1.) You're right.  More often than not the flawed policies designed to "help minorities" often either fail or help more white Americans.  Just look at the last half century.  

2.) Fannie Mae and Freddie mac were the driving engine of the mortgage crisis selling both mbs and liability swaps.  "Looked the other way" is another statement of economic ignorance.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (and the federal reserve) set the basic standards of what was perceived to be a conforming traditional loan and purchased some 50% + of all the paper that was written.  Prices communicate information about risk and perceived risk.  Frank Raines testified before Congress that he was so confident in the paper they were writing that he could envision keeping less than 1% cash on hand to cover potential losses.  It's no wonder derivatives were so dramatically under priced and under covered.  Central pricing is inherently inefficient and immune to market realities.  Central pricing of risk for social goals is economic SUICIDE.  

3.) You're right. He was smart enough to let other people say it for jim.  Go back and watch congressional hearings when Bush wanted to more tightly regulate Fannie and Freddie.

"Central pricing of risk for social goals" describes both FDIC and unemployment insurance, both of which are solvent.  It also describes Social Security and Medicare, which are less solvent but still unlikely to collapse in flames the way Frannie and Freddie did.
It is risky but when coupled with the right regulations and social norms it can work.
Fannie and Freddie were allowed to get way too big compared to their original purpose, and no one in government stopped that in the short term because what they were doing was very lucrative for everyone.

The had the government not bailed out the financial institutions then we would gotten a glimpse as to how solvent fdic was.  

As for "less solvent" we're facing an imminent sovereign debt crisis with North of 150 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities.  That's pretty much the dirty part of the toilet paper.  

"If only we got the mix right if only the right people"  

Your comment illustrates that central pricing of risk fails because there is always a shortage of political will to abandon good intentions no matter how stark the fiscal reality.

---

"Central pricing of risk for social goals" describes both FDIC and unemployment insurance, both of which are solvent.  It also describes Social Security and Medicare, which are less solvent but still unlikely to collapse in flames the way Frannie and Freddie did.
It is risky but when coupled with the right regulations and social norms it can work.
Fannie and Freddie were allowed to get way too big compared to their original purpose, and no one in government stopped that in the short term because what they were doing was very lucrative for everyone.

The had the government not bailed out the financial institutions then we would gotten a glimpse as to how solvent fdic was.  

As for "less solvent" we're facing an imminent sovereign debt crisis with North of 150 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities.  That's pretty much the dirty part of the toilet paper.  

"If only we got the mix right if only the right people"  

Your comment illustrates that central pricing of risk fails because there is always a shortage of political will to abandon good intentions no matter how stark the fiscal reality.

Yawn.  If you applied all the assumptions you just made about our liabilities to your analysis of our ability to make payments over a long period of time, you probably wouldnt call it an "imminent crisis."

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Yeh I know math can be boring

---

Yeh I know math can be boring

The yawn is from someone who has done the math many times over many years, bub.  I'm a Professional Engineer.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Yeh I know math can be boring

The yawn is from someone who has done the math many times over many years, bub.  I'm a Professional Engineer.

A professional engineer that conveniently brushes aside the root cause of the biggest financial collapse of our lifetime and honestly tries to spin .64% average gdp as ROBUST GROWTH to defend a flawed economic system.  The guys who designed the mbs and derivatives were former engineers and physicists, still didn't make 2 + 2 = 49

---

jj is an expert on the economy.. Or regurgitating crap he heard on propaganda news.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

The yawn is from someone who has done the math many times over many years, bub.  I'm a Professional Engineer.

A professional engineer that conveniently brushes aside the root cause of the biggest financial collapse of our lifetime and honestly tries to spin .64% average gdp as ROBUST GROWTH to defend a flawed economic system.  The guys who designed the mbs and derivatives were former engineers and physicists, still didn't make 2 + 2 = 49

Debt as a percentage of GDP was higher in the late 1940s, but those years had no financial crisis. 
I don't even see a strong correlation between high government debt and financial crisis, let alone evidence that one causes the other.  It's part of the story to be sure, but probably not the main part.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I guess we just wait for it to trickle down now. I mean all this wealth our nation allegedly has, wages should be up somewhere, right?

Or should we applaud because the super rich can now afford a new yacht we don't get to ride on. It's ok. If we ever suffer calamity, Trump will be there practicing free throws with paper towels.

I mean....
Friday's jobs report showed sharp wage growth, and the increase could be fueled in part by minimum wage increases in 18 states. Average hourly wages jumped 9 cents, or 0.3%, to $26.74, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. ... Wells Fargo WFC, +0.07% hiked its minimum hourly wage to $15, up from $13.50 in 2017.Feb 4, 2018

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/where-...2018-02-02

I know you people want like a 20/hr for all your burger flipping buddies....
but wages are increasing... just not in your menial jobs.
Sorry you made bad life choices lol

Also... as more regulations are peeled back and when Trump wins the chest puffing match with China, I imagine we'll see even more economic gains.

Patience kids... it hasn't even been 2 full years yet.
Bush and Obama really did a number on us. Real progress takes time.

---

jj is an expert on the economy..  Or regurgitating crap he heard on propaganda news.

The first part is true.

---

A professional engineer that conveniently brushes aside the root cause of the biggest financial collapse of our lifetime and honestly tries to spin .64% average gdp as ROBUST GROWTH to defend a flawed economic system.  The guys who designed the mbs and derivatives were former engineers and physicists, still didn't make 2 + 2 = 49

Debt as a percentage of GDP was higher in the late 1940s, but those years had no financial crisis. 
I don't even see a strong correlation between high government debt and financial crisis, let alone evidence that one causes the other.  It's part of the story to be sure, but probably not the main part.

1.) Actually debt is approaching wwii levels quite rapidly.  We are already in excess of 100% of gdp which is right there.  

2.) In the 1940s as was just starting and there were 16 contributors to 1 beneficiary, today that ratio has shrunk to less than 3 to one not to mention the advent of Medicare Medicaid now Obama care and the rest of it.  

3.) In the 1940s spending was around 13ish% of gdp, now it's close to 25. There was more room in the economy for growth to overtake the increase in debt and eventually run surplusses.  

4.) I guess history is boring too.

---

Debt as a percentage of GDP was higher in the late 1940s, but those years had no financial crisis. 
I don't even see a strong correlation between high government debt and financial crisis, let alone evidence that one causes the other.  It's part of the story to be sure, but probably not the main part.

1.) Actually debt is approaching wwii levels quite rapidly.  We are already in excess of 100% of gdp which is right there.  

2.) In the 1940s as was just starting and there were 16 contributors to 1 beneficiary, today that ratio has shrunk to less than 3 to one not to mention the advent of Medicare Medicaid now Obama care and the rest of it.  

3.) In the 1940s spending was around 13ish% of gdp, now it's close to 25. There was more room in the economy for growth to overtake the increase in debt and eventually run surplusses.  

4.) I guess history is boring too.

You're proving my point.
You were trying to inspire panic based on a stand-alone statistic such as your alleged "unfunded liabilities". 
There is much more to the story, as I revealed, and as you are now revealing.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

1.) Actually debt is approaching wwii levels quite rapidly.  We are already in excess of 100% of gdp which is right there.  

2.) In the 1940s as was just starting and there were 16 contributors to 1 beneficiary, today that ratio has shrunk to less than 3 to one not to mention the advent of Medicare Medicaid now Obama care and the rest of it.  

3.) In the 1940s spending was around 13ish% of gdp, now it's close to 25. There was more room in the economy for growth to overtake the increase in debt and eventually run surplusses.  

4.) I guess history is boring too.

You're proving my point.
You were trying to inspire panic based on a stand-alone statistic such as your alleged "unfunded liabilities". 
There is much more to the story, as I revealed, and as you are now revealing.

So me illustrating the foundational reasons why our current debt will lead to a sovereign debt crisis proves "your" point....   Mmmmmmkay.

---

You're proving my point.
You were trying to inspire panic based on a stand-alone statistic such as your alleged "unfunded liabilities". 
There is much more to the story, as I revealed, and as you are now revealing.

So me illustrating the foundational reasons why our current debt will lead to a sovereign debt crisis proves "your" point....   Mmmmmmkay.

For each of those four, I could give you a reason I think it's not as indicative or meaningful as you think.  I don't want to bore you with that because then you would just come back with reasons why you do think it's meaningful.  I don't think you have challenged yourself adequately.
For instance, and this is just a homework question, don't reply here, what is a "sovereign debt crisis"? Is there a coherent definition? Have they happened often enough in history that we can make meaningful statements about what causes them, or is each one different from the next? Do you have convincing answers to those questions? Unless you've done better than Harvard or UChicago, you do not.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

So me illustrating the foundational reasons why our current debt will lead to a sovereign debt crisis proves "your" point....   Mmmmmmkay.

For each of those four, I could give you a reason I think it's not as indicative or meaningful as you think.  I don't want to bore you with that because then you would just come back with reasons why you do think it's meaningful.  I don't think you have challenged yourself adequately.
For instance, and this is just a homework question, don't reply here, what is a "sovereign debt crisis"? Is there a coherent definition? Have they happened often enough in history that we can make meaningful statements about what causes them, or is each one different from the next? Do you have convincing answers to those questions? Unless you've done better than Harvard or UChicago, you do not.

Lol.  You can't refute my foundational points and "I" haven't "challenged" myself enough.  Lol.

---

All I know is thanks to the tax cuts I get a 5% raise.  I know that 5% is considered "crumbs" to liberals, but for me it's a significant amount.  A 5% raise on my gross pay combined with the lower tax rate gives me a really good amount on my take-home pay.  Oh, and by the way I'm not one of the "evil rich 1%".  I'm a "working man" getting paid hourly.  I'll take that any day.

In contrast, I went over 5 years without a pay raise under the former administration and had to pay a higher tax rate.  Go figure.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

All I know is thanks to the tax cuts I get a 5% raise.  I know that 5% is considered "crumbs" to liberals, but for me it's a significant amount.  A 5% raise on my gross pay combined with the lower tax rate gives me a really good amount on my take-home pay.  Oh, and by the way I'm not one of the "evil rich 1%".  I'm a "working man" getting paid hourly.  I'll take that any day.

In contrast, I went over 5 years without a pay raise under the former administration and had to pay a higher tax rate.  Go figure.

Here here.

It's so sad that in the most powerful economy in history we still have to explain the way a market economy works.

---

For each of those four, I could give you a reason I think it's not as indicative or meaningful as you think.  I don't want to bore you with that because then you would just come back with reasons why you do think it's meaningful.  I don't think you have challenged yourself adequately.
For instance, and this is just a homework question, don't reply here, what is a "sovereign debt crisis"? Is there a coherent definition? Have they happened often enough in history that we can make meaningful statements about what causes them, or is each one different from the next? Do you have convincing answers to those questions? Unless you've done better than Harvard or UChicago, you do not.

Lol.  You can't refute my foundational points and "I" haven't "challenged" myself enough.  Lol.

I can refute, I just won't.  It wouldn't change your mind. Instead, I gave you a thought experiment that probably also won't change your mind but seems to have a better chance, if you put the energy into doing it.

---

All I know is thanks to the tax cuts I get a 5% raise.  I know that 5% is considered "crumbs" to liberals, but for me it's a significant amount.  A 5% raise on my gross pay combined with the lower tax rate gives me a really good amount on my take-home pay.  Oh, and by the way I'm not one of the "evil rich 1%".  I'm a "working man" getting paid hourly.  I'll take that any day.

In contrast, I went over 5 years without a pay raise under the former administration and had to pay a higher tax rate.  Go figure.

How did the tax cut cause you to get a raise? Your boss decided to give you a raise and told you the tax cut was his reason, or was it something else?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Lol.  You can't refute my foundational points and "I" haven't "challenged" myself enough.  Lol.

I can refute, I just won't.  It wouldn't change your mind. Instead, I gave you a thought experiment that probably also won't change your mind but seems to have a better chance, if you put the energy into doing it.

---

All I know is thanks to the tax cuts I get a 5% raise.  I know that 5% is considered "crumbs" to liberals, but for me it's a significant amount.  A 5% raise on my gross pay combined with the lower tax rate gives me a really good amount on my take-home pay.  Oh, and by the way I'm not one of the "evil rich 1%".  I'm a "working man" getting paid hourly.  I'll take that any day.

In contrast, I went over 5 years without a pay raise under the former administration and had to pay a higher tax rate.  Go figure.

How did the tax cut cause you to get a raise? Your boss decided to give you a raise and told you the tax cut was his reason, or was it something else?

So let me understand this correctly....  I respond to you in good faith with a reasoned fiscal analysis of our current debt structure vs. The post wwii 40's and you're response is "well I could refute your logic but your too lazy and closed minded to understand."  Lol.  

And by the way.  Your initial depiction of tax reform was not only wrong (lower income tax rates inherently create incentives to take risk & disincentive for tax avoidance behavior) it was also foundationally inaccurate. In addition to cutting individual tax rates we also cut corporate tax rates and the repatriation rate.  Repatriation formerly saw 35% of foreign profits taken when the money is brought back into the state's as such very little is ever transferred for domestic investment.  When the rate is lowered there is inevitably an influx of both capital and tax revenue from activity that would not have otherwise taken place.  With corporate tax rates companies have a lot more money on hand and greater incentive to take risk and invest.  Couple those two and you have a lot more capital chasing labor (currently more jobs available than job seekers) putting upward pressure in the labor market because of the need for employers to retain the employees they value in a competitive market.  And yes, a lot of ceos even come on the left acknowledge that a significant amount of new hiring, bonuses, and domestic infrastructure investments were spurred by tax reform.  

But what do I know, I'm just some lazy kid whose dog ate his homework right?  

Speaking of... I remember someone alluded to a lot of personal math they had done on their lunchbreak about making entitlements solvent. Pleases feel free to present it to the class whenever ur ready. Oh and don't forget to drop your resumee at the congressional budget office, they're just dying to hear from (insert Mike drop emoji)

---

We will see when the April 2019 treasury numbers come out, I guess.
Making our entitlements solvent is extremely simple if you either raise taxes or cut benefits. What is lacking in Washington is political will, not the ability to do the math. Also most in Washington don't think the math as it stands today will lead to an actual crisis. I don't think I ever claimed to have done the math over my lunch break.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

We will see when the April 2019 treasury numbers come out, I guess.  
Making our entitlements solvent is extremely simple if you either raise taxes or cut benefits. What is lacking in Washington is political will, not the ability to do the math.  Also most in Washington don't think the math as it stands today will lead to an actual crisis.  I don't think I ever claimed to have done the math over my lunch break.

It's not binary, though you are limited to those choices by your belief in your own correctness.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato