What happened to our "Recovery Summer"?

Throwin' darts!

 

says the monopolistic king to his peasants.

 

I would agree that the law makers don't seem to know enough about economy. They seem to know better on social rights issues. But those two things start to over lap...

 

Please, these bailouts from the government are senators giving back to their cronies. look at maxine waters. typical shit. yesterday 26 billion to teachers unions.

 

Don't worry, i'm sure with this increase in cash incentives more republicans will start being teachers and you'll be okay with it ;] Prodding aside, So f'ing what? You really think it's wrong to spend more money on education? It's not like teachers create any kind of economy, right? It's not like the average billionaire ever goes to school, right?

 

I was a teacher. Made pennies.



this will just pad the pockets of the greedy teacher's unions and special interest!

 

So then would you agree, teachers should be paid better for what they do?

 

Many teachers, at least here in LA make between 60k-70k a year and that's the middle end. Its not a bad salary and you have decent benefits. Sure, you're not rolling in Mercedes Benz.
Then you have 3 months vacation.

I don't get where people say teachers get paid shit. Sure they put in a lot of hours and training...but its not like they're poverty level. Work day ends between 2pm and 3pm.....3 months off in summer, 2 weeks off in christmas. spring break

And its intrinsically satisfying, much more than can be said about other professions.

They make a decent salary (I didn't, I was in private school right after I graduated).

 

I was really confused between this and your earlier statement, until I got here. I think Oregon teachers typically make about 50k. But I suppose the cost of living is significantly different in Cali

 

$50k in Oregon isn't bad, is it?

 

No it isnt

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/New-claims-for-unemployment-apf-3180551258.html?x=0&.v=1

 

BTW, Bernanke is trying to stem the tide by monetizing more of our debt. Things are going to get very, very bad.

 

What?

 

you said you think the government should stay out of the economy. I am confusingly, hyperbolically suggesting that this will lead to royalty, or atleast oligarchies. There must be SOME checks against the economy. Do you disagree that companies got us into the banking crisis, regardless of your opinion about how the government handled it after? What about Bernie Maddoff, he was brought down by the government eventually.

 

I would argue that government intervention--specifically the polticization of FNMA and FHLMC--in this case caused the banking crisis. Forcing banks to make sub-prime loans that were absorbed by the GSEs downplayed the risk of the MBS product created from them. The government has also tried to pick winners in their differing treatment of Bear and Lehman vs. AIG and GM. Creative destruction is a normal part of capitalism. Firms that take risks that are too big go bankrupt and are absorbed by better-run firms. You don't prop them up. The idea of "too big to fail" needs to die. If a firm becomes that big, it needs to be broken up.

Although I have strongly libertarian viewpoints, there is a necessary role for government to help regulate industry. The problem is they've done a really shitty job of it. I don't blame them. If you're a reasonably smart person, you can create synthetic bonds on Wall Street for seven figures a year or you can regulate those people by working for the SEC for $100K. Where do you think the talent is going to end up?

Personally, I think a reasonable place to start is reinstalling the provision of Glass-Steagall that keeps commerical and investment banks separate. I think the next move is to deal with Fannie and Freddie, either by completely removing their implied backing by the Federal Govt or by allowing them to purchase that guarantee from the taxpayers. They need to be made completely privatized or even eliminated. The market has been created; it doesn't need a GSE anymore.

 

Yes, I do disagree. We've discussed this so many times before, and you refuse to "remember". The subprime loans took off because the government got involved and started giving incentives for, and requiring companies to make those subprime loans. If the government hadn't been involved, those loans wouldn't have been made.

Besides that, you readily admit the government has to "guess" on their economic involvement, yet you keep wanting them to do so. Additionally, there is a difference between the government having "checks" and the government determining the economy.

edit: maxiep beat me to it, and said it better than I did.