The only thing that MIGHT be an issue is the attribution.
              The expression is not merely not spurious – it is true.

    6. The Atlanta fed is now predicting that Final GDP numbers for 2020 will be 0.46% below 2019 – i.e. nearly identical.
      Real Growth for 2020 will be essentially zero.

      So we have spent just shy of 6T on NOTHING.

      Worse still we managed to nearly match 2019 GDP – with Blue states accross the country locking down.

      But for the lockdowns even with the pandemic we still likely would have reached 2-3% growth in 2020.

      Now all but the largest idiots grasp that the lockdowns FAILED – that there is n o evidence of any benefit, that in fact lockdown states seem to have done worse – they both had weaker economies AND more covid deaths per million.

      Using Government.payroll data the actual lost wages in 2020 was approx 272B – that is 1/22nd the cost of the “stimulus”.

      The total “stimulus” spending todate added to actual GDP means that we have “faked” a 27T Economy for 2020.
      Morgan Stanley is now predicting an unavoidable massive inflationary overshoot in 3Q2021

      We are already seeing clues in rapidly rising housing prices – as well as energy.

    7. All such claims about the benefits of “tax cuts” are nonsense.

      They ALWAYS rest on the false claim that taxes are completely unavoidable and that human behavior does not change at all in response to changes in taxes.

      You claim that the benefits of Trump’s Tax cuts did little for the bottom 50% of Tax payers.

      According to IRS data the average actual percent tax paid by the bottom 50% of tax payers is 3.4%.
      The Top 1% pay an average of 25.4% in taxes

      Regardless – out of 1.536T in total federal income taxes collected in 2018, 1.491 were paid by the top 50% of tax payers.
      Less than 3% of all taxes – $45B were paid by the bottom 50%.

      You could entirely eliminate income taxes for the bottom 50% of Tax payers and the Federal government would not notice.
      Though the IRS would have half as many tax returns to process each year.

      You rant and rave about the bottom half of the country. But the fact is they make almost no contribution at all to the cost of the federal government. Any tax cut at all is ALWAYS going to appear to benefit those at the top more.
      The First C19 stimulus check was more than 3 times the size of the income tax bill of the average person in the bottom 50%

      Grow up and get past this idiotic class warfare free ride nonsense.

      I am fully prepared to entirely eliminate income taxes for the bottom 50% of the country – they pay next to nothing anyway. They do not pay enough to fund the federal government for a day – if You will get your head out of your a$$ and work towards rational tax policy.

      The revenue optimizing MAXIMUM tax rate – according to Christine Romer’s (Obama’s Cheif Economic Advisor) is approx. 33% – any marginal tax higher than that reduces rather than increases government revenue.

      The Standard of living optimizing highest tax rate is below 20%, BTW that is TOTAL taxes – Federal State, local, Social Security, …

      These are figures determined by looking at over a century of tax data and GDP data.

      Our government has a MASSIVE spending problem

      And between Trump and Biden we have made it $6T worse.

    8. Federal Tax Revenue by year:

      Fiscal Year Revenue
      FY 2021 $3.86 trillion (estimated)
      FY 2020 $3.71 trillion (estimated)
      FY 2019 $3.46 trillion (actual)
      FY 2018 $3.33 trillion
      FY 2017 $3.32 trillion
      FY 2016 $3.27 trillion
      FY 2015 $3.25 trillion
      FY 2014 $3.02 trillion
      FY 2013 $2.77 trillion

      So where exactly is the 1.6T that the 2018 Tax cut purportedly cost ?

      I would note that Tax revenues have increased FASTER since 2018 than before.

      If you are going to claim a cost for a Tax cut – it would make you look far more credible if there was data to back that claim up.

      Facts, not feelings,

      Nor bogus claims that have no connection to reality.

      1. From the non-partisan Comm for a Responsible Federal Budget

        “By our estimate, total revenue over the time period in question has actually fallen by 1.5 percent in real (inflation-adjusted) terms. Measured relative to GDP – a sensible way to measure because a steady tax system would be expected to capture roughly the same share of the economy each year – we estimate revenue has fallen 4.3 percent. Finally, relative to the revenue increases that had been previously expected from population growth, inflation, wage growth, structural elements of the tax code, and other factors, tax revenue is down by 5.7 percent.”

        https://www.crfb.org/blogs/tax-bill-did-not-cause-revenue-rise

        1. “revenue has declined by between…”

          That the article could not give an exact number or one without a wide span % demonstrates immediately that he numbers are contrived and meaningless.

          This goes along with the usual meaningless data provided by JF.

          1. The article is NONSENSE.

            Real GDP increased.

            There was no change in the inflation rate before or after,

            Revenue not only grew, but it grew FASTER.

            The inflation claim is nonsense.

            But worse – even if were true – it is so small as to be meaningless.

            1. Inflation is not small now and considering that it is in socalled “Non-core CPI” which means FOOD, it is certainly meaningful

              Maybe back in 2018 it was insignificant, but now, baby, it’s BACK

              For my part I am not sure if Trump’s tax policies were effective to a degree or not. I am also not sure it matters. Why?

              Almost everybody in the game is an MMT theorist now. Trump was on the very same bandwagon of people who assume that the US will never be able to pay back the debt. The only shared objective among politicians and the money powers is merely to service the national debt. And if the FED can keep the interests rates low then that is doable. So this particular claim, for or against, is not that consequential.

              Sal Sar

        2. “By our estimate, total revenue over the time period in question has actually fallen by 1.5 percent in real (inflation-adjusted) terms. ”

          Real GDP rose.

          So much for that stupid claim.

  4. There’s no way old Uncle Joe is going to make it through this year.

    He can’t even remember the name of the Pentagon or his Secretary of Defense, and both him and Kamala are calling it the “Harris-Biden administration”.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/embarrassing-senior-moment-biden-forgets-what-pentagon-called-blanks-secretary-defense

    This guy has the nuclear football?!

    The Party of JFK (whose name they never evoke anymore) has devolved into an amateur clown show.

    Likewise for the entire Congress.

        1. Well antidote,,we all saw Joe eats Trump’s lunch in both debates this fall, and unlike Trump he can count to 51.

          1. If there was actually anyone in here that still thought maybe you had at least an ounce of credibility, that statement removed all doubt. You are nothing more than another pseudointellectual leftist tool, who believes what he wants to believe. You are also clearly a victim of Dunning Kruger effect.

          2. What I saw was Trump clean Biden’s clock even when he was coming down with Covid, and even when the moderators were clearly biased against him.

            Biden lied repeatedly Trump caught him in several lies – and all of you ignored it.

            If your idea of winning – is getting away with lies – then Biden won.

            You spent the past 4 years ranting about Trump constantly lying – though most of the time those claims have ultimately failed.

            Yet you let Biden get away with Whoppers and ignore it.

            Alas alas for you hypocrits that you be.

      1. Uncle Joe is incapable of getting through a conference call with democratic legislators.

        Why would anyone assume he can manage a round of golf ?

        We could see the first real and benevolent invocation of the 25th amendment anytime.

        I expect that democrats are looking to delay that as much as possible – they need an intervening event – such as a stroke as well as much more time – or it will just look like another form of election fraud.

        Or do you think that an entire party lying about the competence of their candidate is not election fraud ?

          1. I watched the Debates. Biden did better than expected – He did not fall flat on his face and mumble incoherently – as expected.

            That is a low standard.

            Of course he LIED constantly about pretty much everything.
            He lied about his own prior remarks, he lied about his son. He lied about energy and fracking.
            Though I would not be too hard on Joe – he is too demented to know what the truth is.

            And the press, the left, and the media let him off the hook for all of it.

            Worse still the PRESS lied. Chris Wallaces repeat of the stupid claim that Trump had not denounced nazi’s or the KKK was absolutely ridiculous – and WALLACE knew better – he asked the same question in 2016 and received a broad denunciation.

            This is typical of the left – just constantly ask those you disagree with if they have stopped beating their wife – and eventually people will beleive they beat their wives.

            If it called LYING

            This is your idea of a debate victory ?

            Frankly you should listen to Biden in the debates – look at the differences between what he said and what he has done.

            1. John Say,

              “If it called LYING

              This is your idea of a debate victory ?

              Frankly you should listen to Biden in the debates – look at the differences between what he said and what he has done.”

              it is amazing just how oblivious you are to the irony of some of your comments. Trump lies all the time. You don’t seem so concerned about it as many other conservatives and republicans do. Lying is not an issue at all. You along with everyone else shouldn’t be complaining about lying. It’s not a big deal according to many who support Trump.

              Let’s keep in mind that even with all the allegations of president Biden’s mental acuity still beat trump in an election, has a better approval rate than trump ever did. Trump lost to a man who supposedly is senile. That says a lot about just how bad trump is.

              1. “Trump lies all the time.”
                Then you should be easily able to find actual lies – in his actual worlds with full context.

                One of the reasons that Trump’s supporters are so loyal – is that you have tried this “trump lies all the time” rant constantly – and you have failed to make that case.

                One the obvious big issues – you LOST – the press lied, the left lied, democrats lied – not trump.

                The collusion delusion was a lie.

                Trump was spied on.
                His campaign was spied on
                Fruadulent warrant applications were given to the FISA court.
                The FBI was used for a political purpose.
                Mueller was a witch hunt.
                Clinton not Trump was being mislead by Russian spies.
                There was no republican involvement in the DNC hacking.
                and Stone and republicans learned about it at the same time as everyone else.
                When the emails were published.

                The Biden Ukraine story was NOT russian disinformation – the laptop was Hunter Bidens,
                And most of the damning information came from US sources – including government.

                CIA director Brennan did cook the ICA for political reasons.

                More recently – WaPo and the rest of the media did lie about what Trump said to GA election officials.

                Earlier – they lied about what Trump said to Zelensky.

                In the debates – Chris Wallace KNOWINGLY Lied when he claimed Trump had never disavowed racist groups.
                In point of Fact Trump has done so many times – but most specifically strongly during the 2016 debates when Chris Wallace asked.

                I used to respect Wallace – but Wallaces debate conduct was dishonorable.

                If you wish to keep up this “Trump Lies” nonsense – PROVE it.

                And not with diddly shit – with significant big lies.

                Biden was caught in multiple BIG lies during the debate. Though the press refused to hold him accountable.

                Do you have anything like that regarding Trump ?

                You do not get to lob moral accusations without proof.

                Schiff claimed to have more than circumstantial evidence of collusion – that has proven to be a lie. That is a BIG lie.

                That is a false accusation of moral failure.

                Produce something near the same magnitude regarding Trump.

                You have been asked this repeatedly.
                You typically respond with the same old tropes.

                I lie is not something you disagree with.
                It is a knowing and demonstrable false statement.

                “You don’t seem so concerned about it as many other conservatives and republicans do.”

                “Lying is not an issue at all.”

                It is a very important issue. There is plenty of evidence that Biden lies – constantly. He gets a very small pass because frankly he is demented. but it is still a lie – and if dementia is a legitimate excuse – it is also a reason he should not be president.
                If you wish to reject my demintia claim – that only makes his lies worse.

                The press has been lying to us for years – but under Trump it has gotten egregious. That is important.

                Our FBI, CIA, have lied to us – and to the courts – that is important.

                Schiff lied to us.

                Swallwell has lied to us.

                These are all important.

                I will be happy to lump Trump in with the rest of our cohort of political liars – WHEN YOU PROVE CONSEQUEINTIAL LIES.

                Absolutely Trump is a bragart and exagerates his own success. But he HAS succeeded – often greatly, and as misrepresenations go exagerating real successes is not much of a moral failure.

                What more is it you have ?

                “You along with everyone else shouldn’t be complaining about lying.”
                Why not – lying is a big deal – you and others have repeatedly lied about Trump and others lying – that is probably the worst type of lying.
                It is a major part of why no one trusts you.

                “It’s not a big deal according to many who support Trump.”
                False – most of those who support Trump have HEARD these claims of big lies, and watched as they failed.

                False moral claims destroy the credibility of those making the claim – they enhance the credibility of their targets.

                Trump is MORE beleived by most of his supporters BECAUSE you have constantly lied about his lying.

                “Let’s keep in mind that even with all the allegations of president Biden’s mental acuity still beat trump in an election”
                You keep claiming that – and yet that is not accepted by the people you are trying to persuade.

                We had a lawless election – you do not get to make claims about results.

                “has a better approval rate than trump ever did”

                False – for each of the first 45 days of the Trump presidency his approval rating was higher than Bidens on the same day in his.

                If you keep making easily disprovable claims – why should you be beleived ?

                I would further note that Trump faced a relentlessly hostile press for the entirety of his presidency.

                Biden has not – and yet STILL he actually had a lower approval rate through march.

                I beleive you previously claimed that Trump never had an approval rating about 50%.

                That too was a lie. Just in a few months of data on 2020 I found numerous times his approval rating was above 50%

          2. Here are the 2 presidential debates of 2020 featuring Biden cleaning Trump’s clock,

            I guess your handlers told you brazen fantasy might be effective.

            Biden’ll clean more clocks when he remembers the name of the Secretary of Defense, and the name of the building where he works.

          3. Loved watching Joe spank L’orange in these debates. It was such a relief to the overwhelming incompetence, ineptitude and corruption that held this country hostage for four years.

            Side bar: Kristen Welker handled trump’s crazy making tactics like a pro.

            EB.

            1. Still pushing this ?

              You live in an alternate reality.

              With everything going for him – Biden lost.

              The ONLY positive thing that can be said of Biden’s debate performance is that somehow – with lots of protection, and probably drugs he managed to not expose himself as a demented old codger.

              But a string of obvious lies with all the moderators protecting him is not a win.

    1. Walworth, Biden, a guy who supposedly forgets names, is “senile” etc etc. still beat trump. Has a higher approval rating than Trump ever had, is successfully bringing the pandemic under control and just passed a major piece of legislation that helps regular Americans including trump supporters.

      Let that sink in. A man who many claim is not mentally capable according to conservatives beat Trump.

      1. “Biden, a guy who supposedly forgets names, is “senile” etc etc. still beat trump. Has a higher approval rating than Trump ever had”
        Trump approval rating Jan 26, 2017 59% – Biden Jan 26, 2021 – 48%.
        Biden’s approval rate for the first 45 days of his presidency NEVER matched Trump’s.

        Biden has NEVER had a 59% approval.

        “is successfully bringing the pandemic under control”
        According to JHU total cases started Dropping Jan 8, 2021 – that is 12 days before Biden took office.

        What is it that you think Biden is doing to “bring C19 under control” ?
        Issuing nonsensical executive orders that even he is not following ?
        Double masking ?

        Nothing has changed because of Biden.
        Because C19 does not care about any government policy.

        “and just passed a major piece of legislation that helps regular Americans including trump supporters.”
        That saddles all of us with another 2T in debt.
        Trump should not be proud of the prior releif bills. Biden should stick his head in the sand in shame.
        This is a stupid disaster.

        https://issuesinsights.com/2021/03/12/the-blatant-fraud-behind-the-new-1-9-tril-covid-relief-law/

        “Let that sink in.”
        What – you are praising Biden for repeating the stupidest thing Trump has done ?

        “A man who many claim is not mentally capable according to conservatives beat Trump.”

        He did ? BTW this pretty well debunks yout 60 courts rejected on the merits nonsense.
        https://thefederalist.com/2021/03/11/courts-repeatedly-refused-to-consider-trumps-election-claims-on-the-merits/

        1. “Trump approval rating Jan 26, 2017 59%”

          Depends on whether you’re talking about an average of polls or individual polls.

          Trump never had a 59% average.
          https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

          “Biden’s approval rate for the first 45 days of his presidency NEVER matched Trump’s.”

          It’s been consistently better –
          https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/

          “Biden has NEVER had a 59% approval.”

          If you’re talking about a single poll, that’s false too, as can be seen by looking at the list of individual polls in the above link.

          “C19 does not care about any government policy.”

          It cannot think and so doesn’t care about anything. Even so, government policies affect how it spreads, as can be see, for example, in New Zealand and South Korea.

          As for your Federalist link, some courts ruled solely on issues like standing, but some addressed the merits. For example, Judge Ludwig, “This Court has allowed plaintiff the chance to make his case and he has lost on the merits.”
          courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wied.92761/gov.uscourts.wied.92761.134.0_4.pdf

          1. “Trump approval rating Jan 26, 2017 59%”
            Depends on whether you’re talking about an average of polls or individual polls.”
            Nope – there is only a single daily presidential approval poll.

            BTW – 538.com is NOT a poll. They are NOT even an agregator,
            They make their own choices regaring reliability and calculate a weighted result, and they have an abysmnal track record.
            Nate should go back to baseball where his technicques work.

            “It’s been consistently better”
            Again you cite 538 – which is not a poll
            Regardless, there is still only one daily presidential approval poll.

            “If you’re talking about a single poll, that’s false too, as can be seen by looking at the list of individual polls in the above link.”
            No I am talking about the only daily presidential approval poll that exists.

            ““C19 does not care about any government policy.”
            It cannot think and so doesn’t care about anything.”
            Baby steps.

            “Even so, government policies affect how it spreads”
            Not according to the evidence.

            “as can be see, for example, in New Zealand and South Korea.”
            New Zealand is an island with limited contact with the rest of the world that quickly moved to shut itself down.

            Specifically what did SK or NZ do that worked – and why did other countries that did exactly the same thing FAIL ?

            “As for your Federalist link, some courts ruled solely on issues like standing, but some addressed the merits.”
            Typical leftist rot.

            Using the word “merits” does not make something on the merits.

            Ludwig’s decsions was based on failure to find a violation of Trump’s rights.

            I agree with that – Candidates do not have the right to a fair election.

            That is the right of citizens.

            Ludwig had a DUTY to citizens to hold evidentiary hearings given the afadavits presented.

            At BEST what you have is a judge reading a sworn affadavit and deciding to ignore it – for whatever reason.

            That is not how the rule of law works.

            In fact that is precisely what Adams warned us against.

            Even the text you Cite PROVES my cause.

            This is not about Trump having an oportunity to prove his case.

            The OBLIGATION, the DUTY, to conduct trustworthy elections rests with GOVERNMENT – not Candidates.

            Before Trump entered the first courtroom – the GOVERNMENT was obligated not only to conduct elections in a lawful and fraud free manner – but to do so such that ALL OF US would be able to SEE and KNOW that was the case.

            Instead they did the opposite.

            Why does the obligation rest with government ?

            “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, ”

            When government fails to secure our trust – WE are free to alter or abolish it – by force, even armed insurection if necescary.

            We have fought here over whether the protests are the capital were an armed insurrection.

            While they were not – a lawless OR fraudulent election justifies ARMED INSURECTION.

            “When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”

  5. Trump ended his speech at 1:10 p.m. The first rioter entered the Capitol at 2:12 p.m

    This so totally undermines the argument that the riot was imminent.

    One hour is not imminent in any way.

    Of course, if we are to go to emotional distress, how many of those protecting that Courthouse in Portland were distreessed when Speaker Pelosi called them stormtroopers and demanded that the arsonist, riotous mob stop them?

    1. The emotional distress claim is stupdi.

      There is no right to be a representative.

      If Swallwell can not take the heat – he should get out off th kitchen

  6. “We got the nukes” Swalwel pretty much vindicated trump when he tweeted, “We got the nukes,” to some american 2a lovers. for some reason, completely mysterious and unrelated to dropping nuclear weapons on civilians.

    1. Swallwell is an idiot.

      In a different era Democrats would be embarrassed by him.

      Today they celebrate him.

      These are the people the left has put in charge.

      Doesn;t that say it all ?

  7. OT NYT …and who is this policy supposed to be good for?


    BREAKING NEWS
    The number of migrant children detained at the border has tripled in two weeks to more than 3,250, as the U.S. struggles to find room in shelters.”

    1. And democrats were ranting that over the course of several years Trump had about 400 minors separated from parents – of which all but 5 were returned to parents or relatives. And those 5 – the Parents refused to take them back.

      Biden is working furiously to process the unattended minors in under 72hours. That means he can not possibly be sure that these children are being returned to actual parents of relatives.

      It is highly likely that many of them are being released to trafficers.

      WE should further see information on the ages of these “children”

      MS-013 pushed over 10,000 foot soldiers through US immigration during the obama administration – by sending over unaccompanied teens.

      These were then incorporated into US drug gangs.

      It is likely we are seeing atleast some of the same thing.

      We are already seeing a large spike in violence in US cities as a consequence of defunding the police riots over the summer.

      An influx of 10,000+ MS-13 gang members will massively spike gang violence in the US.

      So much for the unintended consequences of democrats immigration policies.

      The most important factor assuring that democrat control of govenrment will be very short lived is DEMOCRATS.

      Actually getting what they want will result in failure.

      While I will continue to rant about their stupidity. the abiltiy to thwart it is gone. We can revel that democrats in power is a self punishing act.

  8. I thought frivolous lawsuits used to be illegal? And speaking of illegal, why isn’t Swalwell in jail? He consorted with a spy. The law in this country has become a joke that isn’t funny.

    1. Consorting with a spy is not a crime.
      Giving classified information to them is.

      However consorting with a spy is a reason not to be trusted.
      And a reason not to sit on the intelligence committee.

      Though frankly Swallwell consroting with a chinese spy is just icing.

      Swallwell has been a idiotic political shill long before that became public.

  9. At the risk of triggering the mass of those who are zealots against Trump and hate him as their religion, I would not at all be surprised if the whole Capitol thing was a set up. We marveled at the Capitol Police who opened doors and encouraged entry to the protestors; how could they be on Trump’s side??? Well, what if they were not? What if Pelosi’s denial of the use of troops was the plan all along? I know, it’s far fetched, but no more so than what you’d have to believe if you were Swalwell, and of course lots of people take all that on faith, too. For now, I have an open mind and would like to see more facts made public. No firearms recovered? Babbit’s parents considering a lawsuit? Police officer died but for an unknown cause that was not, according to his mom, getting hit with a fire extinguisher? Too many strange conditions to just easily blame this on Trump and frame it as an insurrection. If it did turn out to be a set up, we are dealing with some very heavy tactics as the Dems try to take over America forever. Just thinking out loud…

    1. “No firearms recovered? ”

      Firearms were recovered. If they’d arrested more people on Jan. 6 instead of letting them walk out, I bet they’d have recovered more. You can see how many people have been charged with weapons violations (some firearms, some other weapons) –
      https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases

      “I would not at all be surprised if the whole Capitol thing was a set up.”

      I would be surprised if you’re right.

      1. yeah , sure my man. Even deep stater tater wray said no firearms at the jan 6th protest. Meanwhile the swallowell apparatchnik from kalifornika sleeps with a Chinese communist spy… and you are a senile chicom biden lover down with that. Duly noted traitor.

      2. Any time you read an account by people who call themselves ‘Anonymous’, just substitute “LIAR” for ‘Anonymous’ and you’ll get a much better feel for what they are saying. Anonymous is a Democrat Troll who is twisting the truth to push a false narrative. Alexandria O. Cortez, is that you? Are you posting this crap as Anonymous?

        This was not an armed insurrection. The only person who used a firearm was the Capitol police officer who murdered a female Air Force veteran with 12 years of service to our country. The people inciting the violence were Democrat agent provocateurs (BLM and/or Antifa), who used nonviolent, unwitting Trump supporters like soap. This ‘Reichstag Fire’ incident was coordinated by some of the most evil swamp creatures on the planet, as evidenced by the fact that some of the Capitol police were in on it.

        1. TV doesnt want us to know, but the agent that shot Ashlii was black.

          If it was vice versa, we still would have not heard the end of it.

        2. It is not correct to assume that anonymous means liar.

          It is however correct to place little trust or credibility in anonymous posts.

          Or anonymous whistle blowers.

          Anonymity is an important element of free speech – it is even sometimes necescary.
          But it rightfully comes at the expense of credibility.

      3. ““No firearms recovered? ”

        Firearms were recovered. ”
        Nope – not from inside the capital.

        Todate there remains no ividence that anyone inside the capital had a firearm.

        Thus far recovered firearms are from hotel rooms and cars.

        It remains to be established as a fact that these firearms were actually used ilegally.

        Possession of firearms is a constitutional right in the US.

        There are only specific forms of possession that are actually crimes.

        “if they’d arrested more people on Jan. 6 instead of letting them walk out, I bet they’d have recovered more.”
        You can bet whatever you want. Regardless you can not just arrest people because you want to.

        You have to have probable cause that they committed a crime to arrest someone.

        While some people broke windows and doors to get in – many walked in – invited by Capital police.

        When people are leaving the capital – you ca arrest those who broke in – if you have probable cause that they broke in.

        Only a small portion of those who participated in the Kavanaugh protests were arrested.
        Only a small portion – if any of those rioting at the supreme court were arrested.

        Ultimately all of those had charges dropped – which with few exceptions should occur here.

        “You can see how many people have been charged with weapons violations (some firearms, some other weapons)”
        Do you have actual evidence that any of those had weapons inside the capital ?
        The FBI says no.

        ““I would not at all be surprised if the whole Capitol thing was a set up.”

        I would be surprised if you’re right.”

        To a limited extent we agree. I actually doubt that Pelosi deliberately F’d up – but she clearly F’d up.

        I am iffier on whether the FBI was montioring Qannon – or encouraging them, or even running them.
        Given the FBI’s abysmal reputation fo manufacturing cases against muslim teenagers, as well as the crossfire huricane and Mueller mess my trust of the FBI is abysmal.

        But then that is not new. From MLK through today – can you give me any reason to beleive the FBI is to be trusted ?

        Regardless there are many many actors. a great deal of incompetence and anarchy.

        Had you had an actual armed insurection

        IT WOULD HAVE SUCCEEDED.

        And that is why there is razor wire arround the capital today.

        Those in power are terrified – not by what did happen – but by what easily could have happened.

        Had Stolen election protestors been half as organized as BLM – Trump would be in the whitehouse right now.
        And democrats know that.

        1. Bob Lawblaw didn’t limit his firearms question to “inside the capital,” and I didn’t limit my answer in that way either. Your choice to add that condition is irrelevant to his comment and my response.

          You have tremendous difficulty dealing with claims as they are. Over and over again, you move the goalposts.

          “Do you have actual evidence that any of those had weapons inside the capital ? The FBI says no.”

          You’re lying. The FBI didn’t say that, and I already corrected you about this same false claim of yours last night –
          https://jonathanturley.org/2021/03/08/is-eric-swalwell-the-answer-to-trumps-prayers/comment-page-1/#comment-2070974

          1. You can not accuse ME of making false claims without using MY words as I wrote them.

            You are correct – YOU are not required to constrian yourself to inside the capital – UNLESS you try to claim I have lied – which you have.

            But this debate is over whether YOU, the LEFT, Democrats, the media, LIED about an armed insurection.

            An armed insurection does NOT require firearms. But is DOES require more than a Mob using whatever is convenient.
            It requires an organized armed attack. It requires planning – including WEAPONS planning.

            There is no doubt as an example that those at charlottesville – on BOTH SIDES PLANNED for conflict.

            The unite the right protestors came with sheilds – they were clearly expecting to be attacked.

            While counter protestors came with frozen water bottles and bottels containing urine – it is clear they intended to ATTACK.

            There is no doubt that capital protestors came with the hope of getting congress not to certify the election.
            You may not like that – but it is a legitimate aim.

            Regardless there was no orgainized effort to accomplish that objective through force of arms.

            There was no armed insurrection. YOU, the LEFT, Democrats, the media, LIED.

            You have chosen to defend yourself through hairsplitting.
            And even there you have mostly failed.

            FBI did not recover 1 gun inside the capital. Sanborn was not aware of 1 gun recovered inside the capital.
            YOUR lack of evidence from other sources is NOT proof there was weapons.
            YOUR digression into debates over “what is a weapon” – is not an armed insurection.

            When you claim that hundreds possibly thousands of people engaged in an Armed insurection incited by Trump – you need EVIDENCE that you do not have – and that you are not close to.

            Something is not an armed insurection because you disapprove of the goals of those protesting.

            The utter lack of guns INSIDE the capital is proof that you are LYING.

            If protestors had brough thousands of guns and left them outside the capital it would NOT be an armed insurection.

            The distinction between inside and outside matters. because a claim of an armed insuraction requires PROOF that ARMS were used or intended to be used to acheive a political objection – not merely words, and threats and shouting.

            Finding ARMS does not prove an armed insurection. But failure to find them disproves that narrative. Even finding small numbers of arms 0 disproves that narrative.

            An armed insurection is not 1000 people – 10 of whom were armed.

            This debate is only about the details to the extent – that the evidence for your narative fails so badly – you have not found ANY arms inside the capital.

            Finally – the pedantic nonsense you continue to fight over leaves you as a LIAR even if you win.

            Whatever the capital police might have or not have – it is evident that YOU do not know what they have.

            You have claimed an ARMED insurection – without actual knowledge of arms.

            1. “You can not accuse ME of making false claims without using MY words as I wrote them.”

              LMAO. I did quote your words as you wrote them. That’s what the quotation marks indicated. Get a grip, dude, and pay attention to what you’re reading. I also quoted Sanborn in the comment I linked to. If you’d bothered clicking on the link and reading it, you’d know why your claim “Do you have actual evidence that any of those had weapons inside the capital ? The FBI says no.” is false. Sanborn did NOT say that there were no weapons recovered; she was only asked about firearms and only responded about firearms, not about all weapons.

              ” YOU, the LEFT, Democrats, the media, LIED.”

              You haven’t once quoted anything I’ve said that’s false, but you keep baselessly accusing me of lying.

              You’re an exceptional hypocrite. You insist “You can not accuse ME of making false claims without using MY words as I wrote them” but then you make no effort to meet your own standards.

              “Sanborns testimoney … does completely destroy the “armed insurrection” false narative”

              No, it doesn’t.

              Again: she wasn’t asked about weapons in general, only about firearms, and she wasn’t asked how many were confiscated altogether from those arrested, only how many were confiscated on Jan. 6th, and she explicitly stated that she didn’t know what might have been confiscated by the Metro and Capitol Police.
              Sen. Ron Johnson asked: “How many firearms were confiscated in the Capitol or on Capitol grounds during that day?” and Sanborn answered: “To my knowledge we’ve not recovered any on that day from any of the arrests at the scene at this point, but I don’t want to speak on behalf of Metro and Capitol Police, but to my knowledge none.”

              Note that unlike you, Johnson also asks about firearms recovered on the Capitol grounds. Sanborn wasn’t aware of any, but at least one person, Christopher Alberts, has been charged with “Unlawful Possession of a Firearm on Capitol Grounds or Buildings” and “Possession of a Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device.” You can read the indictment on the DOJ page I linked to earlier. But the more significant point is that “armed” doesn’t just mean firearms. Maybe you don’t care that people had tasers, baseball bats, bear spray, etc, and used those weapons to harm the police. If so, that’s on you.

              “If Sanborn had testified that the FBI recovered 5 guns – that would STILL prove YOU lied. ”

              I haven’t lied, John, you are so astoundingly sloppy with evidence that you apparently can’t distinguish between what I’ve actually said and what others may have said. You keep making these baseless accusations without ever quoting something that I (not someone else) said and providing evidence that it’s false. Don’t be a hypocrite, John, if you’re going to accuse me, then meet your own standards: “You can not accuse ME of making false claims without using MY words as I wrote them.”

              1. No you did not – you omitted part of the quote and that change the meaning – that is LYING.

                It is not my words as I wrote them.

                BTW quotation marks do not make something a quote. Accuracy, completeness and context are required.
                Otherwise you are lying.

              2. You quote many things – with context – when it serves you, and without when it does not.

              3. BTW I KNOW what Sanborn said and NO, it does not make the claim that no firearms were found in the capital false.

                You are incredibly poor at logic, and I have been through this once before with you.

                First – Sandborn was actually obligated to know what the Capital Police had recovered. She was brought to congress to testify – and she was supposed to prepare for possible questions before she came. Further the FBI and CP are jointly dealing with this.
                It is theoretically possible they are not sharing information – if that is the case – Senators should know and that problem should be fixed.

                Next. lets assume sanborn does not know. Lack of knowledge on her part is NOT evidence of the presence of firearms.

                The probability is the OPPOSITE of what you claim. If the FBI is unaware of any firearms recovered – the odds are strongly that NONE were recovered.

                REGARDLESS, the odds are enormously against the recovery of large numbers.

                I would note that it is near certain Johnson asked a question he already knew the answer to.

                Because we ALL know the answer – if Firearms had been recovered – it would have been on the news every day since Jan. 6.

              4. You continue to try to engage is deceptive word games.

                sanborn’s testimony is no more than an admission of what we already know.
                If you must bring someone from the DC police and finish nailing down the coffin.

                There were not hundreds of guns – inside or outside the capital – how do we know ? Because if there was it would have been reported.
                There were not tens of guns – for the same reason.
                It is unlikely there was ONE gun – for the same reason.

                The assorted charges you fixate on – even if true PROVE how inconsequential, this all was.

                There was no armed insurection.

                There wasn’t even the equivalent of an average night at the Portland Federal Court.

              5. In related news a CBS affiliated journalist is being investigated for infiltrating the protestors and inciting them to violence.

                In all likelyhood there was more Antifa at the Capital on the 6th than Qanon.

                Your “narative” has come apart – you have LIED.

              6. Still focused on the weapons nonsense.

                So lets bring her back and ask her

                “Ms. Sanborn – were any Battle Axes recovered ?”

                “Ms. Sanborn – were any Bedroom slippers recovered ?”

                There are requirements that you must meet to have something most of us would consider an armed insurection.

                At Lexington – 77 ARMED colonists stood up against 700 British regulars.

                That is what ARMED INSURECTION looks like.

                The battle continued to concorde – in the end about 50 colonists were killed and about 70 British.

                Had “armed insurection” occured at the capital – it could be defended. The declaration of indepenence establishes that the violent overthrow of government is justified when that government does not have the consent of the governed.
                A lawless election – does not constitute consent.

                So far 4 courts in 4 different states have found that their executives acted LAWLESSLY in the election.
                There are additional court determinations of fraud and error in other places. There is a finding from the GA senate election committee that Raffensburger acted outside the GA election law.

                It is certain there will be more over time.

                These are decisions by courts and judges that applied the law as written.
                They also have history on their side. ALL these lawless GOVERNMENT actions during the 2020 election have no prior precident.
                Past governor’s or Sec. States followed these laws. In 2020 they did not. They converted their own utterances into the law.

                The rule of Man, not the rule of law. Lawlessness.

                Shakespeare got it. Why can’t you ?

                https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.dg-DZGF39yGQFz39W1ucIAHaE8

              7. ATS – you seem to be incapable of grasping that the very evidence you present damns you.

                You have provided some detail on the recovery of firearms from a car on the capital grounds.

                77 Armed colonists shooting at 700 british regulars – is an ARMED INSURECTION.

                Finding a couple of guns in a car and hotel room in DC is an ordinary Day in DC.

                Regardless it is not an armed insurection.

                Of source you have lied – and you are doing an excellent job of proving it.

                The more inconsequential you demonstrate this was the bigger a LIE you have been telling about it.

          2. I am not moving the gaolposts – you are.

            YOU, the LEFT, Democrats, the media, made the claim “Armed insurection”.

            I did not.

            It is self evident that YOU, the LEFT, Democrats, the media, did not have evidence of Armed insurection.

            You transformed rumours inuendo and false claims into a false narrative that has failed.

            Sanborns testimoney does not refute every single effort you make to microparse your way out of this.

            Bujt it does completely destroy the “armed insurrection” false narative”

            If Sanborn had testified that the FBI recovered 5 guns – that would STILL prove YOU lied. It would just not be a huge bright line.

            Regardless this is about YOU, the LEFT, Democrats, the media, LYING – not me.

            The “goal posts” have not moved.

    2. The events at the capital on Jan 6. were anarchy. Myriads of different actors were persuing their own agenda
      often unbenownst to each other and at odds with each other.

      As you noted – protestors were being let into the capital at the same time as other capital police were forcefully denying entry.

      The capital never should have been shutdown.
      It would have been trivial for the capital police – all 2400 of them to establish controlled access to the capital – limiting the number of people in at any time and preventing them from bringing in weapons.

      At the same time – if shutting down the capital could possibly be justified – it never should bave been done in the half assed stupid ineffective means it was.

      There is no doubt that antifa participated – there is video by Antifa members documenting their own participation.

      At the same time there is little doubt of a Qannon element.

      There is also good reasonj to suspect that the FBI has been “running” Qannon from the start – or at the very least that their invovlment in monitoring Qannon crossed the line into entrapment and fasciliation. Nor should this surprise after the collusion delusion fiasco.

      There is still disputes over who informed who of what ahead of time. The FBI claims they told everybody from the Whitehouse to the capital police and Pelosi and Shumer – multiple times. While many of those claim they were never informed.

      Conversely the Capital police are at odds with Pelosi’s office on their requests for assistance.

      It appears that Pelosi’s office was the impediment to bringing the National Guard in BEFORE the event.

      We should have impeached Pelosi not Trump.

      Regardless, we should resist the temptation to presume malfeasance – especially on the part of government – when incompetence will suffice.

      Had the protestors ACTUALLY had the organization and intentions that democrats fear – they would have been successful.

      Here and now we are debating left wing trolls over whether there were “weapons” or plasticuffs brought by protestors.

      That debate has degraded the left to now claiming that “chairs and flag poles are weapons” – fine – the protests we saw last summer were a massive armed insurrection for which democrats and the left and anyone who gave aide and comfort should be prosecuted.

      Regardless, what is self evident is that there was NOT hundreds of organized Armed protestors intent on thwarting the election certification by force of arms.

      How can we be absolutely certain of that ?

      Because if there had been, they would have succeeded.

      We know there was no armed insurection at the capital on Jan 6. Because had their been one – it would have succeeded.

    1. Yes, we know – it is a crime to expect an honest election.

      Another posted has provided an except from the GA Senate report on the election. It is damning – specifically to the Sec. State.

      It is worse than anything Trump claimed.

      Put simply Raffensberger failed miserably. He violated the public Trust.

      So any claim that Trump tried to interfere is a claim that Trump tried to set right a fraudulent election.

      “The oral testimonies of witnesses on December 3, 2020, and subsequently, the written
      testimonies submitted by many others, provide ample evidence that the 2020 Georgia
      General Election was so compromised by systemic irregularities and voter fraud that it
      should not be certified.”

      GA Senate finding on the 2020 Election.

  10. In other news connected to the Capitol insurrection and Trump’s big lie about the election being stolen …

    NYT: Robert Minuta, “A suspected member of the Oath Keepers militia who provided security for Roger J. Stone Jr. on the day the Capitol was attacked has been arrested in connection with the riot, federal authorities said on Monday.”

    Federico Klein, a former State Department aide and Trump appointee was arrested a couple of days ago in connection with Capitol riot.

    Today, the Supreme Court denied review to 20-883, the last of the pending 2020 election challenges that were brought by the Trump campaign.

    1. The election was stolen. At the request of democrats (i.e. communist allies of China) who were facing a massive landslide victory by the the enormously successful President Trump, China released the biological weapon, “China Flu, 2020,” 9 months before a presidential election. Oh my, what coincidentally great timing, right, comrade? Turnout in 1788 was 11.6% by design. Never did the Founders intend for the “poor” to vote in Ben Franklin’s restricted-vote “republic, if you can keep it.” Liberals have corrupted elections and the intended vote for centuries. Democrats have brought in illegal aliens as voters for 50+ years. The only legal election day is Tuesday, one 24 hour period. Vote-by-mail is definitively corrupt which is why democrats use it. Election observers were blocked. Vote counting was stopped at 10 PM and restarted at 3 AM. Ballot-carrying trucks crossed state lines. Violations of state election laws was clear and blatant. People are being prosecuted as we speak for vote tampering and ballot harvesting. We’ll soon learn through discovery whether Dominion et al. were manipulated and tampered with by the introduction, through thumb drives, of vote-changing algorithms.

      Stay tuned, comrade.

    2. It must be the biggest lie in history, corroborated by over 1000 liars under oath, lying cctv footage in Atlanta and Detroit, lying edison data showing votes being flipped, lying precincts with more votes than voters, the lying dead voting in their multitudes, lying illegal citizens voting in their thousands, lying fake ballots shredded by the honest FBI, and lying Joe Biden who informed us well before the election -“we have put together the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in history!”

      1. California’s EDD had no ID enrollment for benefits and they only had $30+ BILLION in fraudulent applicants! Not too bad eh?
        I think we can mail in drug tests now too!
        This proves only the equivalent of $30 BILLION is fraudsters were voting!
        The max weekly award is , what is $30,000,000,000 divided by $24,000?
        30000000000 US dollars / 24000 US dollars = 1,250,000
        So only 1.25 MILLION voters cheated lolol.

    3. IN OTHER NEWS: “Not Only Cuomo Culpable In Sexual Harassment Cases”

      Apparently some, nay, many women like “sexual harassment.”
      ________________________________________________

      Is the very ineligible Kamel Hairyiss a MeToo girl?

      Are “undesirable sexual harassment” and “desirable promotion for sex” fungible definitions for the girls?

      Looks like Kamel liked “sexual harassment” when Willy did it to her.

      Did Kamel turn Willy in for “sexual harassment” after he gave her a BIG raise and a promotion?

      Willy was married with children – was there a moral component when Kamel was personally provided with her “performance appraisal?”

    4. From the findings of the Ligon Report in Georgia (by Senator William T Ligon):
      “1- The November 3, 2020 election was chaotic and the results cannot be trusted.
      2- The Secretary of State and the State Elections Board failed to enforce the law as written in the Georgia Code, and furthermore, created policies that contravened State law. As Senator Matt Brass concluded at the December 3 hearing, “We have heard evidence
      that State law was not followed, time after time after time.”
      3- The Secretary of State failed to have a transparent process for the verification of
      signatures for absentee ballots, for the counting of votes during the subsequent recount
      and audit, and for providing the type of guidance and enforcement necessary to ensure
      that monitors and other observers had meaningful access to the process.
      4- The Secretary of State instituted an unconstitutional gag order so that monitors were
      told not to use photography or video recording devices during the recount.
      5- Election officials at all levels failed to secure test ballots and actual ballots. Many reports
      indicate that proper procedures were not followed, and there was systematic failure to
      maintain appropriate records of the chain of custody for these ballots, both prior to and
      after voting and throughout the recount.
      6- The Secretary of State and Election Supervisors failed to stop hostile behavior of
      workers toward citizen volunteer monitors during the recount process.
      7- The events at the State Farm Arena are particularly disturbing because they
      demonstrated intent on the part of election workers to exclude the public from viewing
      the counting of ballots, an intentional disregard for the law. The number of votes that
      could have been counted in that length of time was sufficient to change the results of
      the presidential election and the senatorial contests. Furthermore, there appears to be
      coordinated illegal activities by election workers themselves who purposely placed
      fraudulent ballots into the final election totals.
      8- Grants from private sources provided financial incentives to county officials and exerted
      influence over the election process.
      9- The oral testimonies of witnesses on December 3, 2020, and subsequently, the written
      testimonies submitted by many others, provide ample evidence that the 2020 Georgia
      General Election was so compromised by systemic irregularities and voter fraud that it
      should not be certified.”

      1. “Six Georgia senators released a 15-page report of their December 3, 2020 hearing”

        Why didn’t the other GA senators sign on to it?

    5. This is not new and not meaningful.

      Wow! people who knew other people were arrested for something.

      Do we need to list the people who Hunter Biden (or Joe) knew who have been arrested ?

  11. Voltaire: “O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous”–or better yet, make them anonymous trolls.

    Napoleon: “From the sublime to the ridiculous is but a small step”–one small step for Napoleon, a giant leap for our trolls.

      1. How many trolls does it take to eat a possum? Two, one to dine and one to watch for cars.

        1. How many trolls does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Just one. He sticks it in and his whole world revolves around him.

        2. +100 for this:

          “Author unknown: Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.”

  12. Jonathan:

    If you haven’t seen these videos, you might want to take the time…

    I know that you’ve consulted on Assange’s case. Maybe you could help with this — again — like in the old days…

    “The Mauritanian: Interview with Mohamedou Slahi – System Update with Glenn Greenwald”

    1. Glenn’s comment, today, retweeted by Mohamedou O Slahi:

      “Mohamedou O Slahi (Houbeini) ولد صلاحي Retweeted
      Glenn Greenwald
      @ggreenwald
      ·
      6h
      Imprisoned without charges for fourteen years in Guantánamo,
      @MohamedouOuld

      is a symbol of humans’ impulse to abuse power and their capacity for redemption.

      The interview I conducted with him on Saturday is one I sincerely hope you will watch. A preview:…”

      https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1368939357139316741

  13. Discovery looms in Arizona, Swalwell, Powell, Giuliani and Lindell.

    The facts of electoral corruption, election fraud, vote tampering, etc., will ultimately be produced,

    or the perjurious guilty adjudicated against.

    1. ‘“The Mauritanian”: Film Tells Story of Innocent Man Held at Guantánamo for 14 Years Without Charge’

Leave a Reply