Validuz, I am curious what would have Ron Paul done during the Great Recession 2008?

Considering you're a fucking idiot, I dont expect you to ask any questions before jumping to conclusions.

edit:
There was a downturn when reagan was in office, bush 1, and 2 separate downturns during bush 2, just an fyi for you scooby.

Really, so tell me what you were doing during the Reagan years you fucking pinhead.
 
Really, so tell me what you were doing during the Reagan years you fucking pinhead.

So now somebody needs to have lived through a historical event to know it happened?

well shit, what the hell happened the last 10,000 years if nobody is around?
 
Last edited:
So now somebody needs to have lived through a historical event to know it happened?

well shit, what the hell happened the last 10,000 years if nobody is around?

No, but it helps because you do not get clouded from reading biased material of your choosing especially when it comes to politics. Especially when it comes to a snot nosed little kid know it all like yourself who thinks he knows all the answers.
 
No, but it helps because you do not get clouded from reading biased material of your choosing especially when it comes to politics. Especially when it comes to a snot nosed little kid know it all like yourself who thinks he knows all the answers.

Oh, I didnt realize that every single history book that records the economic recessions during republican presidencies was biased.

my bad.
 
Obama is bound and determined to try and spend us out of this recession. He is just now starting to realize that free market principles is what it will take to fix the economy. But even then he is not going to let the fre market run its course. he is going to try and manipulate the market, which will not get him the results he is hoping for.
 
I am reading Freefall by joesph stiglitz and am doing a book review.

Any economist worth his weight would know stiglitz is a self-proclaimed keynesian [big regulation, big gov't expenditure, etc etc].

He makes some valid points on what should have happened and respectfully he called this recession a long time ago (shortly after 2006 and also when bernanke ignored reports of the insane sub prime mortgage market).

I don't think more regulation would have fixed this problem, we just needed efficient regulation.

This recession was truly everyone's fault. The fed, the gov't, the banks, the regulators, and mostly us, the consumers.

Curious to see what Libertarians would have done.
I don't know how I missed this thread for this long. Also, I'm not a Libertarian, but the answer should be obvious:

Let the banks fail like they're supposed to. Most will be consumed up by non-shitty banks, CEOs will get canned, lawsuits will be filed, etc. We'll all suffer a bit, but not as bad as continuing on the same route, only trillions more in debt.

You really think even the slightest fiscal conservative (someone with a brain) would agree to spending trillions to help failed companies, so they can fail more down the road? Are you retarded? Really?

Maybe next time, Congress won't push banks into giving loans and shitty banks won't give them.

p.s. Forgive me if I don't believe the economists who said "doing nothing is worse than doing something!!" because they're the same ones that got us into this mess.
 
Oh, I didnt realize that every single history book that records the economic recessions during republican presidencies was biased.

my bad.

this isn't a recession or a depression, its the black horse of revelation

the great depression was nothing compared to this. back then they didn't know how to create a disaster this big so it exploded quickly and was repaired quickly.
 
Wasn't it regulation that forced the banks to take subprime loans?
Yep.

Well maybe "forced" isn't the right word, but yes, the same result/idea. And not all "regulation" isn't a bad thing, but telling banks who to give loans out to, is.
 
I'm not a Libertarian, but I hardly see how this thread is a good counter argument to the philosophy. This is like driving your car towards a cliff and then two seconds before flying off (or maybe in this case two seconds after flying off) offering the wheel to the passenger who's always been nagging at you to drive safer. It wasn't a libertarian philosophy that got us into this mess so using this scenario as an attempt to discredit the philosophy is kind of stupid.

The real question should be: Where would libertarian philosophies have brought us if we'd used them for the last few decades? I don't really know the answer to that though...

That and whether TARP or the stimulus or everything else helped us in the short or longterm are opinions that aren't agreed upon by professional economists (who are nowhere near omniscient) so I don't really see the use of making fun of people for different ideas of them here.
 
I don't know how I missed this thread for this long. Also, I'm not a Libertarian, but the answer should be obvious:

Let the banks fail like they're supposed to. Most will be consumed up by non-shitty banks, CEOs will get canned, lawsuits will be filed, etc. We'll all suffer a bit, but not as bad as continuing on the same route, only trillions more in debt.

You really think even the slightest fiscal conservative (someone with a brain) would agree to spending trillions to help failed companies, so they can fail more down the road? Are you retarded? Really?

Maybe next time, Congress won't push banks into giving loans and shitty banks won't give them.

p.s. Forgive me if I don't believe the economists who said "doing nothing is worse than doing something!!" because they're the same ones that got us into this mess.

Again. You don't know what you're talking about.

Congress pushed banks into giving loans, sure. That doesn't mean that congress forced them. Our tax system pushes us to have kids because we get tax incentives, does that mean I'm going to have kids because of those incentives? no.

We didn't spend trillions moron.
 
according to wikipedia Bush's administration did push for regulation of banks, but it didnt help

im amazed to think you people still believe in regulation.

Greenspan said:
"My view of the range of dispersion of outcomes has been shaken, but not my judgment that free competitive markets are by far the unrivaled way to organize economies." He concluded: "We have tried regulation ranging from heavy to central planning. None meaningfully worked. Do we wish to retest the evidence?

the solution isn't in the federal reserve, part of the problem is though.
 
according to wikipedia Bush's administration did increase regulation of banks, but it didnt help

im amazed to think you people still believe in regulation.



the solution isn't in the federal reserve, part of the problem is though.

No the problem was more than just "more regulation". It was the lack of efficient regulation. Allowing financial institutions to become too big to fail was a failure on our part.
 
No the problem was more than just "more regulation". It was the lack of efficient regulation. Allowing financial institutions to become too big to fail was a failure on our part.

printing money was the failure, people had too much of it and nothing to do with it. so they put it in the housing market because there is really no other place to invest money

no reserve currency, no production industry, no gain in the oil industry, and high overhead cost of investing in Asia. bits and pieces of the american economy have been bitten off and systematically shipped overseas to the point where there is no place to send money but asia where everything is made
 
Back
Top