Citizen's United II - the other foot

[kandrathe]

I believe that you believe you're just talking about one, focused topic. But I have quite the trouble actually believing that when you end the first post with ' Or, my right to even reveal my thoughts here on this forum.'

I'm not being Cassandra here. It's hard for me to understand how people don't see the interconnectedness of something like CU, and what happened to David Miranda, and forcing them to trash hard drives at the Guardian or be effectively shut down. I'm addressing the freedom to speak, and in that case through media (tv, cable, film, books, newspaper, internet, etc.) I also don't understand how we became nations that tolerate the government wire tapping the AP or using agents "to send a message" to people who are lawful. If they are breaking the law, then use the courts. While we have had the ability to capture, store, and analyze things like fingerprints, voices, photos, or DNA, we are facing the intersection of those abilities with the technological means to make that analysis and communication of it almost instantaneous. There are some very serious challenges to peoples ability to remain private, with very loose definitions about what IS reasonable for the government to keep an eye on, so to speak.

It has been attempted in law already to make web site owners, or ISP's that host those sites responsible for what we say on their web sites. If that ever happens, they will have no choice but to stop allowing us to speak for liability reasons alone. Who will be able to speak then? Why corporations of course, who can afford the lawyers to defend their speech rights, and who have the many dollars needed to engage the only outlets allowed for speech.

[eppie]

Also, eppie unless you were trying to be humourous.

You didn't think it was funny?

[kandrathe]

Also, eppie unless you were trying to be humourous.

You didn't think it was funny?

I considered it. But it was pretty oblique.

[eppie]

I'm not being

It has been attempted in law already to make web site owners, or ISP's that host those sites responsible for what we say on their web sites. If that ever happens, they will have no choice but to stop allowing us to speak for liability reasons alone. Who will be able to speak then? Why corporations of course, who can afford the lawyers to defend their speech rights, and who have the many dollars needed to engage the only outlets allowed for speech.

It becomes ever more clearer that it is not 'freedom' what the Americans want (and I want to add also us Europeans here) but just the bits of it we think are cool.

We make up great stories about why we should have the right to bear arms, but at the same time we don't care if Bradley Manning goes to jail, Snowden is wanted, Assange is wanted, the government checks all our private mails etc.

Notice that in all the cases of these people bringing in the open secret documents that show ourt governments are trampling our basic rights the main focus is on what type of mental issues these people (Manning, Assange, Snowden) have. The government and media are successfully spinning these stories in a way that the common man will hate the bringer of the news, and doesn't care about the prosecution of Americans who kill Iraqi citizens for fun, organisations who spy on us etc.

I am only following the discussion half so I don't know what this basic human rights have to do with the right wing extremists, but in this last post you made a good point.

[kandrathe]

I am only following the discussion half so I don't know what this basic human rights have to do with the right wing extremists, but in this last post you made a good point.

I always get confused my the linearity of the left wing, right wing classifications. Many of these issues are multi-dimensional. In the US civil war, I think it was actually the right wing (abolitionist Republicans) who won, and the right wing Southern Democrats who lost. I always think of Left being more the socialists/communists.

In the current day, wars, "homeland security", and privacy are issues where the leaders of our major political parties have found common ground. So perhaps in the US, it is still all right wing, and only a matter of extremes on various positions.

Both parties in the wake of 911 made the Patriot Act, GWB signed it, and then when Obama gained the office, both sides increased its levels of intrusion and eroded its oversight. GWB began our anti-terrorist crusades in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Obama has taken no drastic change from the original US plans, and involved us in Libya, and possibly yet Syria, and Egypt. We still have Gitmo, rendition and other partner black sites where US laws, and the Army Field Manual Rules may not apply. We still have black ops, with black bags whisking away people to black sites with torture and indefinite detention without law. We have a massive increase in the use of drones for surveillance and air strikes that don't seem to bother either democrats or republicans. Our southern border is becoming more and more a military zone reminiscent of East Berlin.

[eppie]

I am only following the discussion half so I don't know what this basic human rights have to do with the right wing extremists, but in this last post you made a good point.

I always get confused my the linearity of the left wing, right wing classifications. Many of these issues are multi-dimensional. In the US civil war, I think it was actually the right wing (abolitionist Republicans) who won, and the right wing Southern Democrats who lost. I always think of Left being more the socialists/communists.

In the current day, wars, "homeland security", and privacy are issues where the leaders of our major political parties have found common ground. So perhaps in the US, it is still all right wing, and only a matter of extremes on various positions.

Both parties in the wake of 911 made the Patriot Act, GWB signed it, and then when Obama gained the office, both sides increased its levels of intrusion and eroded its oversight. GWB began our anti-terrorist crusades in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Obama has taken no drastic change from the original US plans, and involved us in Libya, and possibly yet Syria, and Egypt. We still have Gitmo, rendition and other partner black sites where US laws, and the Army Field Manual Rules may not apply. We still have black ops, with black bags whisking away people to black sites with torture and indefinite detention without law. We have a massive increase in the use of drones for surveillance and air strikes that don't seem to bother either democrats or republicans. Our southern border is becoming more and more a military zone reminiscent of East Berlin.

True, but I still have the feeling that (and it doesn't make a real difference probably) that GWB and his cronies were fully supporting and pushing through wars, gitmo's patriot acts etc., because that is what they were all about, that was their thing, while Obama just 'doesn't change things back because he is scared the democrats will lose the center vote.

Basically a very large part of Americans wants to go to war in Muslim countries. And they complain only when it turns our that the US is bankrupt. So Obama can't really win here.

Again, that doesn't make him any of a better person compared to GWB. Maybe even a worse person. Bush was openly making decisions solely based on the fact if his friends could get better business deals out of it, and he easily got voted a second time because of that.
Obama is just scares, even in his second term he doesn't want to take any risk with the voters.

[kandrathe]

True, but I still have the feeling that (and it doesn't make a real difference probably) that GWB and his cronies were fully supporting and pushing through wars, gitmo's patriot acts etc., because that is what they were all about, that was their thing

This is what I would term the "authoritarian" part of the Republicans. But, I think there also a large number of "war hawks" on democrat side, but they don't lead with that foot.

while Obama just 'doesn't change things back because he is scared the democrats will lose the center vote.

Up until the midterm election in 2010, his party had control of Congress and the Executive branch. They could have modified the administrations stance, but they did not. In appointing Ms. Clinton to SOS, they de-facto supported the Clintonesque foreign policy, which was Bushy, but not as heavy handed as GWB.

Basically a very large part of Americans wants to go to war in Muslim countries. And they complain only when it turns our that the US is bankrupt. So Obama can't really win here.

I don't think so. I think Americans don't want acts of terror done here, or to our friends. The calculus is complicated, but in part; bad dictators like Saddam, Qaddafi, or Mubarak are probably better than a failed states like Afghanistan or Somalia if they can be coerced into playing nice with the world. Their brutal secular regimes were intolerant to religious extremism, which limited its overt spread. It remained underground, and virulent. The internet, cell phones, and other technologies have greatly helped subversive movements. GWB's mistake was in underestimating the costs of preventing a failed state, and the time needed to re-establish a functioning state where all former societal institutions are removed. It's hard to communicate this cohesively to the American public, but leadership in changing America's "world view" is absent. That world view now is more and more that our government can unilaterally do whatever it wants (in the name of national security), wherever it wants; with, or without the (possibly foreign) nations approval.

Again, that doesn't make him any of a better person compared to GWB. Maybe even a worse person. ... Obama is just scared, even in his second term he doesn't want to take any risk with the voters.

I believe Presidents should be measured by what they did, and allowed to be done during their tenure.

Bush was openly making decisions solely based on the fact if his friends could get better business deals out of it, and he easily got voted a second time because of that.

Bush/Cheney had their Halliburton, but Obama has his GE (who owns NBC, and MSNBC).

[Jester]

I believe Presidents should be measured by what they did, and allowed to be done during their tenure.

Something something congressional sovereignty something? It's not quite that simple, surely.

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

I always get confused my the linearity of the left wing, right wing classifications. Many of these issues are multi-dimensional. In the US civil war, I think it was actually the right wing (abolitionist Republicans) who won, and the right wing Southern Democrats who lost. I always think of Left being more the socialists/communists.

In the current day, wars, "homeland security", and privacy are issues where the leaders of our major political parties have found common ground. So perhaps in the US, it is still all right wing, and only a matter of extremes on various positions.

I actually agree with most of this, in particular about socialists and communists being Leftist. In today's politics, the so-called Left vs. Right paradigm is so overly and grossly simplified to the point where the terms really lack any real meaning at this point now. As a communist myself, I find democrat-republican debates to be rather funny, cause they slander each other so much, yet both parties are, from my perspective at least, extremely right-wing. Many of Obama's policies are even to the right of Bush, and yet we have quite a few people calling him a "socialist" which is just absolute mind-fuckery to me... cause he is nothing even close to being such. Calling him a socialist or Marxist is an insult to someone like me - someone who genuinely is these things, understands what they really are, and what their positions and agendas constitute. Just his VERY POSITION alone (US President) pretty much disqualifies him from being anything of what a real leftist is, and that doesn't even take into account that his actions are everything that any socialist worth his salt should abhor, just as they should with Stalin, Mao, or any other individual/party that is an agency for the ruling class. Even the CPUSA is pretty much a right-wing party from my view, because they support Obama and have been known to work with the democrats even in the past - they are communist only in name, just like the CCP is. Liberals have never been "leftist", nor will they ever be...and in many ways, I dislike them even more than I do so-called "conservatives".

The Democrats and liberals are very much center-right, with Republicans being farther right and the Tea Party being the most extreme right in American politics. It is funny to me that both parties hate one another so much, yet both do a outstanding job serving the interests of big business and private capital, and neither one could care less about the working class. Sure, perhaps the Dems are farther left on so-called "social issues", but you cannot analyze economics and social issues as being mutually exclusive from one another. Not accurately at least. The two are inseparable. But at least the Republicans do not try to hide their dislike of the poor - while liberals usually do: they claim to be for the little guy but at the end of the day they serve big capital every bit as much as conservatives do.

TL;DR version: anyone who doesn't subscribe to revolutionary politics in some way has no business calling themselves a leftist.

[Jester]

TL;DR version: anyone who doesn't subscribe to revolutionary politics in some way has no business calling themselves a leftist.

It had to happen sooner or later.

/thread

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

Right, because a alternative or radical viewpoint isn't allowed to be put on the table, ever. Anyways, no need to close thread, as I don't intend to delve deeply into this discussion. There are many posts I could reply to with the intent of having an interesting political discussion/debate, but I won't bother. Just wanted to add my 2 cents to one of Kandrathe's thoughts that I happen to agree with (gasp!). Have at it.

[Jester]

Right, because a alternative or radical viewpoint isn't allowed to be put on the table, ever.

More like because it's ALWAYS on the table, because you put it there.

Every thread, regardless of whatever else we might have once been talking about, becomes about exactly the same thing: your political beliefs. You can't even do something as simple as agree with someone, without also yanking the discussion towards what is apparently your only topic: How super radically communist you are, and how bourgeois-rightist the rest of the world is.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I believe Presidents should be measured by what they did, and allowed to be done during their tenure.

Something something congressional sovereignty something? It's not quite that simple, surely.

Only if you want to be really, really fair. The bottom line is that unless the congress repeatedly must over ride the presidential veto, the president ends up getting his way with compromises. A popular president will help to carry the political tide in their favor, so in many ways, there again, the success of the president can be also measured by the size of his coat tails.

The other "fair" would be to realistically factor in the spill over from the prior administration (blame it on Bush). Obama, and Reagan took the presidency at desperate financial times, and did drastically different things. We still have not seen the full impacts of Obama's first acts (especially since the begin dates were set for after 2012, or 2016). So to be fair to Obama, his administration will be responsible for our economy, possibly until 2020. Monetarily, I firmly am in the "no free lunch" crowd of fiscal karma, so I believe every Fed action done to pump up the economy has a red letter pay day in our future. Some one must pay for every stimulus dollar, and it is either an investor who risks and loses, or long term investors/savers/pensioners who's valuations are drastically depreciated.

[Jester]

Only if you want to be really, really fair. The bottom line is that unless the congress repeatedly must over ride the presidential veto, the president ends up getting his way with compromises. A popular president will help to carry the political tide in their favor, so in many ways, there again, the success of the president can be also measured by the size of his coat tails.

I would turn this on its head. Congress gets its way, because the President can't actually legislate. The veto is powerful, popularity is powerful, and the executive can hardly just be ignored. But the President can't just say what he wants, then expect to get it. The congressional meat grinder is far, far too strong for that. Indeed, with this president, what he even proposes tends to be pre-compromised for congressional Republican approval, because the filibuster is, effectively, a veto for the minority party.

Obama, and Reagan took the presidency at desperate financial times, and did drastically different things. We still have not seen the full impacts of Obama's first acts (especially since the begin dates were set for after 2012, or 2016). So to be fair to Obama, his administration will be responsible for our economy, possibly until 2020.

Except that at no point is the US president responsible for the global economy, and a quick peek out the window suggests the economic problems are global. The US is a big player, and the President has a lot of clout, but the world is way bigger than that.

It is also worth emphasizing that the crises faced by Reagan and Obama are of entirely different, indeed opposite, nature. The 1970s was a time of runaway inflation, not a banking crisis. The solution, obvious to Paul Volcker, was to "draw gold from the moon" by raising interest rates. Reagan suffered the pain of that in his first years, and reaped the benefits later. (Carter, OTOH, got slaughtered.) 2008 was a banking crisis caused by the collapse of an asset bubble. Inflation was, and still is, practically zero - it's output that's gone down. So, the solution, as seen by Bernanke, should be obvious and opposite: lower interest rates. But we hit the zero lower bound, and thus, need either extreme monetary policy (massive QE for as long as it takes), or fiscal stimulus.

Monetarily, I firmly am in the "no free lunch" crowd of fiscal karma, so I believe every Fed action done to pump up the economy has a red letter pay day in our future. Some one must pay for every stimulus dollar, and it is either an investor who risks and loses, or long term investors/savers/pensioners who's valuations are drastically depreciated.

No. "Dollars" are not resources. They are made of paper, or even more ephemeral bank deposits. They are not in limited supply.

You are right to foreground inflation as the right consequence. If there is no inflation, then there is no problem. How else do we "pay" for these "dollars"? There isn't any other channel, unless you want to suggest that somehow, adding to the monetary base decreases output directly?

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

More like because it's ALWAYS on the table, because you put it there.

Of course I do. In ANY political discussion, the participants generally already have a view as well as a particular framework that they work within of which said view is formed around, that will naturally be brought to the table and be seen in their commentary. Whether that is Marxism with me, liberalism with you, libertarianism for Kandrathe, social democracy (?) with eppie, etc. It would be both unreasonable and naive to expect anything otherwise. Which leads me to....

Every thread, regardless of whatever else we might have once been talking about, becomes about exactly the same thing: your political beliefs. You can't even do something as simple as agree with someone, without also yanking the discussion towards what is apparently your only topic: How super radically communist you are, and how bourgeois-rightist the rest of the world is.

That's because you and others spend more time trying to slander, misrepresent, and discredit Marxism at every opportunity you get, than you do focusing or debating on the core issues - don't deny it. Perhaps if you spent more time doing the latter, and less of the former, this wouldn't be an issue. The problem lies on YOUR (and others) end, and not mine, possibly? Or at the very least, it is 50/50. Whenever I post in any political discussion here first thing you try and do is slander the framework I use rather than debate the actual topic itself, 9 times outta 10. And that is because you don't want a radical viewpoint to be in the picture. But, I guess I can't blame you. Those who support bourgeois values/ideologies and shoddy free-market systems do not want anything that would show inconvenient truths about said things to be presented in any political discourse So in a way, it makes sense.

[kandrathe]

I would turn this on its head. Congress gets its way, because the President can't actually legislate. The veto is powerful, popularity is powerful, and the executive can hardly just be ignored. But the President can't just say what he wants, then expect to get it. The congressional meat grinder is far, far too strong for that. Indeed, with this president, what he even proposes tends to be pre-compromised for congressional Republican approval, because the filibuster is, effectively, a veto for the minority party.

There is the bully pulpit and all. I'm not sure if it's cultural, or personality, or a 24/7 news cycle, but the most recent presidents seem to have the attention span of a Ritalin deprived squirrel on Mtn. Dew. Our government seems very reactive, and not leading.

Except that at no point is the US president responsible for the global economy, and a quick peek out the window suggests the economic problems are global. The US is a big player, and the President has a lot of clout, but the world is way bigger than that.

Yes, they are not responsible, but the US governments actions have a big, or at times biggest impact on the global economy.

No. "Dollars" are not resources. They are made of paper, or even more ephemeral bank deposits. They are not in limited supply.

Right. Which is why the Feds balance sheet went from less than a trillion, to almost 2.5 trillion over night. I see their involvement here as a barrier to normalizing the economy.

Have you looked at the more alarming monetarist charts lately? Particularly, velocity, CPPI, total money supply, unemployment (U6 or U7b), labor force participation rate. A good indicator of the US's stagnant economy is the ratio of employment to population. Prior to the crash, it stood at 63%, and since the crash has remained between 58% and 59%. Regardless of how unemployment rates are manipulated, and who is (or is not) seeking work, there are an additional 5% of the employable productive population unemployed, with a larger number under employed. It is probable that the 2008 level was influenced by the boom, however, I'd still expect a normal economy to recover at least 1/2 of the loss.

You are right to foreground inflation as the right consequence. If there is no inflation, then there is no problem. How else do we "pay" for these "dollars"? There isn't any other channel, unless you want to suggest that somehow, adding to the monetary base decreases output directly?

I don't see how the current practice of QE is doing anything more than artificially propping up a deflationary system. If anything, it is allowing bubbles to re-inflate (housing, credit, student loans, whatever), and with any major tremble it will pop again, bringing us right back to 2008, only with some trillions more in debt.

I'm not an Austrian theory dogmatic purist. The global economy is resilient. We get up each day and try to improve our lot in life. We produce the things we want for ourselves (e.g. pancakes and sausages) and then go to work to make the things that other people want. We may then serve others selfishly in order to obtain the things that other people produce, like clothing, or houses. Even though our government manipulates our efforts, it usually does not totally eliminate our productive activity. It is a variable measure of degree in how the damage caused by bad policy will or will not be counter balanced by the actions of free enterprises. Finally, actions by the government inspire reactions by the people (blow back), such as Obama's recent proposals on higher education. I see it only increasing the costs of higher education, and not impacting the ultimate costs causing the rapid rise in tuition prices. Sometimes we will fail to fully offset the government action, but sometimes we can completely offset them. And, rarely, we may trigger innovation that more than offsets the government taxes or regulations. Often, we get unintended consequences that are truly Orwellian to the original intents.

We find ourselves zero-bound, due to too many years of low interest rates. What happens to the US economy when the Feds taper off QE, and the bond rates go above 3 or 3.5? Credit will get a big pinch, just when we are finally ready to maybe grow again. That is here. What about elsewhere? What I see is rising inflation in emerging economies, fueled by plummeting currencies, and weakening growth. Ultimately, this hurts the US too.

I read recently a paper by the St. Louis Feds analysis of the impact of QE, where they project a possible net increase in inflation of up to 4 percent over the next decade. If that is true, it will impact people negatively, especially when your contracts are fixed with little hope of renegotiating them, such as pensions, wages, long term annuities. It is good for those heaped with debts, like our governments. I see this monetarist manipulation of inflation as a covert regressive tax, on top of the overt ones.

But, as I said above, we probably have more to fear in that once the QE manipulation is tapered, that we re-enter a deflationary trend.

P.S. Perhaps the only solution is here as economist, and stand up comedian Yoram Bauman attests.

[Jester]

Right. Which is why the Feds balance sheet went from less than a trillion, to almost 2.5 trillion over night. I see their involvement here as a barrier to normalizing the economy.

The Fed can print money. It's not in limited supply, unless the Fed says it is. Inflation is muted to nonexistent. Unemployment is high, and only falling very slowly. What's the alternative to QE? Massive deflation? If you're not wanting to push monetary policy, and you're not wanting to push fiscal policy, the alternative is liquidation. Perhaps that's what you mean by "normalizing"?

Have you looked at the more alarming monetarist charts lately? Particularly, velocity, CPPI, total money supply, unemployment (U6 or U7b), labor force participation rate.

CPI has been very low. Unemployment and labour force participation rate have been extremely poor. Hence, why reflation is a great idea, and deflation is a terrifying prospect.

Velocity is not defined except for a given monetary base - it is simply the term that equilibrates M with PY. We have no method of measuring it independently, we just divide whatever we think of as monetary stock by nominal GDP.

This matters, because the total money supply has *shrank*, not increased, if you use a broad understanding of money, like Divisia M4. But that also means the velocity of money has not decreased. If you use narrow money, then the velocity of money has skyrocketed. Those are symmetrical ways of viewing the economy. However, both imply that the collapse of *credit*, which is far more important than paper notes, has been substantial, and has barely recovered in level, let alone returned to trend. That the Fed has printed a lot of bills and created a lot of reserves has not even counteracted the collapse in private credit.

We find ourselves zero-bound, due to too many years of low interest rates.

The US is at the zero lower bound, if anything, because of too *few* years of low interest rates. You don't get to 0% interest by generating inflationary expectations. You get there by killing them. This is Milton Friedman 101. Otherwise, governments would just hand out free money all day, with no consequence.

I read recently a paper by the St. Louis Feds analysis of the impact of QE, where they project a possible net increase in inflation of up to 4 percent over the next decade.

4%? *faints*

Since when are we allergic to inflation? A little inflation lowers debt burdens, and increases employment. Unless the central bank loses credibility that it will raise interest rates in light of inflation, we know how to deal with inflation. It's an easy problem. It's unemployment we're having trouble with.

But, as I said above, we probably have more to fear in that once the QE manipulation is tapered, that we re-enter a deflationary trend.

So, if I have this straight: We must stop QE "manipulation", because otherwise, when we stop QE, there will be deflation!

Does this make sense to you? It doesn't make any to me.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

The US is at the zero lower bound, if anything, because of too *few* years of low interest rates.

Nay. I'd beg to differ with you. We had low borrowing rates for many, many years under Greenspan. Rather than shrink government after the cold war unfroze, converted the DOD into a charity for defense contractors. Rather than raise taxes, or divert spending into debt reduction we tossed it at tax cuts and new untenable spending programs. Bush was bad, but what the unchained Democrats did in 2009 was worse. It's like they took whatever rainy day fund we had, and blew it on an all night progressive bender. Now we've got the hangover, for four years... And counting.

So, if I have this straight: We must stop QE "manipulation", because otherwise, when we stop QE, there will be deflation!

Does this make sense to you? It doesn't make any to me.

We need better stimulative fiscal policy. What we see happening in US fiscal policy is what failure looks like for both major parties. Since 2008, US domestic fiscal policy has caused more uncertainty, and has generally increased operating costs or the fear of them. Generally, I don't think QE has done more than stave off the inevitable. That's all I'm saying.

4%? *faints*

I think that is +4% -- so I see that as 5-8% inflation rates across the CPI basket of goods.

[Jester]

Now we've got the hangover, for four years... And counting.

Ah, the drinking metaphor.

If your story was true, then we would not be at the ZLB. Full stop. It's impossible that you hit the ZLB because monetary policy was too loose, or because taxes were too low, or government spent too much. You can say we hit the ZLB because there was a financial crisis, and a flight to safety, but loose monetary policy *in the past* cannot do it. It moves in the opposite direction. It just doesn't make any sense.

I think Alan Greenspan has a lot to answer for. But the ZLB is not one of those things.

We need better stimulative fiscal policy. What we see happening in US fiscal policy is what failure looks like for both major parties. Since 2008, US domestic fiscal policy has caused more uncertainty, and has generally increased operating costs or the fear of them. Generally, I don't think QE has done more than stave off the inevitable. That's all I'm saying.

What's "the inevitable"? Inflation? Deflation?

I think that is +4% -- so I see that as 5-8% inflation rates across the CPI basket of goods.

You'll have to show me the paper. My prior is that anyone predicting 8% inflation is smoking whatever Peter Schiff sold them.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

If your story was true, then we would not be at the ZLB. Full stop. It's impossible that you hit the ZLB because monetary policy was too loose, or because taxes were too low, or government spent too much. You can say we hit the ZLB because there was a financial crisis, and a flight to safety, but loose monetary policy *in the past* cannot do it. It moves in the opposite direction. It just doesn't make any sense.

Here is the chart. Clearly, the period following 9/11 needed stimulus in the form of easing interest rates, but there was at least a one year delay before they were ratcheted up again. Only 2006 saw them anywhere near previous levels, and by then the bubbles were ripe and ready to pop. It was about this time I remember being pretty uneasy about an overheated global market, and oil price spikes were disrupting the overall economy. In response to the 2008 financial crisis, they unloaded all their guns (well almost -- they dropped the rate to 2%). But, by then they had little ammunition left to fight off the economic malaise. 2008 was payback for the prior 5 years, or more maybe of exuberant mal-investments. The housing derivatives were the weak link that broke it then, but that is hardly the only weakness in our economic system. The next crash will reveal a different "scam". The common denominator in all these interventions has always been obfuscated financial instruments with insufficient industry (or government) oversight.