What are San Franciscans thinking?

[RVonse]

During times of crises the fed can only do what it is allowed to do - and what it did back in 2008 worked.

aa

The only thing we know worked was a huge bonus for Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Diamond.

As far as the US economy (or world) there is no evidence it worked and far more that it didn't. For one thing there are now negative interest rates all over Europe and coming to the US shortly. Even the most casual observer should notice how ridiculous negative interest rates are which have not happened in the last 3000 years. There are obviously serious unresolved issues, we may already be in another Global Greater Depression 2.

 

[Horatio Parker]

During times of crises the fed can only do what it is allowed to do - and what it did back in 2008 worked.

aa

The only thing we know worked was a huge bonus for Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Diamond.

As far as the US economy (or world) there is no evidence it worked and far more that it didn't. For one thing there are now negative interest rates all over Europe and coming to the US shortly. Even the most casual observer should notice how ridiculous negative interest rates are which have not happened in the last 3000 years. There are obviously serious unresolved issues, we may already be in another Global Greater Depression 2.

You know your President wants low rates. You can't borrow cheaply without it affecting interest income.

What did work in 2008 was creating a whole lot of liquidity, something that's problematic with a gold standard btw. Nobody was borrowing much, but the reserves were there. Homeowners were only bailed out to the extent their banks needed protection. And the QE swap actually removed money from the economy, the opposite of the intention.

 

[Harry Bosch]

During times of crises the fed can only do what it is allowed to do - and what it did back in 2008 worked.

aa

The only thing we know worked was a huge bonus for Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Diamond.

As far as the US economy (or world) there is no evidence it worked and far more that it didn't. For one thing there are now negative interest rates all over Europe and coming to the US shortly. Even the most casual observer should notice how ridiculous negative interest rates are which have not happened in the last 3000 years. There are obviously serious unresolved issues, we may already be in another Global Greater Depression 2.

No evidence? What about the 11 year expansion that we've been under? The longest expansion in US history.

 

[RVonse]

During times of crises the fed can only do what it is allowed to do - and what it did back in 2008 worked.

aa

The only thing we know worked was a huge bonus for Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Diamond.

As far as the US economy (or world) there is no evidence it worked and far more that it didn't. For one thing there are now negative interest rates all over Europe and coming to the US shortly. Even the most casual observer should notice how ridiculous negative interest rates are which have not happened in the last 3000 years. There are obviously serious unresolved issues, we may already be in another Global Greater Depression 2.

No evidence? What about the 11 year expansion that we've been under? The longest expansion in US history.

Do a true reporting of GNP and inflation and there has not been an 11 year expansion. And without reading all the propaganda I think the average Joe somehow realizes this. Look at all the prepping going on. People do not normally store bullets and food unless they think hard times are upon us.

In any case, high asset and stock prices do not represent anything except more monetary stimulus. We have recently seen additional employment with Trump but until real wages actually inflate (and they haven't since 1970) I would not call this anything other than an engineered and fake expansion.

 

[RVonse]

You know your President wants low rates. You can't borrow cheaply without it affecting interest income.

The only people who really need lower interest rates are the poor who are being charge usury credit card or pay day loan rates. But the people who need them the most won't ever get lower rates.

 

[Harry Bosch]

No evidence? What about the 11 year expansion that we've been under? The longest expansion in US history.

Do a true reporting of GNP and inflation and there has not been an 11 year expansion. And without reading all the propaganda I think the average Joe somehow realizes this. Look at all the prepping going on. People do not normally store bullets and food unless they think hard times are upon us.

In any case, high asset and stock prices do not represent anything except more monetary stimulus. We have recently seen additional employment with Trump but until real wages actually inflate (and they haven't since 1970) I would not call this anything other than an engineered and fake expansion.

Unfortunately, the fed doesn't rely on Joe. They rely on economists who say that the economy has expanded since 2010. The fed is responsible for managing expansion and unemployment. They actually don't try to affect "real wages" or trying to make a president look good.

 

[ZiprHead]

Bullshit on toast. We always had wildfires. We did not always have multiple record breaking wildfires every year. We have never lost an entire town overnight before.

You're just ignorant. Deliberately so I suspect so I will let you get on with it.

I'm just going to concede your argument that tens of thousands of people suddenly becoming homeless is somehow unconnected to a sharp increase in homelessness the next year, both because you offered no evidence to support it and because my mind is incapable of comprehending the level of stupidity necessary to make such an argument in the first place.

LOL, you're a waste of bandwidth with this nonsense. Jog on.

Did you know wildfires now are 6x more destructive than there were 40 years ago? Leading ecologists, Tom Swetnam discusses how he uses the rings and fire scars of each tree to get both the fire history and climate history of a forest. Once Tom and his team can assess how climate affects the fire history of a forest, he can then determine how the climate will affect future fires.

https://freespeech.org/stories/the-years-project-the-future-of-forest-fires/

 

[Loren Pechtel]

During times of crises the fed can only do what it is allowed to do - and what it did back in 2008 worked.

aa

The only thing we know worked was a huge bonus for Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Diamond.

As far as the US economy (or world) there is no evidence it worked and far more that it didn't. For one thing there are now negative interest rates all over Europe and coming to the US shortly. Even the most casual observer should notice how ridiculous negative interest rates are which have not happened in the last 3000 years. There are obviously serious unresolved issues, we may already be in another Global Greater Depression 2.

No evidence? What about the 11 year expansion that we've been under? The longest expansion in US history.

How much of that was real expansion, though? The economic numbers do not make sense--there should have been a lot more wage pressure than we have seen. I don't know what's wrong but the 2000s come to mind--economic "growth" that turned out to be pretty much all the housing bubble, not true growth.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You know your President wants low rates. You can't borrow cheaply without it affecting interest income.

The only people who really need lower interest rates are the poor who are being charge usury credit card or pay day loan rates. But the people who need them the most won't ever get lower rates.

The poor face high rates due to risk, not due to the economy.

 

[Derec]

To get back to Chesa Boudin, he is doing San Franscisco gangs a solid.
SF DA-elect Chesa Boudin sets new course in gang cases, citing charges ‘infused with racism’

That's not going to help matters at all. And his "evidence" for gang cases being "infused with racism" is the perennial leftist fallacy that differences in rates imply discrimination. What's next for Chesa though? Blacks are ~5x as likely to commit murder. Will he argue that laws against murder are "racist" because they disproportionally affect blacks? What malarkey, to borrow a term!


But that's what San Francisco gets when they vote for a son of terrorists who was raised by other terrorists.

 

[fromderinside]

'cause the law in on our side. 'cause the law is written by our side. 'cause the law protects our side. 'cause the law is interpreted by our side.

How many of these causes do you need thrown in your face to recognize there might be a problem with justice for other sides.

 

[Derec]

'cause the law in on our side. 'cause the law is written by our side. 'cause the law protects our side. 'cause the law is interpreted by our side.

How many of these causes do you need thrown in your face to recognize there might be a problem with justice for other sides.

What are you babbling on about "sides"? I guess Chesa is on the side of gang members.

Gangs lead to things such as this.
Chicago gang members sentenced to a combined 155 years in prison for execution-style killing of 9-year-old boy
[yes, I know it's Chicago and not SF; I am just making a point about gang violence]
Should they really be treated with kid gloves just because gangs are disproportionally composed of black and hispanic members?

 

[fromderinside]

'cause the law in on our side. 'cause the law is written by our side. 'cause the law protects our side. 'cause the law is interpreted by our side.

How many of these causes do you need thrown in your face to recognize there might be a problem with justice for other sides.

What are you babbling on about "sides"? I guess Chesa is on the side of gang members.

Why do you have a problem with charges infused with racism. Yes if a major basis for many accusations are race based or race aimed as I pointed out.? Yes, if they are fashioned by racist aims rather than actual crime control? Yes, if the satisfy by racist intentions rather than common good? Yes if they are proven by racial inequity in conviction and imprisonment? Of course you fear those things. You know, laws that gain your side advantage over those feared you want controlled.

 

[Derec]

Why do you have a problem with charges infused with racism. Yes if a major basis for many accusations are race based or race aimed as I pointed out.? Yes, if they are fashioned by racist aims rather than actual crime control? Yes, if the satisfy by racist intentions rather than common good? Yes if they are proven by racial inequity in conviction and imprisonment? Of course you fear those things. You know, laws that gain your side advantage over those feared you want controlled.

If a law targets street gangs and the law is applied without racism, you would still expect disproportionate number of blacks to be ensnared by such laws if blacks are disproportionally involved in street gangs. That's just logical.

The problem is that Chesa (and others seduced by the siren song of "critical race theory") assume that just because more blacks are affected by some law that law is ipso facto "racist". The doctrine is called "disparate impact doctrine" and is one of the more brain dead ideas to emerge out of pseudo-intellectual academia in the 20th century. It has been used in areas such as housing and employment (for example by throwing away the results of a promotion exam if candidates of right races don't do well enough) but so far its impact on criminal law has been limited. It seems Chesa wants to change that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

'cause the law in on our side. 'cause the law is written by our side. 'cause the law protects our side. 'cause the law is interpreted by our side.

How many of these causes do you need thrown in your face to recognize there might be a problem with justice for other sides.

What are you babbling on about "sides"? I guess Chesa is on the side of gang members.

Why do you have a problem with charges infused with racism. Yes if a major basis for many accusations are race based or race aimed as I pointed out.? Yes, if they are fashioned by racist aims rather than actual crime control? Yes, if the satisfy by racist intentions rather than common good? Yes if they are proven by racial inequity in conviction and imprisonment? Of course you fear those things. You know, laws that gain your side advantage over those feared you want controlled.

Gangbangers are more likely to commit violent crimes. Thus it makes perfectly good sense to consider crimes committed to aid a gang as more serious. Note that mobsters are a form of gang, the same reasoning applies. And what about biker gangs?