| Author | Message | ||
     Blake |
Cost of housing is more than covered by wage increases if you also factor in the average size of the home in 1970 versus today. The integrity of any comparison requires not just apple to apple, but same size and type and condition of apple to same size type and condition of other apple. I recall paying over $500 for a little 19" Mitsubishi television set in 1985, no remote. Now I can purchase a 36" LCD HDTV including remote for the same or lesser price. And like was already noted, what you get today when you purchase an automobile or a house for that matter, on average is a LOT more than what you got in 1970. For instance, how many homes in 1970 offered air-conditioning and the quality of insulation that we typically see today? How many offered double pane windows? Were the bathrooms and kitchens anywhere near as well appointed then as they are today? How many had two car garages or were fully landscaped with sprinkler systems? What was the average home size in 1970 versus 2008? You cannot just toss out blind comparisons assuming that the item being used as a basis for economic comparison has remained unchanged in core value, not if you wish to have integrity in your argument. It takes a LOT of very careful work to ascertain the state of wages now versus in 1970 across the income scale. Doug, you've not done it. | ||
| Fast1075 |
So...what's this I heard about Harley moving???  | ||
| Davegess |
not if you wish to have integrity in your argument. Blake, what are you trying to do? This is the internet, we want to argue to argue not to make any sense at all. | ||
| Dbird29 |
Good points Blake | ||
| Doug_s |
glass-steagall repeal was supported by >70% of democrats and >90% of republicans in the republican-held congress. the prez who signed the glass-steagall repeal was the same one who pushed nafta. he was a democrat in name only. no one who supports the welfare of the average american worker would support either of these two acts. and, whoever thinks the repeal of glass-steagall was not a major cause of the housing bubble & meltdown in the banking industry is in the extreme minority. there's tons of links on the web out there. no reason to post them all. especially when you can find a few that refute it, as well. which was done here. and what difference does it make what my occupation is? or the fact that i have an i.q. of 160? i could be a sanitation engineer, or a nuclear engineer, or a university professor in economics. i have an opinion that is based upon my view of the world as i see it. if i were an econ professor, or worked in finance, would that make any difference? you can find these types on both sides of any issue you care to name. i don't care if someone is a republican or a democrat, the overwhelming odds are, that if he is an elected official, he is in the pocket of big business. big business are the folks that own the govt, regardless of what political label they pin on themselves. which is why i laugh when i hear barack detractors say he's a commie. if so, he wouldn't have woted for granting immunity to the big communications giants for wiolating wiretapping laws as one of his last acts as senator before the presidential election. he wouldn't be so gung-ho in afghanistan. he wouldn't have supported a healthcare plan that doesn't include a public option, and requires you to buy healthcare insurance. he wouldn't have been so eager to help wall street and the big auto companies; he would have let them flounder. imo, since the supreme court has yust granted big business corporations the status of a person, w/free speech rights protected under the constitution that were formerly only afforded to actual persons, i do not see this problem getting better any time soon... ymmv, doug s. | ||
| Sifo |
Well Doug, you can dismiss what I posted about how the repeal of Glass-Steagall wasn't a factor, but your argument would carry much more weight if there was an argument. You say it's so because it's on the internet. I provided an argument that discussed what banks were affected by the repeal of Glass-Steagall and compares that list to the major banks that got into trouble in the mortgage crisis. The banks that were in trouble were not part of the repeal. Feel free to show where banks that were part of the repeal were also part of the meltdown. That would add something to the discussion. Right now you are simply playing the game that the environmentalists play with global warming. Ignore the facts we are right because there's a bunch of us saying it true. That's yust lame! I take it you have zero training or education in this area. I have zero training in running a nuclear sub. Do you think the Navy would be interested in my opinions on running nuclear subs? Do you think I would be likely to have any good insights into running nuclear subs? Maybe if I claimed that there's blogs on the internet that support my view. I'm yust not sure the Navy would pay any attention. | ||
| Sifo |
Doug, Let's try it this way. If the government wasn't pushing bad loans on a public that couldn't afford to pay them, there's nothing that the repeal of Glass-Steagall would have done to cause any problem. It's kind of like looking at why the Titanic sank and blaming it on the huge gaping hole in the side. It's worth looking at the factors that lead to the hole being there in the first place. Ignoring how the hole got there yust doesn't make sense. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Background does matter in this discussion in that without a basic understanding of economic principles it's like debating the finer details of house building without understanding how a hammer works. Glass-Stegall didn't cause the melt down any more than raising the speed limit contributes to more automobile accidents. Do you think the safety protocols regarding the secondary market of mortgages as banded and sold through Freddie and Fannie being lifted created any problems? | ||
| Strokizator |
imo, since the supreme court has yust granted big business corporations the status of a person, w/free speech rights protected under the constitution that were formerly only afforded to actual persons, i do not see this problem getting better any time soon... The way I see it, if you levy taxes on a corporation then they are entitled to have a voice in govt. Or do you believe in taxation without representation? | ||
| Hootowl |
Businesses are made up of people, and people have rights. I have yet to hear a business open its mouth and speak. All the Supreme Court did was say that a company has the same rights that the unions have always enjoyed, and that little leveling of the playing field is what has the left so up in arms. | ||
| Doug_s |
interesting article from december of last year. even john mclame things glass-=steagall should come back, and that its repeal was a major cause of the housing & banking melt-down. http://www.newsweek.com/2009/12/14/an-odd-post-cra sh-couple.html interesting point in this article is that it refutes those who say glass-steagall's repeal had nothing to do w/the mess: "...Indeed, after last year's crash some experts concluded that the repeal of Glass-Steagall had little to do with it. After all, everybody—investment banks, nonbanks, insurance companies—had gotten into trouble: firms, in other words, that were not ostensibly changed by the repeal. Some even argued that the absence of Glass-Steagall made the cleanup easier: it allowed Bank of America to buy Merrill Lynch, for example. But that critique missed a larger point that McCain, Cantwell, and other critics are now trying to address. The blinding complexity and interconnections created by modern capital markets—especially because of the way nearly half a trillion dollars in derivatives trades linked the firms to each other—demanded that there be strong firewalls and capital buffers between Wall Street institutions and their affiliates, and between banks and nonbanks and insurance companies. Otherwise there would be no islands of safety—no healthy institutions left to come and rescue the day, as commercial banks traditionally had done since the days of J. P. Morgan's famous bailout in 1907. The repeal of Glass-Steagall took things in precisely the opposite direction, eliminating most of the firewalls and inviting staid commercial banks into the buccaneering world of Wall Street trading. Representative Hinchey says it "was a recipe for disaster because these banks were empowered to make large bets with depositors' money, and money they didn't really have. When many of those bets, particularly in the housing sector, didn't pan out, the whole deck of cards came crumbling down and U.S. taxpayers had to come to the rescue." Today the walls between firms still seem low indeed, and trading in derivatives that are "over the counter" (that is, out of public sight) continues at an astonishing pace, having risen back up to nearly $600 trillion worth. One big danger sign ahead is that the biggest banks have gotten even bigger in the aftermath of the catastrophe, and under the new rules requiring swap dealers to post capital for margin requirements, the big banks are likely to monopolize even more of this derivatives market and become that much richer and more powerful. That won't necessarily be a problem—unless the next crash proves once again that they cannot be allowed to fail, and the government must step in. Until McCain and Cantwell decided to speak out, very little that is currently under consideration by Congress or the executive branch would have changed that. anyone who seriously believes that repealing glass-steagall had no impact on the mess can't see the big picture, or has ulterior motives... does this mean i like the fact that the feds bailed out fannie & freddie as well? no, but it happened only benefit to the uber wealthy, at the expense of everyone else. i fail to see what's "socialist" about it. i have said here many times before - no matter whether you are democrat or republican, if you want to get elected, you need to be in the pocket of the big moneyed interests... personally, i would have preferred zero bank bailouts, zero auto bailouts, zero real estate bailouts, etc. would everything be a lot worse today than it is now? probably, but ten or twenty years from now, i think they'd be better than they're gonna be, since we're doing all this corporate welfare, giving the federal treasury to the wealthy. do i have any proof of this? no, it's yust a gut feeling... doug s. | ||
| Strokizator |
and what difference does it make what my occupation is? or the fact that i have an i.q. of 160? OK, I'm going to have to call "bullshit" on this one. Nothing you have written would suggest that you are in the 99.997 percentile. Such a person would likely know that prolly is not a word. Heck, even the spell checker knows that. I don't mean this as a personal attack but don't try to convince me you're views are correct simply because you claim to me smarter than me. | ||
| Sifo |
Doug, Again you are looking at the Titanic and blaming the gaping hole in the side for sinking the ship. | ||
| Doug_s |
damn! "prolly" isn't a word? and all this time, i thought it was! many thanks for setting me straight - how embarrassing!!! you know, i really do not care whether or not you believe i am as smart as i say i am. i am not looking to wow anyone, and i am not trying to conwince you or anyone else i am right, yust cuz i am smarter than y'all dumba**es. i was simply making a point that it does not matter that i am or am not an economist, or am or am not a professional in the financial sector. because even if i were, i could still be on either side of the issues being discussed here. yust as it doesn't matter how brilliant i may or may not be. and sifo, it's wishful thinking on your part - imo. i am blaming the design of the ship, when it's known it's gonna be sailing in seas w/icebergs. and i am blaming the operators for being asleep at the wheel cuz someone told them the ship was iceberg proof. your analogy doesn't hold water.  doug s. | ||
| Hootowl |
Don't go thinking I'm dumber than you just because you're smarter than I am.  | ||
| Sifo |
and sifo, it's wishful thinking on your part - imo. i am blaming the design of the ship, when it's known it's gonna be sailing in seas w/icebergs. and i am blaming the operators for being asleep at the wheel cuz someone told them the ship was iceberg proof. your analogy doesn't hold water. Only a complete fool would risk ramming ans iceberg in the middle of a foggy night, ship being declared unsinkable or not. Tearing a huge hole in the ship should never have happened in the first place. Pushing mortgages on people who couldn't pay for them is the Captain of the Titanic going full speed at night through the fog in waters known to have icebergs. You seem to want to blame the sinking on the hole. My analogy is ship shape. Click here and let me know when you find the answer you are pushing. Wiki pointing out that some are pushing Glass-Steagall doesn't count, that's yust stating the fact that some are pushing a failed spin. Seriously, why do you thing it's called the "Mortgage Crisis" in the first place. No one calls it the commercial bank crisis. That's because it's about bad mortgages. | ||
| Hootowl |
Wow Sifo, that WAS easy! Thanks! I love that site.... | ||
| Sifo |
Hey Doug, Let's try this, given that you're a smart guy. Explain to us in your own words how NOT repealing parts of the Glass-Steagall act would have protected us from all of the bad mortgage loans that the government was pushing. I'll be waiting on the edge of my seat!  | ||
| Blake |
In any debate a genius with an undisciplined and uneducated mind is no match for an average intellect trained in objectIve analysis and well-educated in the topic of debate. The genius will just likely be much more arrogant with an overblown ego that prevents honest objective debate. | ||
| Blake |
Wages have been outpaced by home prices over the past four decades. This was supposed to convince us that materially speaking, Americans are not as well off as we used to be. Just ran across an interesting article. An excerpt: For a little historical context, 1,200 square feet was the average home size in America in the 1960s. That grew to 1,710 square feet in the 1980s and 2,330 square feet in the 2000s. Doug? Does this not just bring your evidence crashing down, but on further analysis lend support to the exact opposite notion, that Americans enjoy more prosperity now save for the present economic woes than EVER before? Yes. Yes; I believe it does. | ||
| Blake |
My apologies to Dave Gess. | ||
| Davegess |
 | ||
| Doug_s |
Wages have been outpaced by home prices over the past four decades. This was supposed to convince us that materially speaking, Americans are not as well off as we used to be. Just ran across an interesting article. An excerpt: For a little historical context, 1,200 square feet was the average home size in America in the 1960s. That grew to 1,710 square feet in the 1980s and 2,330 square feet in the 2000s. from http://m.cnbc.com/us_news/38757287 Doug? Does this not just bring your evidence crashing down, but on further analysis lend support to the exact opposite notion, that Americans enjoy more prosperity now save for the present economic woes than EVER before? Yes. Yes; I believe it does. you can believe what you want. certainly, one of the reasons, (not the only reason, but definitely one of them), is that average home size has increased. but this tells only part of the story. what about quality of life? does a bigger house necessarily mean more prosperity? when being in debt up to your eyeballs adds stress? when job insecurity adds stress? when needing two incomes to support your family instead of one adds HUGE stress? prosperity is measured by more than how big your house is, methinks... median household income - adjusted for inflation - shows not much growth between 1975 and 2008 - $43k to $50k. http://www.davemanuel.com/median-household-income. php i wonder how many dual income families would rather take the slightly less income to go back to having their working hours cut in half by having a single income instead of two? and consider this "median" income is skewed by the huge increase in the incomes of the uber-wealthy - you know - those relatively few folks who actually have had their prosperity increased over the past 30-40 years or so... doug s. ps - sifo, i answered your g-s question in another thread on the quick board, as well as above, before you asked. but no need for you to respond, or to respond to other points i made - you're done, remember? (Message edited by doug_s on August 19, 2010) | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Bob. Weave. Change the subject. | ||
| Doug_s |
hey fatty, re you on a different planet? when i directly address the issue of prosperity - is the average american family better or worse off today (even before the present meltdown) or in the early 70's - you think i am bobbing/weaving/changing the subject?  you can look at any and all data you want. then you can come to a conclusion, one that is your opinion. my opinion is that the average american was better-off overall in 1970 than today. ya, even in a smaller house, w/o the internet, no cellfones, no car airbags. if you feel differently, cool - you have every right to. would i wanna give up the modern conweniences and the larger house? no, but i think everyone would really be better off if they had those conweniences and a less-stressful, more economically secure lifestyle. and, only the top 5% or so have been able to achieve this... doug s. | ||
| Mikef5000 |
you think i am bobbing/weaving/changing the subject? Since the subject was harley moving out of Milwaukee, I think someone sure as hell did! | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
In a debate, you must "pull through" and refute the specific arguments of your opponent. You didn't so that. You made the point that incomes hadn't risen. That statement was refuted with inflation adjusted numbers from YOUR SOURCE. You made the point that only the top 5% had incomes that rose in response to HOUSING. That statement was addressed in two forms: The numbers of buyers participating in the market artificially driving up the costs of housing was a contributing factor but more importantly people were buying MUCH more house than they were in the 70's. People have chosen to buy bigger houses. Adjust the housing to keep the factors the same, and the percentage of those who's incomes have risen in relation to HOUSING costs and the story is different. When you can't refute the specific details you choose to make statements of "believe what you want" and "prosperity is measured by more than how big your house is". These statements don't directly address any of the points brought forth to direct contradict your points. In the debate world, you would have failed to "pull through" the arguments. Did individuals have 2,3, 5 TVs in a household in 1970? Did individuals have mobile phones? Did individuals have 2,3, 5 computers in a household in 1970? Did individuals have 2,3,5 video game systems? VCRs? DVD Players? Cable/Satelite? Did individuals CHOOSE to purchase these items with debt in the 1970's?  People have CHOSEN to pursue the larger house, the bigger car, the big screen TV. NONE of these things are items people "need". If they have debt induced stress, it is of their own making. The really great thing, that I'm sure you will love, is that as people's financial situations implode and households are not able to meet their debt obligation, they are "deleveraging". This means that the acquired debt is being erased as individuals default. The individuals most hurt by this are the wealthy. The lower and middle classes used moneys borrowed from the wealthy to buy things they wanted from the wealthy. The wealthy are then left holding the bag when the lower and middle classes can't pay, but the lower and middle classes still have the goods and services purchased. | ||
| Doug_s |
The really great thing, that I'm sure you will love, is that as people's financial situations implode and households are not able to meet their debt obligation, they are "deleveraging". This means that the acquired debt is being erased as individuals default. The individuals most hurt by this are the wealthy. The lower and middle classes used moneys borrowed from the wealthy to buy things they wanted from the wealthy. The wealthy are then left holding the bag when the lower and middle classes can't pay, but the lower and middle classes still have the goods and services purchased. that would be true, if there weren't bailouts, and if the lower & middle classes didn't have their houses & possessions repossessed... doug s. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
The bottom 50% don't pay federal income taxes, so the rich are bailing out the rich. Much of the default lies with unsecured consumer debt. The repossession is the only way for the creditors to recover some of the losses, but the gap is still substantial. It isn't until the market "resets" that REAL wages and REAL prices will come back into balance. | ||
| Doug_s |
Did individuals have 2,3, 5 TVs in a household in 1970? Did individuals have mobile phones? Did individuals have 2,3, 5 computers in a household in 1970? Did individuals have 2,3,5 video game systems? VCRs? DVD Players? Cable/Satelite? Did individuals CHOOSE to purchase these items with debt in the 1970's?  People have CHOSEN to pursue the larger house, the bigger car, the big screen TV. NONE of these things are items people "need". If they have debt induced stress, it is of their own making. yes, it is true - folks have a lot more "stuff". i guess it's a chicken vs egg type question. all this "stuff" is being pushed on the average americans, so big corporations can make millions, and make even more by outsourcing, so the average americans who buy the stuff cannot even have the decent jobs manufacturing it. the reason the present economic slump is not turning around any faster is not cuz of anything the prez or congress is or is not doing, imo. it is because the consumer debt is so high. as depicted in the graph, folks have reached the end of their budget rope. folks don't want to go into any more debt, when they are unsure that they will be able to pay it off, when they are unsure they will have work. the housing bubble encouraged many folks to borrow against the equity in their homes, as the home walues on paper kept increasing. unfortunately for the lower & middle classes, their homes are/were where most if not all their assets are. those doing better, have assets elsewhere besides in their houses. as i mentioned earlier. the top 1% of the population owns ~85% of all the stocks... sure, there is certainly blame to go around. human beings, as a species, are greedy by nature. but, ultimately, who is profiting the most from all this? you think the middle & lower classes? i disagree. regarding the "statistics", by selective choosing, both of us can pick what supports our views. what i see is the rich getting richer, and everyone else struggling to keep their heads above water. do they have more stuff? maybe so, but they are still struggling. a lot of stress is based on perception; there is so much "stuff" around these days, it is truly mind boggling, and it's hard to keep up, even if you aren't interested in a lot of it. and a lot of stuff means you have to struggle all the more to be able to actually keep it and use it. doug s. |
