• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Trump’s Persecution of Jerome Powell and Political Opponents Must End

Bomb#20 said:
laughing dog said:
Bomb#20 said:
Blaming free markets for the Great Depression is like blaming religious freedom for the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre.
Click to expand...
1/3 of US banks failed because they were allowed to. QED
Click to expand...
Ah, so the standard for "free market" isn't whether your market activity was coerced, but whether the government bailed you out after its intervention made you go belly up in the first place. Got it.
Click to expand...
Nope. You’ll get it some day.
 
Bomb#20 said:
laughing dog said:
At the time, the Fed’s charge was to prevent bank panics. The idea of macroeconomic management did not exist as we know it. The Great Depression occurred because of free markets. It’s duration was extended by competitive exchange rate devaluation by most countries,pro cyclical fiscal policy ( cutting spending to offset falling tax revenues), and a reluctance to increase the money supply.

Blaming the Fed for the Great Depression is like blaming oxygen for forest fires.
Click to expand...
:consternation2: What free markets?!? Surely you've heard of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. You've definitely heard of competitive exchange rate devaluation by most countries, and in a free market exchange rates aren't determined by governments' decisions to devalue, but float. And as you say, at the time, the Fed’s charge was to prevent bank panics. But preventing bank panics does not require a Fed; a free market will do the job. When the Depression hit, the U.S. had thirty thousand banks and ten thousand of them failed; Canada had ten banks and zero of them failed. Canadian banks were huge nationwide operations with the resources to weather a local run; America had thirty thousand little banks that could be wiped out by rumors of failure because laws prohibited interstate banking and in some cases even multi-branch banking. States in that era just loved enacting incompetent banker job security acts. Blaming free markets for the Great Depression is like blaming religious freedom for the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre.
Click to expand...

Canadian banks are more regulated than American banks. For example: they are required to have almost double the capital ratios. They are also required to have less concentrations.
 
Bomb#20 said:
Can either of you two quote RVonse saying anything racist, or are you using ad hominems because your capacities to critique his argument are inadequate?
Click to expand...
Nope. Just using Ad Homs, You are clearly smarter than me, Internet Man.
 
Harry Bosch said:
Bomb#20 said:
:consternation2: What free markets?!? Surely you've heard of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. You've definitely heard of competitive exchange rate devaluation by most countries, and in a free market exchange rates aren't determined by governments' decisions to devalue, but float. And as you say, at the time, the Fed’s charge was to prevent bank panics. But preventing bank panics does not require a Fed; a free market will do the job. When the Depression hit, the U.S. had thirty thousand banks and ten thousand of them failed; Canada had ten banks and zero of them failed. Canadian banks were huge nationwide operations with the resources to weather a local run; America had thirty thousand little banks that could be wiped out by rumors of failure because laws prohibited interstate banking and in some cases even multi-branch banking. States in that era just loved enacting incompetent banker job security acts. Blaming free markets for the Great Depression is like blaming religious freedom for the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre.
Click to expand...

Canadian banks are more regulated than American banks. For example: they are required to have almost double the capital ratios. They are also required to have less concentrations.
Click to expand...
Now. An awful lot has changed in 97 years.
 
Toni said:
RVonse said:
Patooka said:
To be fair, when Rvonse is being so nostalgic about colour back in the 50s, I don't think he's only referring to the colour of the houses...

It's just he can't bring himself to say the quiet part out loud.
Click to expand...
Race has nothing to do with people preferring to purchase non color items. When someone goes into Home Depot to buy gray tile the store does not care the least who buys the tile all they care about is that more and more people are buying gray tile so that is what they order from the manufacture. Same with cars and other items people of all races purchase.

People of all races are buying neutral colors so they can easily resale their investment later and not risk losing equity.
Click to expand...
You definitely did not get it. You seem to wax very nostalgic for the 1950/, or perhaps the 1850’s. It is difficult not to believe that the main source of the nostalgia is the societal model was straight white make provider and wife and 2.5 children happily believing he knew everything. Persons of color were confined to their places, out of sight and mind of decent white folks.
Click to expand...
Fair I enough. I did not get it.

But what is so bad about how I feel about the 1950-60's anyway? After all, that is about the time I grew up when my brain was in the process of forming what it has become today. Why shouldn't I like this period when the US was strong and western humanity was still financially and capable to reproduce? Was that not success? That is not to say bad things did not happen 60 years ago, but can't we separate what was good and what was bad so that the good things happen without the bad? And more to the point of the OP, can't we look at what the fed did or did not do without stereotyping the person who made the observation?

Asking someone like myself not to like this period of history is like asking the frenchman not to like fine wine or the Mexican not to like tacos.
 
RVonse said:
Toni said:
RVonse said:
Patooka said:
To be fair, when Rvonse is being so nostalgic about colour back in the 50s, I don't think he's only referring to the colour of the houses...

It's just he can't bring himself to say the quiet part out loud.
Click to expand...
Race has nothing to do with people preferring to purchase non color items. When someone goes into Home Depot to buy gray tile the store does not care the least who buys the tile all they care about is that more and more people are buying gray tile so that is what they order from the manufacture. Same with cars and other items people of all races purchase.

People of all races are buying neutral colors so they can easily resale their investment later and not risk losing equity.
Click to expand...
You definitely did not get it. You seem to wax very nostalgic for the 1950/, or perhaps the 1850’s. It is difficult not to believe that the main source of the nostalgia is the societal model was straight white make provider and wife and 2.5 children happily believing he knew everything. Persons of color were confined to their places, out of sight and mind of decent white folks.
Click to expand...
Fair I enough. I did not get it.

But what is so bad about how I feel about the 1950-60's anyway? After all, that is about the time I grew up when my brain was in the process of forming what it has become today. Why shouldn't I like this period when the US was strong and western humanity was still financially and capable to reproduce? Was that not success? That is not to say bad things did not happen 60 years ago, but can't we separate what was good and what was bad so that the good things happen without the bad? And more to the point of the OP, can't we look at what the fed did or did not do without stereotyping the person who made the observation?

Asking someone like myself not to like this period of history is like asking the frenchman not to like fine wine or the Mexican not to like tacos.
Click to expand...
Nothing is ‘wrong’ with waxing nostalgic for how things were back in the day. But you are waxing nostalgic for how things were for you and people like you. Not how things were for women, persons of color, persons who might not be cis/straight or if the dominant t ethnicity or religion/religious tradition.

I do get it. I’m in a FB group with people from my high school and they all like to be nostalgic about how wonderful things were then —even though we were all of very modest means. They do NOT tolerate any other kind of sharing, especially if it is in anyway critical. I specially if it comes from someone who was not white/straight/cis. There was a handful of Hispanic kids who attended our school—none in my grade, only one of whom I knew. But someone who graduated with my older sister, who was Hispanic, very respectfully and very honestly wrote to contradict the rosey Leave it To Beaver image so many want to cling to.

His post was deleted almost immediately, although by far, it was the most eloquent, well thought out and honest thing ever written on those pages.

You and I are very probably quite close in age. I have happy memories from my growing up years but I also know that my parents’ choices to ensure we lived in an ( very nearly) all white, middle class neighborhood were an attempt to ‘protect us’ but also to keep us…compliant, to get us to carry out their dreams. I get it: they grew up poor in the Great Depression and their siblings fought in WWII. They wanted that pretty little life they never had fir their kids.

Non of the Hispanic kids nor any of the non-straight, non white kids who went to school with us ever, ever show up at reunions. And everyone is just fine with that. They do not examine why. They just mentally erase the casual racism and bigotry that permeated our community. It messes with their pretty memories. The truth is that most of us had barely enough to get by — but it was stable. We ignore the fact that there was plenty of domestic abuse and child abuse and quiet alcoholism. We just laugh about the good times we had, as if we all did have those good times.
 
RVonse said:
but can't we separate what was good and what was bad so that the good things happen without the bad?
Click to expand...
No, we can't. That is impossible.

Because the "good" and the "bad" are different views of the same facts.

What was "good" for middle class white men was, frequently enough, bad for poor people, minorities, and women.

What was "good" for the USA was "bad" for European countries - much of US prosperity in the '50s was due to Europen factories being demolished during WWII, so to 'get back' to those great days for white, middle class, American men would require a destructive world war in which US infrastructure was relativy unscathed.

Such a war is no longer possible.

In WWI, British infrastructure was barely scratched, because the technology of the time meant that it was impossible for her enemies to strike effectively over the distances involved.

In WWII, technology had advanced, and planes could carry large bomb loads from Germany to England, and vice-versa. It was no longer possible for the UK to prevent large scale damage to infrastructure. But transatlantic flight was not yet practical for bombers; The USA was left with her infrastructure intact.

Today, the world has intercontnental missiles, long range aircraft, and submarine launched weapons that can destroy entire cities. When WWIII happens, nobody will be left with intact infrastructure and the ability to get rich selling stuff to the folks whose stuff was destroyed.

It would be lovely if things were as simple as you fondly imagine them to be. But they aren't. Reality is complex, and your desire to return to the past founders on the twin rocks of "things have moved on" and "it wasn't really as good as you remember".

We have to handle things as they are right now; Turning back the clock is impossible. And, of course, that was true back then, too.
 
Trump now calling for arrest of Obama (Reich-wing source):
www.theamericanconservative.com

Trump Calls for Arrest of Barack Obama

State of the Union: The president said his predecessor had attempted a coup during the 2016 presidential election.
www.theamericanconservative.com www.theamericanconservative.com

Here also is a left-leaning source:
www.ms.now

Trump renews ridiculous offensive against Obama, calls for Democrat’s ‘arrest’

While Clinton, Biden and Obama urged Americans to protect our civil liberties, Trump had nothing to offer but trash.
www.ms.now www.ms.now

Just a hunch: if Trump gets his amendment workaround regarding 3rd terms, then Obama will run again, against him. If Obama is in prison or banned by a conservative judge, he can't run.
 
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
Trump now calling for arrest of Obama (Reich-wing source):
www.theamericanconservative.com

Trump Calls for Arrest of Barack Obama

State of the Union: The president said his predecessor had attempted a coup during the 2016 presidential election.
www.theamericanconservative.com www.theamericanconservative.com

Here also is a left-leaning source:
www.ms.now

Trump renews ridiculous offensive against Obama, calls for Democrat’s ‘arrest’

While Clinton, Biden and Obama urged Americans to protect our civil liberties, Trump had nothing to offer but trash.
www.ms.now www.ms.now

Just a hunch: if Trump gets his amendment workaround regarding 3rd terms, then Obama will run again, against him. If Obama is in prison or banned by a conservative judge, he can't run.
Click to expand...
President Obama said many years ago that even if he could have a third term as POTUS that he would not have done so. Michelle Obama also expressed the same position regarding her husband. As regards the hypothetical of doing so in 2028, I would say he would only do so if he was the only possible choice to defeat Trump, but that is an extremely unlikely scenario, as there would be many candidates that could defeat Trump. Additionally Trump will not be a candidate because he would be unelectable due to his poor performance as POTUS, even if he wasn't already dead or too ill by that date.
 
Deputy AG Todd Blanche was on This Week With George Stephanopoulus and said the bad part out loud.

When asked about political prosecutions of people such as James Comey and Letitia James he responded with:
I don't know what it means to say come after people. If you are a prosecutor in the Dept. Of Justice you are expected to effectuate this administration's priorities . Like every single prosecutor in every administration some prosecutors within the department have chosen to leave. They don't want to do that. That is their right. That is fine. But if you're going to work in this department, you're going to execute on the president's priorities and that's what we do.
Click to expand...

GS immediately jumped on that and you could just see Blanche cringing inside of himself.
 
Don't forget the democrats went after Trump any way they could to charge him with something.

It was a major mistake. They went on a witch hunt to defame and discredit Trump. Not that I support Trump, but Trump is giving what he got.
 
steve_bank said:
Don't forget the democrats went after Trump any way they could to charge him with something.

It was a major mistake. They went on a witch hunt to defame and discredit Trump. Not that I support Trump, but Trump is giving what he got.
Click to expand...
The difference is they went after Trump for things he actually did.

And do you really think Trump would be doing anything differently if the Dems had not impeached him twice?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom