<p>Spidey- once again, you dont answer the question- HOW would it have saved US taxpayers more money? Hmmm??That was your stipulation, remember? So DO tell us how.</p>
<p>“We’re living in an economy where productivity is no longer the goal, employment is. That’s because, on a very fundamental level, we have pretty much everything we need. America is productive enough that it could probably shelter, feed, educate, and even provide health care for its entire population with just a fraction of us actually working…”</p>
<p>We don’t have nearly what we need if we don’t get low cost products from other countries and borrow money from them at the same time.</p>
<p>Ellemenope
I think you need to do a little more research. How about starting with a history of the SEC and the laws that govern it:
[How</a> the SEC Protects Investors, Maintains Market Integrity, and Facilitates Capital Formation (Securities and Exchange Commission)](<a href=“http://www.sec.gov/about/whatwedo.shtml]How”>http://www.sec.gov/about/whatwedo.shtml)
[Bill</a> Moyers Journal . History of the SEC | PBS](<a href=“http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10122007/sec.html]Bill”>Bill Moyers Journal . History of the SEC | PBS)</p>
<p>The era you speak of as the beginning of Armageddon began in January of 2001. </p>
<p>This was, interestingly, not too long after the March of 2000 dotcom crash. What changes occurred in that time period, from January of 2001 to when Enron crumbled in November of 2001 (actually less than ten months)? </p>
<p>What changes occurred in the next few months that led to Worldcoms fall? As early as 1999 it began using bogus accounting practices to cover up its declining earnings. This was all unmasked half way through 2002 by the SEC. Look at the dates. See when things started.</p>
<p>Throughout the 90s number of major companies were using irregular accounting procedures bordering on fraud. In 2002 the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was signed. Is that what you think caused the world economic decline? Explain how you think this caused the Wall Street mess in 2008 alone, if that is it. </p>
<p>What is it exactly that you are talking about? What specifically changed from January of 2001 to when Lehman blew up in 2008 (and what changes in accounting practices happened on Wall Street as a result of it)? Different SEC commissioners? What specific changes occurred?</p>
<p>I would do some reading on laws passed which forced banks to write bad loans that were destined to fail, and on how those loans became bundled as investments (leading to the Lehman implosion in 2008). Look at dates. </p>
<p>I would also look into countries around the world in economic crisis right now and how they got there. Please share if you can provide a direct link to this era you speak of which began in 1/01. Im thinking it might be a bit more complicated. </p>
<p>You really should not accept this drivel hook, link, and sinker without doing some research.</p>
<p>Here is an interesting current article on the SEC: [S.E.C</a>. Chief Under Bush Says Reform Misses Goals - Web Log - NYTimes.com](<a href=“S.E.C. Chief Under Bush Says Reform Misses Goals - Web Log - NYTimes.com”>Harvey Pitt, Former S.E.C. Chairman, Criticizes Dodd-Frank - The New York Times)</p>
<p>“Stipulation”? What are you talking about, Menlo?</p>
<p>“What is it exactly that you are talking about? What specifically changed from January of 2001 to when Lehman blew up in 2008 (and what changes in accounting practices happened on Wall Street as a result of it)? Different SEC commissioners? What specific changes occurred?”</p>
<p>You don’t know?</p>
<p>Excellent response dstark.</p>
<p>I don’t know what ellemenope is talking about, no. It makes no sense.</p>
<p>Menlo, you need to look into what happens in bankruptcy court.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126257857[/url]”>GM's Payback A Start, But An End Still Far Off : NPR;
<p>This is getting boring. Kluge needs to come back here and write something.</p>
<p>Kluge:
What was wrong about Gates? I said almost nothing. Curious.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, Kluge, more has been assed to the debt in the last two to three years then all other similar time periods COMBINED in the history of this country. </p>
<p>Yikes.</p>
<p>spideygirl, what did the SEC do between 2001 and 2008 that helped cause the financial crisis?</p>
<p>THIS IS WHAT YOU SAID[ sorry the word stipulation was too advanced for you]
“Had that happened sooner, we would have saved more.”</p>
<p>So back it up .</p>
<p>see post 76 if you still don’t understand.</p>
<p>hmmmmmm…
2 hrs late and no response yet to my post.
why am I not surprised?</p>
<p>This statement “Had that happened sooner, we would have saved more.”
was yet another example of a simplistic “Sara Palin” type sound bite from SG that cant be backed up with actual facts…</p>
<p>
Bill Gate’s attended Harvard. His grandfather owned a bank. His father was a prominent attorney; his mother was a regent of the University of Washington and a member of the Board of Directors of the United Way - along with the CEO of IBM. He didn’t write the computer program which was the foundation of Microsoft’s success, but bought it for $75,000. The key to the Microsoft fortune was the contract Gates entered into with IBM, not any technological breakthrough. That’s certainly no knock on Gates - his business plan was a big success. But coming from an affluent family with connections certainly didn’t hurt. Bill Gates is simply another example of a scion of an affluent family becoming even wealthier than his forebears. He came from the kind of strength that matters in the modern era: economic strength. (Other examples: Donald Trump, Koch brothers, etc.)</p>
<p>
Actually, before Reagan, every U.S. Presdient since WWII had reduced the national debt in relation to the nations GDP. But in the 12 years of the Ronald Reagan and GHW Bush administrations, the national debt quadrupled in amount and more than doubled as a percentage of the GDP, during times of relative prosperity. When Reagan took office, the national debt was less than a trillion dollars and under 30% of GDP. When Clinton took office 12 years later it was over $4T and close to 70% of GDP. As Dick Chaney observed: “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter” </p>
<p>The recent deficits have only increased the national debt by some $4T and 20% of GDP, less in absolute terms when adjusted for inflation than under the Reagan/Bush administrations, and far less in terms of percentage of GDP. <a href=“http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm[/url]”>http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm</a></p>
<p>The only difference is that the current deficits are being run to keep the economy from sliding into a full-scale depression, whereas the $10T of debt run up under Reagan, Bush and Bush was incurred solely to increase wealth among the wealthy by lowering their tax rates. Yikes, indeed.</p>
<p>Kluge -
What you wrote about Gates is so very ridiculous. I love that you did it though, because it gave me a big smile. Gates’ family of origin was middle class, as I described. I consider that to included all forms of middle class, including upper middle class. The use of the word “scion” on your part is funny. What Bill Gates achieved and amassed compared to what he started out with is a great American success story. The fact that he didn’t start out with nothing doesn’t change things one bit. The whole paragraph that you wrote on this is just silly.</p>
<p>Menloparkmom -
If the bankruptcy had happened sooner, billions would have been saved for taxpayers as the four units that were being kept afloat (Saab, Saturn, Hummer, Delphi) were sold sooner. This is not complicated, really. If costs were cut sooner, more money would have been saved. That is what happens in reorganization under bankruptcy.</p>
<p>What probably cost us more…You cannot quantify the fear injected into the marketplace as business people entertained the prospect of the US government moving more towards a socialist relationship with private enterprise. If you agree with people like Howard Schultz, that much of what is ailing us is psychological, and if you understand what motivates business people to take risk, then you might be able to grasp the enormity of this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>OK, menloparkmom. I think you should look at your owned canned remarks. Also, I love CC, but you also might want to question your expectations and habits when it comes to spending time in the online world.</p>
<p>Spideygirl, still waiting for your explanation of why Ronald Reagan isn’t the “Father of the American National debt.” - aka the guy who “proved that deficits don’t matter” per Dick Chaney. The majority of the country’s current debt is still IOU’s issued from 1980-1992 and 2002-2008.</p>
<p>Inconvenient, counter-propagandish, but true.</p>
<p>"you also might want to question your expectations and habits when it comes to spending time in the online world. "
and you may want to review your own pattern of not responding to questions, that are based on your own previous posts, that you dont want to answer[ see kluges post above].</p>
<p>Menlo you are being silly. I just answered your question, and responded to Kluge’s latest issues. Maybe my response to the RR comment disappeared? Something about how absurd and comical it is for anyone from your perspective to bring up adding to the debt? Reagan inherited a dismantled military. Let’s talk very recent stats, Kluge. Please.</p>
<p>
A slide caused and accelerated by job-killing policies. Spending and redistributing is really just for one purpose right now: get more people dependent on the government, and increase the number of your supporters. There is just too much nonchalance about the debt and job numbers. Seems like a strategy.</p>
<p>I’ll let you and Menlo have the last words, should you choose to do so. Say something fascinating and brilliant.</p>
<p>You three are a bunch of children. There, I said it.</p>
<p>^^aegrisomnia. I never studied economics and don’t understand anything at all about what is happening right now in the world. These threads are really helpful to me. I learn a lot.</p>
<p>Please keep posting “you three” because I don’t get to read one explanation without the other. Thank you. Especially thank you for all the links.</p>
<p>“Let’s talk very recent stats, Kluge. Please.”
The overhang from financial decisions made in the past have a long term cumulative effect Spidey, whether you want to admit it or not. The results of macroeconomic decisions dont have an “expiration date”. It would be nice if they did and we could all start over each decade with a fresh slate and a 0 budget. But that’s not how it works in the real world. Too bad you don’t understand that.</p>
<p>The original quote has nothing to do with real life and completely lack lowest level of economic background. Maybe it was taken out of contest? It sounds way too much like 3rd grader’s thinking to consider it all by itself.</p>