Don’t waste your time. He’s going to intentionally misunderstand you to waste your time / have more back and forth.

I’ve met the type a couple times before.

“No, you didn’t.”

and you are on ignore. Idiot troll.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

As to what money-printing looks like in our digital age.

=======

As previously posted: Of the three monies, it’s Bank Loans that can contract — implode the money supply.

Gold, and silver, just creep on up. Today, they are eclipsed.

Because Bank Loan money creation is nil to negative, the Fedsury is ginning up ‘high-powered’ money at a serious clip.

At some point, probably behind us, the economy hits an inflection point, and is no longer able to pull back from the opiate addition.

It is hooked.

=======

There are many, many indications that Barry stole his re-selection no less than Hugo Chavez.

We are now seeing Youtube clips of babes in the ‘hood picking up free cell phones, to be later flipped to their dope dealing lovers.

Barry’s been handing them out like Chicklets.

We’re seeing videos of ‘hood babes who claim that they were able to vote, time and again, November 6, 2012; no IDs were required. They simply rode from ward to ward until the rosters were voted full. (!) So went Philadelphia and thus Pennsylvania.

And Ohio. And Florida. And Virginia….

And Colorado. And, almost, North Carolina: a state not even considered in contention — went down to the wire. (!)

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

========

The upshot: the spigot is to be turned wide, wide, wide open.

When it’s done, Z will be utterly ruined. No way he survives on the Blue Pill.

Many people who were directed to subprime would have qualified for full-doc fixed-rate FHA loans, but that’s not where the profit was. In any case, the bubble was in private-label securities, as we showed above.

T: As you, yourself admit, the Bush tax cuts did stimulate the economy; they increased revenues.

Just because tax cuts spur the economy doesn’t mean the increase in revenues due to the expansion will offset the loss in revenues due to lower taxes. A simple example–from the Laffer Curve–is dropping rates to zero.

T: The Laffer curve. You really simply do not understand.

The peak of the Laffer Curve is undefined, as is the shape of the curve. It’s not even clear it’s a continuous function. That’s why it’s not a serious model, not in isolation at least.

–
“Nor should the argument seem strange that taxation may be so high as to defeat its object, and that, given sufficient time to gather the fruits, a reduction of taxation will run a better chance than an increase of balancing the budget.” – John Maynard Keynes

The CRA: I did explain, you need to pay attention when you read. You dismissed my explanation.

Subprime loans. While certain types of subprime loans have been around for a long time (just as junk bonds have) the subprime loans which poisoned the well did not exist before the CRA because banks were red-lining and wouldn’t write mtgs. in those lowest income neighborhoods.

The Bush Tax cuts; As you, yourself admit, the Bush tax cuts did stimulate the economy; they increased revenues. Increasing revenues does not create deficits. Spending beyond one’s means creates deficits.

The Laffer curve. You really simply do not understand.

I do not expect to change your mind in this discussion, but you make the discussion itself an exercise in futility rather than an exchange of ideas. Your response betrays a most superficial understanding of that which you profess to discuss.

T: That is a matter of your opinion, not fact.

As you are the one blaming the CRA, it is up to you to explain why there was a 30-year lag. We suggested a possible explanation.

T: Those particular sub-prime loans did not exist before the govt mandated that they exist.

Subprime loans have been around for decades. As long as the risk is clear, then simply offering subprime loans won’t create a bubble. What was different was the issuing of private-label securitization that gamed the credit ratings system.
http://www.anthonyworlando.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Screen-shot-2011-10-26-at-4.48.55-PM.png

T: As to the citing of secondary sources Wikipedia does not count as even a secondary source.

It was exactly a secondary source, as it provided a link directly to the primary source. It was in the first sentence, so not sure how you missed it.

T: You will not credit the tax cuts for stimulating revenue because of a lag time of five years, but you will cite the tax cuts as a proximate cause of the housing bubble implosion eight years after the tax cuts were introduced?

You are quite confused. The Bush tax cuts did stimulate the economy, however they left a budget deficit. Revenues finally exceeded previous levels during the housing bubble, but then fell precipitously immediately afterwards. Nor did the tax cuts cause the bubble, though they certainly added fuel to the fire.

T: If, as I believe, this is the basic origin of your personal presentation here, then it reveals a fundamental misunderstanding (or lack of knowledge) of the Laffer curve. Again, you are simply and factually incorrect.

You do realize the Laffer curve is a toy model? It’s not without some value, but largely oversimplified.

That is a matter of your opinion, not fact. Try as you may to explain them away, a bad loan is a bad loan is a bad loan. Period. Those particular sub-prime loans did not exist before the govt mandated that they exist. Without govt interference those sub-prime loans would not have existed at all, much less in the plethora they did. Period. Further, non-repayment is non-repayment and when the system reaches a tipping point where those non-repaying loans are recognized for what they are, then the system will eventually collapse–as it did.

Note I wrote about a tipping point of recognition. It matters not at all that there were or were not enough sub-prime loans to truly damage the system. It matters that they reached a tipping point of perception. They polluted the system which made the system untrustworthy which then discouraged investment in the system which caused the collapse. Let me give you a rather graphic example. I hand you a glass of water and as you drink it I mention that I added to your glass half an ounce of water that I ladeled from the toilet. Now the toilet water comes from the same pipes and is the same water that I get from my kitchen faucet. Do you continue to drink the water? Of course not. This is precisely what happened w/ regard to the influence of the sub-prime loans. I repeat, that they existed at all was the doing of the Carter administration.

All this is the result of the govt mandating these sub-prime loans in the first place. Remember, then banks didn’t go out and say “hey, let’s fleece these homeowners by lending them money that they are unable to repay.” Banks don’t work that way; banks are in the business of making money on loans, not using them to acquire unsalable real estate. Only govts can invent such tortured mental gymnastics. Actions have consequences, the good intentions of the Carter administrations be damned; as Herb Stein pointed out, what can’t go on forever won’t! Once you find out where the water is coming from you’ll stop drinking it unless it becomes a matter of life and death.

As to the citing of secondary sources Wikipedia does not count as even a secondary source. At best, and I mean at best, Wiki can only be used as a rudimentary starting point to direct the most initial phases of research and discovery. Do not propose to me that it is a “secondary” source. It is not even that.

“that’s hardly a confident result”? Your argument is based upon a false premise. Here is the gist of your argument:

1) tax cuts began to be phased in in 2001
2) revenues did not return to previous levels until 2006
3) then the housing bubble collapse occured.

So let’s get this straight. You will not credit the tax cuts for stimulating revenue because of a lag time of five years, but you will cite the tax cuts as a proximate cause of the housing bubble implosion eight years after the tax cuts were introduced?

Ultimately, your argument regarding the tax cuts and their impact flows from the argument that tax cuts do not encourage economic growth but, rather, they encourage deficits by reducing revenue. If, as I believe, this is the basic origin of your personal presentation here, then it reveals a fundamental misunderstanding (or lack of knowledge) of the Laffer curve. Again, you are simply and factually incorrect.

Not necessarily, but thirty years is too removed to sustain your claim. A better argument would be that changes to the program since then abetted the formation of the bubble. However, like most market bubbles, it was driven by demand. There’s a long history of market bubbles. They occur when the value of the underlying commodity becomes detached from the market price.

T: The Investors Business Daily article cites “Pages 411-413 of his 2012 Economic Report of the President” and you counter with a reference to . . . Wikipedia?

Yes, we both cited secondary sources. Here is the ECONOMIC GROWTH AND TAX RELIEF RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2001.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ16/html/PLAW-107publ16.htm
Please note that the marginal rate decreases were phased in over time starting in 2001. Also, from your own chart, revenues did not return to previous levels until 2006 during the housing bubble, and then collapsed precipitously in 2008. That’s hardly a confident result.