Moderators ThudMaker Posted February 10, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 10, 2009 Are you among the conservatives who understood the need?If so, please explain the need. If not, how can you be sure they understood?Are you not remembering all the runs/panics on the banks? The bailout(s) calmed those fears. In that regard what the government did was a success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bass8987 Posted February 10, 2009 Members Share Posted February 10, 2009 Stock market is responding well /not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted February 10, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 10, 2009 I'm not sure we can say the first bailout didn't work. The banking system didn't collapse and it sure looked like it could have. I always felt that if the banking system survived, we'd be fine...it's just a waiting game as long as we still have lending institutions in place. If anyone thought that the first bailout was gonna lead to an economic turnaround in the ensuing 2 to 3 months, they just weren't listening. We as a people just have the patience of a 3 year old with ADD. This might enlighten you as to the failures. The first part mentions the bailout as well as what is going to get to be done with the rest of it. You already know the success. Maybe this will be helpful to King Kashue, as well, since Sowell is a guy he thinks might be kind of smart. The Economic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members King Kashue Posted February 10, 2009 Members Share Posted February 10, 2009 Are you not remembering all the runs/panics on the banks? The bailout(s) calmed those fears. In that regard what the government did was a success.Post hoc ergo propter hoc?A $800 billion dollar bedtime story?Of course, neither of those actually answer my question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted February 10, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 10, 2009 Post hoc ergo propter hoc? A $800 billion dollar bedtime story? Of course, neither of those actually answer my question. Then you didn't ask the right question, because I gave an answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted February 10, 2009 Members Share Posted February 10, 2009 Right. It appears the financial crisis is at least momentarily stabilized. However, the financial crisis has now led to an economic crisis. The economic crisis will take some time to correct, but as long as the financial crisis is over, we're going to be fine. Eventually. I really wish more people understood the difference between those two phrases. Or even that there is a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members King Kashue Posted February 10, 2009 Members Share Posted February 10, 2009 The first part mentions the bailout as well as what is going to get to be done with the rest of it. You already know the success. Maybe this will be helpful to King Kashue, as well, since Sowell is a guy he thinks might be kind of smart. Hrm, I'm missing the part where Sowell talks about the success of the bailout.That something happened after something else does not equate to a causal link. (I'll say it English now as well). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members King Kashue Posted February 10, 2009 Members Share Posted February 10, 2009 Then you didn't ask the right question, because I gave an answer. No, you really didn't provide a valid answer, much less one that answered my question. Are you among the conservatives who understood the need? If so, please explain the need. If not, how can you be sure they understood? Saying "oh look, the runs on the banks stopped" doesn't explain the need, because it doesn't demonstrate how one stopped the other. Without demonstrating causality, you've got nothing more than post hoc ergo propter hoc... I had a cold. I started drinking Cherry Coke. My cold went away. Therefore, the Cherry Coke ended my cold. Changing the nouns doesn't make the statement any more sound or well substantiated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted February 10, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 10, 2009 (I'll say it English now as well).I'm waiting....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted February 10, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 10, 2009 Hrm, I'm missing the part where Sowell talks about the success of the bailout.I didn't say that he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted February 10, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 10, 2009 No, you really didn't provide a valid answer, much less one that answered my question. I said I provided an answer. You simply didn't ask the question I answered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members King Kashue Posted February 10, 2009 Members Share Posted February 10, 2009 I said I provided an answer. You simply didn't ask the question I answered. Invalid and evasive. Good stuff...Tell me again why I should bother to take you seriously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted February 10, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 10, 2009 No, you really didn't provide a valid answer, much less one that answered my question............I take it you would have preferred watching the banking system collapse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted February 10, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 10, 2009 That would be the words right before that sentence. A paraphrased translation of the technical Latin phrase you've twice ignored. Invalid and evasive. Good stuff... Tell me again why I should bother to take you seriously? Is there a reason someone should think you have a sense of humor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members King Kashue Posted February 10, 2009 Members Share Posted February 10, 2009 I take it you would have preferred watching the banking system collapse. You're assuming the premise that would have indeed happened. Your evidence for that conclusion? Other than "they kept saying so"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members King Kashue Posted February 10, 2009 Members Share Posted February 10, 2009 Is there a reason someone should think you have a sense of humor?You're assuming the premise that what you wrote was actually funny... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members chunky-b Posted February 10, 2009 Members Share Posted February 10, 2009 Bob and Weave, float like a butterfly, sting like a... like a... uh... :poke: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted February 10, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 10, 2009 You're assuming the premise that would have indeed happened.Your evidence for that conclusion? Other than "they kept saying so"?I'm not assuming anything. You didn't interface with any of your banks where you have a solid, personal relationship with your bankers and ask them how their bank is, where their loans are, are people coming in and pulling out their money with no warning, etc.? Thanks for letting me know that you would have done nothing and would have watched everything collapse, if that in deed would have happened. Doing nothing always calms the peoples' fears and demonstrates effective leadership. How Hooveresque. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members King Kashue Posted February 10, 2009 Members Share Posted February 10, 2009 I'm not assuming anything. Yes, you really are. You didn't interface with any of your banks where you have a solid, personal relationship with your bankers and ask them how their bank is, where their loans are, are people coming in and pulling out their money with no warning, etc.? Precisely how many banks did you talk to? How many high level executives? For all the banks with which you "interfaced", please explain their specific needs and how the bailout addressed those needs. (I'd still prefer you answer the larger question you continue to ignore, but since you brought up this specific research you did, perhaps you can answer the far narrower question). Thanks for letting me know that you would have done nothing and would have watched everything collapse And I said that where? if that in deed would have happened. IF indeed...you still haven't demonstrated at all that was likely, other than "people said it was going to happen"... Doing nothing always calms the peoples' fears and demonstrates effective leadership. How Hooveresque. And if I had advocated "doing nothing", you'd have a marvelous quip here... But, since I didn't... To save you some time, you could always just answer my question. (though I guess if you did that, I'd stop asking you to do so, and you'd be left with nothing else to do except "do nothing", and evidently, you don't like that)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Emprov Posted February 10, 2009 Members Share Posted February 10, 2009 You didn't interface with any of your banks where you have a solid, personal relationship with your bankers and ask them how their bank is, where their loans are, are people coming in and pulling out their money with no warning, etc.? Thanks for letting me know that you would have done nothing and would have watched everything collapse, if that in deed would have happened. Doing nothing always calms the peoples' fears and demonstrates effective leadership. How Hooveresque. We had our quarterly account review on Friday. Our guy works at Merrill Lynch, who was bought by BofA. In his opinion, the banks needed some sort of cash infusion to get them through this period. He loves the outlook on the whole but doesn't think that the finance sector will lead us out of this mess, it's too badly beaten up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted February 10, 2009 Moderators Share Posted February 10, 2009 Precisely how many banks did you talk to? How many high level executives?3 and 3. All of which are privately held and local or regional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members King Kashue Posted February 10, 2009 Members Share Posted February 10, 2009 Precisely how many banks did you talk to? How many high level executives?For all the banks with which you "interfaced", please explain their specific needs and how the bailout addressed those needs. (I'd still prefer you answer the larger question you continue to ignore, but since you brought up this specific research you did, perhaps you can answer the far narrower question). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RSBro Posted February 10, 2009 Members Share Posted February 10, 2009 I think I'm gonna post on DMB's Myspace and ask for his insightful and brilliant thoughts on the bailout, and what pothead/drug-addled Dave would have us do, now that he helped get BO in office with blind partisanship. I seriously doubt I"ll get a response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bassin' 'Round Posted February 10, 2009 Members Share Posted February 10, 2009 Let's see, the Republicans milk a crisis to take civil liberites and the Democrats milk a crisis to take my money. Sounds about right. Hooray for the two party system and the {censored}tards who continue to support it....there were no civil liberties eroded, unless you happen to be speaking with a terrorist, that is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jugghaid Posted February 10, 2009 Members Share Posted February 10, 2009 ...there were no civil liberties eroded, unless you happen to be speaking with a terrorist, that is... I dunno. Warrantless wiretaps are a pretty serious erosion of civil liberties. just becuse it didn't happen to ME doesn't make it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.