POTUS 2016 General Election Discussion Thread

[wustin]

I think it's funny you guys think GJ is polling above mediocre numbers because people care about his politics. It's because he's third party. If Jill Stein were more active earlier she would definitely be more popular than GJ.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JAG

I did see my first Jill Stein ad this morning, where she spent most of the time bashing Clinton and saying you didn't have to pick the lesser of two evils.

"Did you like Bernie Sanders, but didn't find enough anti-science bullshit? Vote Jill Stein, who asks the tough questions on vaccinations and GMOs"

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by wustin

I think it's funny you guys think GJ is polling above mediocre numbers because people care about his politics. It's because he's third party. If Jill Stein were more active earlier she would definitely be more popular than GJ.

Jill Stein has been running for President for like 10 years. Johnson is polling higher because a bunch of Republicans are like "OH FUCK, TRUMP?!!".

[cuervo72]

The thing that worries me about some libertarian thinking - and Trump thinking - is that it's not particularly risk-averse. Financial markets might have collapsed, bringing times worse than the Great Depression. But they might not have! We don't know! A Trump presidency might lead to the collapse of democracy, or world conflict. But maybe not - we can't know for sure if we don't elect him!

It's like...the thinking of 17yo males. THIS WILL BE SO FUCKING COOL! Yeah, if it doesn't kill you first. No concept of risk.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

"Did you like Bernie Sanders, but didn't find enough anti-science bullshit? Vote Jill Stein, who asks the tough questions on vaccinations and GMOs"

And WiFi.

Jill Stein is a fearmongering crank who thinks Wi-Fi harms children's brains / Boing Boing

We should not be subjecting kids’ brains especially to that. And we don’t follow that issue in this country, but in Europe where they do, they have good precautions around wireless—maybe not good enough, because it’s very hard to study this stuff. We make guinea pigs out of whole populations and then we discover how many die. And this is like the paradigm for how public health works in this country and it’s outrageous, you know.

[AENeuman]

I don't buy the Trump catastrophe stuff. He did well enough a week and a half ago to be leading -after months of numerous statements like the ones he did the las few days. Most of all, I think Clinton is one wiki leak away from real catastrophe. Trump will muddle, continue to receive unprecedented coverage, continue to hold the 45-48% base, and just wait to see who's shit hits the floor first.

[RainMaker]

Reminder that the Green Party nominated Cynthia McKinney 8 years ago. A woman who is a 9/11 and Sandy Hook truther.

[AENeuman]

My favorite moment from the Libertarian debate, and the reason why I think the party has no chance:
He boldly and simply stated that he would have voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which drew boos, as did his heretical opinion that drivers licenses might be a legitimate state function.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

The thing that worries me about some libertarian thinking - and Trump thinking - is that it's not particularly risk-averse. Financial markets might have collapsed, bringing times worse than the Great Depression. But they might not have! We don't know! A Trump presidency might lead to the collapse of democracy, or world conflict. But maybe not - we can't know for sure if we don't elect him!

It's like...the thinking of 17yo males. THIS WILL BE SO FUCKING COOL! Yeah, if it doesn't kill you first. No concept of risk.

You do realize TARP did not even come close to an unanimous vote and there were no elected libertarians voting only democrats, republicans, and Bernie Sanders? Just checking because there were/are actual non 17 year old reason to oppose the bailouts.

[RainMaker]

As much as the bailouts angered me I prefer it to the alternate universe where all the major financial institutions went under at the same time.

[cuervo72]

Ok sure, TARP specifically. But there were alternate plans that involved government action. The alternative wasn't throwing hands up in the air and saying "oh well - the market will figure things out!"

[panerd]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

My favorite moment from the Libertarian debate, and the reason why I think the party has no chance:
He boldly and simply stated that he would have voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which drew boos, as did his heretical opinion that drivers licenses might be a legitimate state function.

I mean you even are aware that Johnson got the majority of the votes to be nominated while agreeing with your viewpoint and still feel the need to post snippets from the debates like its some big deal. Fine....

Using your logic... Don't vote democrat!

Bernie Sanders refuses Sandy Hook apology at Brooklyn debate - NY Daily News

Dont vote republican....

Donald Trump Discusses Penis Size During Fox News Republican Debate

It's silly. Just like the dancing guy. What the hell does it have to do with Gary Johnson?

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I don't buy the Trump catastrophe stuff. He did well enough a week and a half ago to be leading -after months of numerous statements like the ones he did the las few days. Most of all, I think Clinton is one wiki leak away from real catastrophe. Trump will muddle, continue to receive unprecedented coverage, continue to hold the 45-48% base, and just wait to see who's shit hits the floor first.

Also, 100 days is a long time. "Clinton leading because Trump is saying crazy stuff" will get old. The media will start to turn on her to keep the clicks coming. The race will tighten again.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Ok sure, TARP specifically. But there were alternate plans that involved government action. The alternative wasn't throwing hands up in the air and saying "oh well - the market will figure things out!"

Indeed. Though I think the children-representatives that voted against TARP either failed to realize or didn't care (or wanted a protest vote) that there wasn't enough time to do a painstaking negotiation for an alternative bailout that would have been 'perfect'. Those representatives who voted against it for those reasons are also morally bankrupt, IMO.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

This has always seemed too far-fetched to be true. To be true, they'd have had to make these plans last summer, when Trump's victory was a pipe dream at best. Would Clinton risk the fallout from people finding out about this on a very, very small change that Trump would win the nomination? Clinton may be a lot of things, but she's plenty calculating when it comes to winning.

Forget the Hillary side, this theory actually requires Trump to allow himself to be a pawn in someone else's scheme. What part of his personality and ego makes people think he'd agree to that? Now, the Clintons encouraging him to run to see the circus it creates? I buy that, though I completely doubt anyone anywhere thought it would get this far.

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Of all the stupid things in this stupid election, only having one candidate be unequivocally pro-vaccination is the stupidest.

Two. Harambe supports vaccination.

Originally Posted by cuervo72

The thing that worries me about some libertarian thinking - and Trump thinking - is that it's not particularly risk-averse. Financial markets might have collapsed, bringing times worse than the Great Depression. But they might not have! We don't know! A Trump presidency might lead to the collapse of democracy, or world conflict. But maybe not - we can't know for sure if we don't elect him!

It's like...the thinking of 17yo males. THIS WILL BE SO FUCKING COOL! Yeah, if it doesn't kill you first. No concept of risk.

Ironic. The whole point behind creative destruction is that bad risk taking by individuals and companies is punished. Bailing them out, whether by TARP or on an individual level with the huge parachute payments failed CEO's get and complete lack of jail time for even the most corrupt ones who are caught, just encourages extremely risky behavior by individual actors. Yes, letting those companies fail would have hurt in the short term, but I maintain that letting more fail would be a better deterrent in the long term, and that's not some fringe position in economics. I love the FDIC, but having a much larger one for much larger companies doesn't make sense to me, especially when you actually look into how some of these companies operate and "make" money.

EDIT - I will add that going cold turkey like orthodox libertarian's want wasn't an option then and some intervention was needed. But we should be pushing towards that model instead of letting them continue the same risky practices that caused issues in the 80's, caused issues in the 00's, and will cause another massive issue in another decade when over leveraging fails again because there's no punishment for the individuals making those bets.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Forget the Hillary side, this theory actually requires Trump to allow himself to be a pawn in someone else's scheme. What part of his personality and ego makes people think he'd agree to that?

this

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Also, 100 days is a long time. "Clinton leading because Trump is saying crazy stuff" will get old. The media will start to turn on her to keep the clicks coming. The race will tighten again.

Well, at least we can agree there is media bias. It won't turn as you suggest, but at least we agree it exists.

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by panerd

I mean you even are aware that Johnson got the majority of the votes to be nominated while agreeing with your viewpoint and still feel the need to post snippets from the debates like its some big deal. Fine....

Using your logic... Don't vote democrat!

Bernie Sanders refuses Sandy Hook apology at Brooklyn debate - NY Daily News

Dont vote republican....

Donald Trump Discusses Penis Size During Fox News Republican Debate

It's silly. Just like the dancing guy. What the hell does it have to do with Gary Johnson?

Oh sure, it's a vapid charge. I just think it's an easy way to dismiss or prevent the third party from gaining support (in case it gets too big for its britches). Swift boating proves abstract history can be effective fodder.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Yes, letting those companies fail would have hurt in the short term, but I maintain that letting more fail would be a better deterrent in the long term, and that's not some fringe position in economics.

Unfortunately it ignores the reality of what was actually happening. That wasn't "short term" pain. We avoided, without any hyperbole, complete meltdown once all the knock-ons played out. Mr. Robot type shit. If the investment banks and commercial banks were still separate, maybe it could have been contained as "short term" pain.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by panerd

Why would they when the D's and R's will bend over backwards to bail them out?

It's more like why would they because if the company sinks, they'll get a hefty parachute payment and go on about living their luxurious lives.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Senior GOP Officials Exploring Options if Trump Drops Out - ABC News

It's so bad right now the GOP is starting to make contingency plans in case he drops out. It sounds like it would have to happen in the next month or Hillary would basically end up running unopposed in November.

NBC and Fox News reporting this as well now.

But not a single identified source in either article? What's happening?

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Ironic. The whole point behind creative destruction is that bad risk taking by individuals and companies is punished. Bailing them out, whether by TARP or on an individual level with the huge parachute payments failed CEO's get and complete lack of jail time for even the most corrupt ones who are caught, just encourages extremely risky behavior by individual actors. Yes, letting those companies fail would have hurt in the short term, but I maintain that letting more fail would be a better deterrent in the long term, and that's not some fringe position in economics. I love the FDIC, but having a much larger one for much larger companies doesn't make sense to me, especially when you actually look into how some of these companies operate and "make" money.

I don't get why no 3rd party candidates that I'm aware of, with all of their crazy policy positions, doesn't advocate to revoke the corporate personhood protections.

I mean....yeah its crazy in the sense that you can't implement it overnight without anarchy....but in phases at least sounds better.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Dutch

NBC and Fox News reporting this as well now.

But not a single identified source in either article? What's happening?

Wishful thinking by GOP officials IMO

[JPhillips]

Yeah, I'd bet this is coming from NeverTrumpers that hope to say it enough to make it true.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Logan

Unfortunately it ignores the reality of what was actually happening. That wasn't "short term" pain. We avoided, without any hyperbole, complete meltdown once all the knock-ons played out. Mr. Robot type shit. If the investment banks and commercial banks were still separate, maybe it could have been contained as "short term" pain.

Depends on your definition of short & long term Obviously politicians only think at best in 4-6 year increments, while I'd rather look at it generationally with a 20-25 year span.

I do agree that the die was cast long before and it was clearly politically untenable, but do people think that money would have just disappeared? (Well, some of it would have, which proves that part of the wealth being "created" isn't real, though the salaries and bonuses paid out for "creating" it are very real.) The market paralysis was exacerbated during those frantic days because nobody knew what the government would come in and do, but as soon as they stated any position the people that actually have the capital would have gone to town. The best time to buy is in a crisis is an axiom for a reason. So yes, "Goldman Sachs" and "Morgan Stanley" would've disappeared if they didn't find angel investors, but remarkably similar companies would've risen out of the ashes, hopefully chastened by the experience. Who knows, maybe some of the ones that didn't ridiculously over-leverage themselves and lent more responsibly would've actually gained market share too!

Either way, the main thrust of my post wasn't to argue TARP (though I obviously like doing that - too many Sanders supporters in my bubble, so it's been awhile since I've been on this side!), but to point out that the bailouts weren't no risk options - they just kicked the can down the road and spread that risk out among individual actors by encouraging future risky behavior.

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Why We Needed A Bailout

Shurg, plenty of more reputable financial outlets than the Huffington Post weren't and aren't big fans.

Originally Posted by http://www.forbes.com/sites/billisaac/2010/10/01/was-tarp-worth-it/#1b497ff33848

Objectively, the TARP did nothing to stabilize the financial system that could not have been done without it. The negative aspects of the TARP far outweigh any possible benefit.

Originally Posted by http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/10/07/judging-tarp/

We’re still a long way from being able to render a final verdict on TARP. But the best that can be said for it at this point is that it helped to arrest the sickening downward spiral that the global financial system was falling into, and that it came in handy for bailing out the automakers. Against that, it failed to get banks lending again; it failed to do anything about the foreclosure crisis; it failed to make any kind of a dent in the unemployment crisis; it failed to hold bankers accountable for their actions; and it succeeded in generating a broad-based mistrust of institutions: the government and the financial-services industry certainly, and the judicial system possibly as well.

Originally Posted by http://cybercemetery.unt.edu/archive/cop/20110401223133/http://cop.senate.gov/reports/library/report-031611-cop.cfm (Congressional Oversight Panel's report)

Alan Blinder, Princeton University: The TARP spread a security blanket, tamping down risk spreads, and so in that sense it was successful. But it didn’t prevent a wave of foreclosures, didn’t result in the promised buying-up of toxic assets, and the wisdom of the General Motors bailout “will probably be debated forever.”

Simon Johnson, Ronald Kurtz, MIT Sloan School: The TARP did well in preventing a “collapse in spending,” it could have been much worse. However, the TARP was “badly mismanaged,” and along with President Obama’s public/private investment partnership, gave the message to Wall Street’s biggest firms that there was an “unconditional bailout.” The “too-connected-to-fail” banks — those with political allies — were allowed to wield great power.

Anil Kayshyap, Richard Rosett, University of Chicago: The TARP was presented by former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson in a misleading way, because buying toxic assets never made sense. That confusion led to the populist rhetoric that TARP was just a bailout for the banks. “The public’s frustration has led to a general rise in populist political rhetoric and has polluted the policy discussion in many other areas.” Also, it did nothing to forestall foreclosures.

Kenneth Rogoff, Harvard University: It’s not clear TARP actually worked, because TARP prevented the worst, but hasn’t led to a measurably better economic recovery “than has been typical after other postwar deep financial crises.”

Beyond the FDIC guaranteeing depositors and the Treasury Dept 100% guaranteeing individual investors - which were both already legal under their existing authority - I don't think the rest was necessary or wise. I will admit it is not a clear black and white and agree with this statement from The Economist though (and I've always been a Chicago school guy).

Unless I feel I am unusually well-versed in an issue, I try to stick close to the consensus of experts. I think this is the best we can do when trying objectively to identify "good policy". One of the most disorienting aspects of the recent financial crisis and recession has been the lack of significant expert consensus. Instead of consensus, we've had a lot of intramural catfights between big-name economists. This leaves us non-experts at sea. But few of us feel comfortable at sea, and so instead of pleading agnosticism, as we probably should, we tend to side with those experts whose opinions support our ideological prejudices. I know this is what I do, but I'm trying to do better. Anyway, the scholars above are real heavyweights, and I'm inclined to take them very seriously. But I'm sure there are other similarly weighty experts with different views, so I am wearing my mixed opinion about TARP lightly.

[larrymcg421]

“We’re really in a p—y generation. Everybody’s walking on eggshells. We see people accusing people of being racist and all kinds of stuff. When I grew up, those things weren’t called racist.” - Clint Eastwood

He grew up in the 30s and 40s.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

“We’re really in a p—y generation. Everybody’s walking on eggshells. We see people accusing people of being racist and all kinds of stuff. When I grew up, those things weren’t called racist.” - Clint Eastwood

He grew up in the 30s and 40s.

So did my grandfather. You're point?

[Butter]

Just go to the Abraham Lincoln thread if you want to see some of the things they thought weren't racist in the 30's and 40's.

[Thomkal]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/04/politi...016/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/04/politi...tes/index.html

Good news for Clinton.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Just go to the Abraham Lincoln thread if you want to see some of the things they thought weren't racist in the 30's and 40's.

Woah! I wasn't aware that we've made progress since the 1930's, thanks!

But, seriously, the reality is that we are all aware things are much better now than then. His point though is the definition of racism has changed. The aim, is to keep the term as potent and powerful as it was...but with the continual progress, it makes it harder to do so. It has almost become a strawman definition of itself. So we now have something more similar to this...

1936 - "Blacks shouldn't be a part of civilized society." = That's racist.

2016 - "If you won't vote for Hillary Clinton? Then you are against black people being a part of civilized society." = That's racist.

So many moderates have to walk on egg-shells a bit when they choose not to agree with the center-left platform, they shouldn't have to.

It's probably something more along those lines than "racism denier".

[RainMaker]

Yeah I don't think it's crazy to say the definition of racist has dramatically changed. A lot of people have taken the tactic that if you don't agree with my political views, it's because you're racist.

Trump is a dope but everyone who votes for him isn't racist.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Woah! I wasn't aware that we've made progress since the 1930's, thanks!

You're welcome.

But, seriously, the reality is that we are all aware things are much better now than then. His point though is the definition of racism has changed. The aim, is to keep the term as potent and powerful as it was...but with the continual progress, it makes it harder to do so. It has almost become a strawman definition of itself. So we now have something more similar to this...

Is that the aim?

Seems like the aim is more like being able to use casual racist comments and stereotypes and tell everyone to just "calm down" and stop being so "sensitive".

[RainMaker]

I think you kind of made his point by implying his comments were racist in nature.

[larrymcg421]

My point was that a white man probably shouldn't reminisce about how things weren't so easily called racist when he grew up in the 30s and 40s.

[Kodos]

2016 - "If you won't vote for Hillary Clinton? Then you are against black people being a part of civilized society." = That's racist.

I'm sorry, but that's an absurd example, Dutch. There are plenty of people who hate Clinton. It doesn't make them racist. It might mean a lot of them are sexist though.

[cuervo72]

Eh, I don't feel like I have to walk on any eggshells. Outside of not sharing thoughts on the president while in the presence of my in-laws, anyway.

I feel like those who complain about PC are more annoyed that they are being called out on what they say. No, it's not really appropriate anymore to parade around in blackface or to use the term "boy" or call someone a n*. That's why the language changed, became coded. Why people started using "dog-whistles."

"Barack Hussein Obama"
"welfare queens"
"thugs"
"states rights" (vs the federally imposed Civil Rights Act)
the birth certificate
"heritage"
"inner city"
food stamps
Willie Horton

This isn't a "won't vote for Hillary" deal. It's voting for Trump, who gained support by showing he is willing to do away with the coded language. "Look - you don't have to skirt around the topic anymore! It's ok to come out and say you don't like Mexicans, or Muslims, or blacks! No more PC!"

[digamma]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

So yes, "Goldman Sachs" and "Morgan Stanley" would've disappeared if they didn't find angel investors, but remarkably similar companies would've risen out of the ashes, hopefully chastened by the experience. Who knows, maybe some of the ones that didn't ridiculously over-leverage themselves and lent more responsibly would've actually gained market share too!

Certainly an interesting discussion and one maybe for it's own thread. I think the thing you underestimate above is how interconnected our economy and markets are today. If Goldman or Morgan Stanley had gone away, it would have had a ripple effect through the economy, most notably on pension plans and retirement accounts that depend on those banks for trading and liquidity. I mean, we're 8 years removed from Lehman and it is still being worked out with everyone losing other than Weil (law firm) and Alvarez (financial advisor).

The other thing I'd say is that it is a little unfair to criticize TARP for not producing more of a recovery. It was a stop gap and not a long term recovery plan.

I get the criticism that more wasn't done to stem foreclosures, but that's a robbing Peter to pay Paul situation too. Without some recovery on investment pension plans that owned the mortgages would have taken a bigger hit. All really complicated stuff, especially when you're doing it on the fly.

All things considered, I think Paulson and Geithner did remarkable jobs under two different administrations. Things could have easily been much, much worse.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

My point was that a white man probably shouldn't reminisce about how things weren't so easily called racist when he grew up in the 30s and 40s.

Why not? He actually lived during that time and could compare the eras.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I'm sorry, but that's an absurd example, Dutch. There are plenty of people who hate Clinton. It doesn't make them racist. It might mean a lot of them are sexist though.

I think Dutch was just using an example. An example that isn't far from reality today.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Why not? He actually lived during that time and could compare the eras.

Because I don't think the fact that you could say and do many things in the 30s and 40s without being called a racist was a good thing and certainly not something to aspire to today.

[Logan]

Well said dig.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

I don't get why no 3rd party candidates that I'm aware of, with all of their crazy policy positions, doesn't advocate to revoke the corporate personhood protections.

I mean....yeah its crazy in the sense that you can't implement it overnight without anarchy....but in phases at least sounds better.

Jill Stein has, IIRC. And yes, it'd be insane to do that, legally speaking.

[JPhillips]

Deliberately inflammatory tabloid headlines are now proof of PC?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by digamma

Certainly an interesting discussion and one maybe for it's own thread. I think the thing you underestimate above is how interconnected our economy and markets are today. If Goldman or Morgan Stanley had gone away, it would have had a ripple effect through the economy, most notably on pension plans and retirement accounts that depend on those banks for trading and liquidity. I mean, we're 8 years removed from Lehman and it is still being worked out with everyone losing other than Weil (law firm) and Alvarez (financial advisor).

The other thing I'd say is that it is a little unfair to criticize TARP for not producing more of a recovery. It was a stop gap and not a long term recovery plan.

I get the criticism that more wasn't done to stem foreclosures, but that's a robbing Peter to pay Paul situation too. Without some recovery on investment pension plans that owned the mortgages would have taken a bigger hit. All really complicated stuff, especially when you're doing it on the fly.

All things considered, I think Paulson and Geithner did remarkable jobs under two different administrations. Things could have easily been much, much worse.

100% agreement here. Especially for the TARP was a stopgap to prevent complete financial collapse, not a recovery plan. And in the links that BishopMVP shared, those financial folks explicitly say that - it was good to prevent the bottom falling out and that was what it really was intended to do. I think people get TARP confused with the Stimulus Act of 2008 too much. The later was intended to promote economic recovery while TARP was intended to prevent Great Depression II.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Why not? He actually lived during that time and could compare the eras.

Are we being wooshed? Because things weren't called racist in the 30s and 40s that TOTALLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN CALLED RACIST!

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Because I don't think the fact that you could say and do many things in the 30s and 40s without being called a racist was a good thing and certainly not something to aspire to today.

That's not how I interpreted his statements. I thought he was saying that we are quick to throw that word around and have changed the definition of it. If you don't like someone's politics, taste in movies, etc you're a racist. The word has lost a lot of meaning.

I didn't think he was saying that lynching people wasn't racist because some people in the 30's wouldn't think of it that way.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by digamma

Certainly an interesting discussion and one maybe for it's own thread. I think the thing you underestimate above is how interconnected our economy and markets are today. If Goldman or Morgan Stanley had gone away, it would have had a ripple effect through the economy, most notably on pension plans and retirement accounts that depend on those banks for trading and liquidity. I mean, we're 8 years removed from Lehman and it is still being worked out with everyone losing other than Weil (law firm) and Alvarez (financial advisor).

The other thing I'd say is that it is a little unfair to criticize TARP for not producing more of a recovery. It was a stop gap and not a long term recovery plan.

I get the criticism that more wasn't done to stem foreclosures, but that's a robbing Peter to pay Paul situation too. Without some recovery on investment pension plans that owned the mortgages would have taken a bigger hit. All really complicated stuff, especially when you're doing it on the fly.

All things considered, I think Paulson and Geithner did remarkable jobs under two different administrations. Things could have easily been much, much worse.

I always considered TARP more as having an emotional impact on the economy rather than a direct financial one. It gave some confidence back to the financial sector.

We were at a point where even the safest of investments were starting to waver. There as a real risk of a run on the banks. Money Markets were seeing their NAV drop. That's scary stuff.

Too Big to Fail is a really good book for those interested in learning more about what took place. Also how close we were to complete financial collapse.

[Kodos]

People are mad because they can't just say racist things and expect not to be called on it anymore.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Kodos

People are mad because they can't just say racist things and expect not to be called on it anymore.

There are more occurrences of people getting mad that they can't just call anybody a racist without getting challenged for it.

[Kodos]

We'll have to disagree on that point.

I have a former coworker or two who was clearly put out because they could no longer make demeaning comments about blacks/gays etc. without fear of getting in trouble like they used to be able to do. But heaven forbid you make a negative comment about her adulterous daughter after she got arrested for drunk driving. She basically loved sharing her "truths" with you, but was not crazy if you shared yours back.