patrick.net

Homeboy says

Uh, no. Just spitting out "that doesn't apply" is not an explanation. My analogy is perfect. If one claims no murders take place with guns, and then ones "proof" is that there were murders before guns were invented, then ones proof is not valid. Likewise, if you claim the Fed isn't a cause of wealth disparity, and your "proof" is a chart that supposedly shows wealth disparity before there was Fed intervention, then your proof is not valid. Explain why that is not a valid analogy. Go ahead, explain it. Don't just call me names; explain it. You know you can't.

I've explained it several times. If you refuse to understand, that's your problem.

Again--my claim isn't the the Fed can't cause wealth disparity. My claim is that it the recent action of the Fed buying MBS cannot be the explanation for 30 years of increasing wealth disparity.

Read it again--slowly--do you understand now?

That's why I asked again--how is the Fed the cause of increasing wealth disparity over 30 years? Is there another cause that you guys have yet to define?

Homeboy says

Don't just call me names; explain it.

Done 4 times.

Homeboy says

I've given up on you providing an explanation as to how my analogy isn't spot on. Go ahead and surprise me though.

Done 4 times.

Homeboy says

WHY is it incorrect? You don't have an answer, do you?

Answered 4 times.

tatupu70 says

That's why I asked again--how is the Fed the cause of increasing wealth disparity over 30 years? Is there another cause that you guys have yet to define?

Which I have answered at least 4 times:

indigenous says

Point 2

I have stated before that it is due to the "rich" filing their taxes as an S corp or an LLC instead of a C corp as the marginal tax rate on an individual went from 50% to 28% in 1988. There were also tax changes in other years that contributed to this.

Additionally Elizabeth Warren (the part Cherokee lady) chatters endlessly about household income dropping steadily over the past 30yr. Problem is that the divorce rate has gone up during that time causing household income to be cut in half with every divorce.

Additionally the income of the poor is under reported because government transfers are not counted in the income of the poor. Also many of the middle class benefits are not counted as income.

indigenous says

I would also add that the main reason for the growing income disparity is the unpredictability of the government the current and last POTUS are wild cards which changes the odds, which hugely discourages investment.

I would also add that the cost of wasting resources on companies that should go away cannot be over stated as those resources would otherwise be used to create start ups who are literally the seed corn of the future. But the economically illiterate POTUS is eating the seed corn.

tatupu70 says

My claim is that it the recent action of the Fed buying MBS cannot be the explanation for 30 years of increasing wealth disparity.

I never said it was. That's what we call a strawman argument. And you didn't say that at first. You gradually morphed your argument into that.

tatupu70 says

Read it again--slowly--do you understand now?

I understood it the first time I read it. It also happens to be the first time you worded your argument that way. But that's always been your M.O. - you try to rewrite history and change your argument after the fact.

Here is the FIRST argument you made:

indigenous says
The money is printed out of thin air, it is then used to purchase bad mortgages through Freddy and Fanny, at the then value of the RE, from the banks

If that's the case, why did the trend towards increasing income disparity clearly begin around 1980 with Reagan's election? The Federal Reserve wasn't buying bad mortgages back then. It wasn't bailing out banks back then.

No matter how "slowly" I read that, it's not the same argument you are making now. You kept obnoxiously asking Indigenous to explain how the first receivers get their money, and he was kind enough to answer you. With the question you asked there, the implied argument is that wealth disparity cannot have a different cause now than it did in 1980. Again, logic - something you miserably fail at.

tatupu70 says

That's why I asked again--how is the Fed the cause of increasing wealth disparity over 30 years?

I never said it was.

tatupu70 says

Homeboy says

Don't just call me names; explain it.

Done 4 times.

Nope. Not done. And STILL not done.

Homeboy says

I've given up on you providing an explanation as to how my analogy isn't spot on. Go ahead and surprise me though.

Done 4 times.

Bullshit.

Homeboy says

WHY is it incorrect? You don't have an answer, do you?

Answered 4 times.

Nope. Not answered ANY times.

Liar.

marcus says

MY view isn't even so much about how beneficial it is or not. It's the system we have, and it's integral to the global system and where our world economy and financial system is in it's evolution.

How come?

Indigenous,

FED's effect on the economy? Let's see:

1. WWI the year after FED founding;
2. Great Depression after the FED stimulated bubble of the 20's;
3. Stagflation of the 70's
4. serial bubble economy in the past decade and half.

(continued)

Here:

http://patrick.net/?p=1226340&c=975742#comment-975742

And here is where tatupu tries to refute it, but fails in logic:

http://patrick.net/?p=1226340&c=975842#comment-975842

So please read ALL those posts, which you obviously haven't done, and then get back to me.

Reality says

FED stimulated bubble of the 20's

[citation needed]

Reality says

serial bubble economy in the past decade and half

this one's ALMOST a fair cop.

The Fed failed to police the mortgage industry 2000-2006, but that was a failure of inaction of the Greenspan Fed, not action.

And the common thread of the 1920s and the previous bubble decade is that's it's very dangerous to put small-government conservatives in charge of the system.

Both instances they really allowed everything to get way out of control.

This is the way they roll. Laissez faire right into BubbleTown, leaving liberals and progressives to clean up their messes.

The pattern extends to the late 1800s trust and serial bubble blowups, too.

This Fed-on-the-brain stuff is one of the more sillier aspects of rightwing thought.

Homeboy says

Nope, it's exactly what I said it is. You changed your argument. I quoted
exactly what you wrote earlier. The proof is there.

Exactly--you quoted it alright. Only it refutes you entirely. I didn't change anything. What you quoted is exactly what I've said all along.

Homeboy says

That's a different argument. Again, I quoted your exact original argument, and
that is not what you said before.

Again--you quoted me but nothing you quoted disagrees with anything I've said all along. I've been 100% consistent.

Homeboy says

This is not a court. Your attempt to change your argument after the fact
failed, so now you're trying to rely on little word games to pretend you never
"technically" said what was obviously your position?

My obvious position is that I don't think the Federal Reserve is the cause of the increasing wealth disparity since 1980. I've been patiently asking the other posters who claim that the Fed is THE cause to please provide evidence or at the very least a possible mechanism for how the Fed policy increases wealth disparity. I'm sorry you can't follow such simple logic and have gone to such great lengths to try to score a meaningless technical point. You've failed.

marcus says

There is a subtle difference between denying that that the Fed causes wealth
disparity, and citing a period when it increased with little fed intervention as
data that supports that idea; versus actually proving a lack of cause and
effect.

I agree 100%. Please don't allow Homeboy to mislead you.

Homeboy says

My point is, for about the 12th time now, that the following is not a valid
proof:

"Wealth disparity began increasing in the 1980s, when there was no Fed
intervention. Therefore, the Fed cannot affect wealth disparity."

That was tatupu's argument, and it isn't a valid argument

And for the 12th time, that is NOT my argument.

If that was my argument, it should be very easy for you to quote a post in which I said that. The fact that you cannot should make it pretty obvious that you are purposely twisting my words and trolling.

marcus says

There is a subtle difference between denying that that the Fed causes wealth disparity, and citing a period when it increased with little fed intervention as data that supports that idea; versus actually proving a lack of cause and effect.

This is just gibberish.

marcus says

Is not being able to prove that the fed does not cause increasing wealth disparity the foundation of your argument that it does ?

Why are you trying to turn this around? Tatupu cited that chart as proof that the Fed doesn't cause wealth disparity. I simply stated that he is wrong. The tortured reasoning you pro-Fed guys are employing is astounding.

tatupu70 says

If that was my argument, it should be very easy for you to quote a post in which I said that. The fact that you cannot should make it pretty obvious that you are purposely twisting my words and trolling.

I quoted SEVEN posts of yours. You can keep playing the "I didn't say that" word-twisting game, but the proof is up there. Calling me a troll doesn't make your case. Sorry.

Homeboy says

Why are you trying to turn this around?

Is that a yes or a no.

Homeboy says

Tatupu cited that chart as proof that the Fed doesn't cause wealth disparity. I
simply stated that he is wrong. The tortured reasoning you pro-Fed guys are
employing is astounding.

I did not. I cited charts to show that wealth disparity has been increasing since 1980 so the recent Fed actions cannot explain the 30 year trend.

How printing trillion dollars and giving them to select big entities is not aiding wealth disparity should be beyond anybody.

Homeboy says

The tortured reasoning you pro-Fed guys are employing is astounding.

I guess this is tortured reasoning.

marcus says

Is not being able to prove that the fed does not cause increasing wealth disparity the foundation of your argument that it does ?

I though it was just a question, that I would really like to know the answer to.

Maybe you don't even think the fed adversely impacts wealth disparity, and you're just the logic police looking for nits to pick.

Homeboy says

I quoted SEVEN posts of yours. You can keep playing the "I didn't say that"
word-twisting game, but the proof is up there. Calling me a troll doesn't make
your case. Sorry.

Yes, you did. But none of them are relevant. None of them say what you purport them to say.

I agree--calling you a troll doesn't make my case. It serves more to describe your personality.

I am currently working on MBS, short for 'mell-backed-securities', a new vehicle that will soon flood the market to aid the economy. Please buy some!

Tatupu - time to just admit that your argument didn't hold water. You are flailing so much trying to both distance yourself from your argument AND claim it was valid, it's really laughable.

tatupu70 says

I agree--calling you a troll doesn't make my case. It serves more to describe your personality.

Ooh, you sure got me. I'm crying now.

Just admit your argument didn't hold water.

mell says

I am currently working on MBS, short for 'mell-backed-securities', a new vehicle that will soon flood the market to aid the economy. Please buy some!

If you don't buy them, really bad things will happen. Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!

mell says

How printing trillion dollars and giving them to select big entities is not aiding wealth disparity should be beyond anybody.

In real life, are you by any chance Marcia Stigum ?

First of all, I'm not sure that tatupu's data is even correct. Here's another chart that seems to show a relatively flat period, and even a reversal, thoughout the second half of the 1980s.

OK--lets take a look at the 7 posts that supposedly show that I am trying to prove that the Fed can't cause wealth disparity.

tatupu70 says

Everyone blames the Federal Reserve, but nobody can really pinpoint how exactly
the Fed is causing all these bad things to happen.

This one looks to me like a simple question. Asking others to show supporting evidence as to why they think the Fed causes increasing wealth disparity. No assertions.

tatupu70 says

That's a nice narrative except that it is complete BS. Please detail how the
first receivers get their money. Show me the "simple math" as you call it.

Again--looks like I'm asking for more supporting evidence here. No assertions here.

tatupu70 says

I understand that is what you and others claim is happening. My question is how?
Please explain how the money is created and given to the "cronies"

Hmm.. I seeing a pattern. Again, a question looking for some supporting evidence. No assertions.

tatupu70 says

The Federal Reserve wasn't buying bad mortgages back then. It wasn't bailing
out banks back then.

Hey--an assertion! But I don't think this is controversial. Just reminding the other poster the timeline.

tatupu70 says

So, again, I ask. How does the Federal Reserve cause increasing income/wealth
disparity?

And, guess what. Another question. No assertion.

tatupu70 says

OK--I think you're confused. Your (and others) thesis is that the Federal
Reserve gives an advantage to the "cronies". And that causes income/wealth
disparity because they are the first receivers and get the money while the
general public doesn't. Did I summarize that correctly?

Me trying to summarize the argument to keep it on track. Indigenous has a habit of going off on tangents so you have keep him focused. No assertions.

tatupu70 says

I won't say what talking to you is like. Since you've failed miserably at the
whole CEOs create jobs, let's get back to the original question which neither
you nor Turtle, nor homeboy, nor gsr seem to be able to answer.

Not sure why you posted this one. Another question-no assertions.

tatupu70 says

How does the Federal Reserve contribute to inequality?

Another question. No assertions.

tatupu70 says

Yes, but I've shown that those explanations don't hold water. I was hoping you
could do better. Othwerise, I'll assume that the Federal Reserve has no impact
on income inequality and that the whole crony/first receiver stuff is nonsense.

This is the best post you've got. I was hoping to get some better answers from the other posters and I thought the last line would get them to try harder.

Hopefully, you see your mistake now. Please read more carefully in the future and don't twist my words.

marcus says

mell says

How printing trillion dollars and giving them to select big entities is not aiding wealth disparity should be beyond anybody.

In real life, are you by any chance Marcia Stigum ?

I don't know who that is, I'd have to read up on it - I see there are some google hits to get started :)

Homeboy says

Tatupu - time to just admit that your argument didn't hold water. You are
flailing so much trying to both distance yourself from your argument AND claim
it was valid, it's really laughable.

If I had made an argument, you might have a point.. I posted the chart to REFUTE another posters point--not to support any point of mine.

There is a difference there which you seem incapable of grasping.

mell says

marcus says

mell says

How printing trillion dollars and giving them to select big entities is not aiding wealth disparity should be beyond anybody.

In real life, are you by any chance Marcia Stigum ?

I don't know who that is, I'd have to read up on it - I see there are some google hits to get started :)

I see she is deceased. Oops.

She's an expert (or was) on money markets, with a classic and widely read text on the subject. I was thinking your summary of what the fed does sounded like you might be her.

Also, why are you guys ignoring the S&L crisis? Surely that's an extremely plausible explanation for wealth disparity beginning in the 1980s.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corporate_Welfare/S%26L_Bailout.html

All this money will come from taxpayers and will go to the people who bought the bonds. So, ultimately, the S&L bailout amounts to a massive transfer of wealth from ordinary people to investors (most of whom are wealthy)-as well as to the crooks who looted the S&Ls. (Few of them were convicted, by the way, and the average sentence of those who were was less than two years.)

tatupu70 says

If I had made an argument, you might have a point.. I posted the chart to REFUTE another posters point--not to support any point of mine.

There is a difference there which you seem incapable of grasping.

What are you talking about? I grasped that just fine. I KNOW you were trying to refute the other posters' point. All I'm saying is that you FAILED to refute it. Duh.

You're all over the map here, tatupu. You've changed tack so many times, you aren't even able to keep track of where you were.

Homeboy says

I KNOW you were trying to refute the other posters' point.

lol. You didn't seem to KNOW it when you wrote this:

Homeboy says

Tatupu - time to just admit that your argument didn't hold water.

You sure seemed to think it was MY argument then...

Seriously--you have been all over the place. Just give it up already.

tatupu70 says

Homeboy says

I KNOW you were trying to refute the other posters' point.

lol. You didn't seem to KNOW it when you wrote this:

Homeboy says

Tatupu - time to just admit that your argument didn't hold water.

You sure seemed to think it was MY argument then...

Seriously--you have been all over the place. Just give it up already.

A refutation takes the form of an ARGUMENT. They are not opposites. What are you, stupid?

Bellingham Bill says

Reality says

FED stimulated bubble of the 20's

[citation needed]

There are technical ways that they do it suffice to say it is done by lowering the reserve requirements. I can give you the links but I guarantee you will not read them. This created excess credit money supply which cause the run up to 1929.

Additionally 1/3 of the banks in 1930 went bankrupt, which lowered the money supply by 1/3. Yet the FED did nothing to raise the money supply.

The most culpable organization in the 2008 housing meltdown was the FED via Greenspan.

The FED does not need any conspiracy theories because they are not theories. Someone on this forum was saying that Bernanke deserved a blow job for saving the economy, the only head he deserves is his own on a platter, High Treason indeed. IMO they control the world through the central banks. Don't be surprised when the next chairman talks about a new world currency.

I mean Patrick main point is stay out the debt trap, which is the FED's stock in trade.

sbh says

The job of the Fed is to lean against economic imbalance by influencing the cost of credit and by regulating financial institutions.

Such as lining the banks pockets with trillions of printed money, bailing out failed entities who rewarded themselves with million dollar bonuses so that they can continue to do so and desperately maintaining the housing market on steroids? Fuck yeah, that's what I call leaning against economic imbalances!

sbh says

But bonuses paid are an injustice perpetrated by private capital corporations, a thing you appear to champion.

They can do with their money whatever they want, even if I disapprove of it. But they should not get taxpayer subsidies for that crap, but go through orderly bankruptcy instead when they screwed up.

sbh says

Until Americans rid themselves of their debt addiction and their wretched grasp of finance they have no grounds for complaint about a reserve bank that regulates/manipulates the cost of credit.

Likely the people opposing the Fed are mostly fiscal conservatives who are not debt addicted, that's why there are not enough of them, yet.

sbh says

I have made a six figure income only twice in my life: my last two years of work. And I have only once needed a mortgage to buy a house. Their costs: 300k; 350k; 650k; 850k. Over thirty-five years of sole proprietorship I have NEVER been paid more than three times a year. THAT, my conservative friend, is true fiscal conservatism and responsibility.

Nothing wrong with that! Except for that I am not conservative. Those labels don't make much sense nowadays but if I had to slap one on I'd go with libertarian.

sbh says

As a population we Suck at personal finance

Sure seems like it.

sbh says

Take control and quit playing the blame game.

Thank you, I already did long ago. But I want to live in a solid, free market-driven economy, and the Fed's crony capitalism is wrecking its foundation, the middle class .

Can you not see the name "American Savings and Loan" there? Are my posts coming out in invisible ink?

Talk about a honey-coated deal. In 1988, Robert M. Bass Group Inc. paid just $400 million to take over failing American Savings Bank, with its $16.5 billion in assets. To sweeten the arrangement, federal regulators threw in tax breaks and subsidies worth $3 billion to the thrift. Since then, Texas investor Robert M. Bass and his partners have garnered an estimated $244 million in profits from Irvine (Calif.)-based American, already recouping more than half their investment.

The Bass deal was among 199 savings and loan rescues in 1988, the thrift crisis' first big wave of bailouts. Sizable government subsidies to many of the buyers touched off vitriolic criticism, which helped produce a massive shakeup in federal thrift regulation in 1989. Congress is still upset by the hefty return some buyers have been receiving on their investments. To Representative Jim Leach (R-Iowa), a House Banking Committee member, the deals are "morally repugnant."

http://www.businessweek.com/stories/1991-02-10/were-these-deals-too-sweet-to-last

I know what a strawman is. Obviously you don't.

http://patrick.net/?p=1226656