Please explain pros of Brexit to me

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haha, the elites of dcum just can't accept that the unwashed masses of UK (or US) could possibly understand what is in their own interests. No, no - they need an elite bureaucracy like Brussels or DC to rule over them!

The track record of the "guns and religion" crowd in the US for voting in their own economic self interest isn't great. The citizens of the UK voted for austerity in the wake of the global banking collapse, that didn't go well either. Those folks called economists generally do know what they are talking about.

In fact, your "guns & religion" claims dispute your own point. This demographic (much of it hardworking blue-collar folks) did not vote in the current govt. They knew (via common sense), that shipping out over 50,000 factories to Mexico & Asia, giving amnesty and welfare bennies to hordes of illegal immigrants, signing skewed treaties to destroy US balance of trade, just cannot be good for them. And sure enough, it wasn't. That's why people are mad as heck with these ruling globalists.

Right, they voted in the guy who broke the global economy and caused s world wide near depression, mostly by gutting the regulatory agencies and encouraging the housing bubble. Add in two unfounded, unwarranted wars, and a massive tax cut that turned the U.S. Surplus into a pretty significant deficit. All Obama did was stave off that depression, save the auto industry, and get us back to five percent unemployment. The nerve.

Jeez. Nice job making BS up.

1. While Bush '43 was a disaster, the one mess you can't really lay at his feet is the housing bubble. The Bush admin was sounding the alarm on housing, but congress--and Barney Frank in particular--had no desire whatsoever to make a move on housing.

2. The TARP legislation is what staved off the potential global depression. TARP was a Bush '43 program passed with (almost exclusive) Democratic support. Yes, Obama did inherit a mess of an economy, but the chance of a global depression by the time Obama was sworn in was insignificant. To credit Obama with staving off the threat of global depression is pure partisan rewriting of history.

3. Bush was the one who decided to bail out the auto industry by extending TARP to GM and Chrysler. Bush absolutely broke ranks with his party to do that, but he stands behind that decision as the rob thing to do. Yes, Obama came along and expanded the auto bailout which provided some much needed marginal liquidity, but in the process he lbasicalky rode roughshod over the Bankruptcy code to achieve his real goal of bailing out the UAW whose members were going to get wiped out in BK court. To credit Obama with bailing out the auto industry is also a purely partisan interpretation of the facts on the ground. And none of this even addresses the threshold question of whether the auto industry needed to be bailed out given that Ford found a way to survive the economic crisis without Uncle Sam's help.

I am in no way a Bush '43 fan or supporter, BU my question to you is simple: Are you intentionally being misleading or do you just not know and understand what happened in the fall of 2008?

Sorry, when was Bush sounding alarms on the housing industry? And what was he trying to do that Barney Frank was preventing? I must have missed all that.

The roots of housing bubble were probably the capital gains exception and Greenspan low rates, but Bush '43 was not sounding any alarms with his 'ownership society' dogma.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm seeing a lot of correlations between this and our own countries politics: the populist desire to not get involved with other countries and to take severe stands on immigration. I can also see a stark similarity between Boris Johnson and Donald Trump - hell, they even look alike. Could you picture these two at a G8 summit?

Exactly. Same basic reactions/fears/hair

Sadly, if the vote to exit goes through, Cameron is finished. Boris is his likely successor. Could you see him sitting down for tea with the Queen every week?

Not sure she'd take the meeting.

Wasn't Boris the mayor of London? At least he has some political experience...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haha, the elites of dcum just can't accept that the unwashed masses of UK (or US) could possibly understand what is in their own interests. No, no - they need an elite bureaucracy like Brussels or DC to rule over them!

The track record of the "guns and religion" crowd in the US for voting in their own economic self interest isn't great. The citizens of the UK voted for austerity in the wake of the global banking collapse, that didn't go well either. Those folks called economists generally do know what they are talking about.

In fact, your "guns & religion" claims dispute your own point. This demographic (much of it hardworking blue-collar folks) did not vote in the current govt. They knew (via common sense), that shipping out over 50,000 factories to Mexico & Asia, giving amnesty and welfare bennies to hordes of illegal immigrants, signing skewed treaties to destroy US balance of trade, just cannot be good for them. And sure enough, it wasn't. That's why people are mad as heck with these ruling globalists.

Right, they voted in the guy who broke the global economy and caused s world wide near depression, mostly by gutting the regulatory agencies and encouraging the housing bubble. Add in two unfounded, unwarranted wars, and a massive tax cut that turned the U.S. Surplus into a pretty significant deficit. All Obama did was stave off that depression, save the auto industry, and get us back to five percent unemployment. The nerve.

Jeez. Nice job making BS up.

1. While Bush '43 was a disaster, the one mess you can't really lay at his feet is the housing bubble. The Bush admin was sounding the alarm on housing, but congress--and Barney Frank in particular--had no desire whatsoever to make a move on housing.

2. The TARP legislation is what staved off the potential global depression. TARP was a Bush '43 program passed with (almost exclusive) Democratic support. Yes, Obama did inherit a mess of an economy, but the chance of a global depression by the time Obama was sworn in was insignificant. To credit Obama with staving off the threat of global depression is pure partisan rewriting of history.

3. Bush was the one who decided to bail out the auto industry by extending TARP to GM and Chrysler. Bush absolutely broke ranks with his party to do that, but he stands behind that decision as the rob thing to do. Yes, Obama came along and expanded the auto bailout which provided some much needed marginal liquidity, but in the process he lbasicalky rode roughshod over the Bankruptcy code to achieve his real goal of bailing out the UAW whose members were going to get wiped out in BK court. To credit Obama with bailing out the auto industry is also a purely partisan interpretation of the facts on the ground. And none of this even addresses the threshold question of whether the auto industry needed to be bailed out given that Ford found a way to survive the economic crisis without Uncle Sam's help.

I am in no way a Bush '43 fan or supporter, BU my question to you is simple: Are you intentionally being misleading or do you just not know and understand what happened in the fall of 2008?

Sorry, when was Bush sounding alarms on the housing industry? And what was he trying to do that Barney Frank was preventing? I must have missed all that.

https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/10/20081009-10.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haha, the elites of dcum just can't accept that the unwashed masses of UK (or US) could possibly understand what is in their own interests. No, no - they need an elite bureaucracy like Brussels or DC to rule over them!

The track record of the "guns and religion" crowd in the US for voting in their own economic self interest isn't great. The citizens of the UK voted for austerity in the wake of the global banking collapse, that didn't go well either. Those folks called economists generally do know what they are talking about.

In fact, your "guns & religion" claims dispute your own point. This demographic (much of it hardworking blue-collar folks) did not vote in the current govt. They knew (via common sense), that shipping out over 50,000 factories to Mexico & Asia, giving amnesty and welfare bennies to hordes of illegal immigrants, signing skewed treaties to destroy US balance of trade, just cannot be good for them. And sure enough, it wasn't. That's why people are mad as heck with these ruling globalists.

Right, they voted in the guy who broke the global economy and caused s world wide near depression, mostly by gutting the regulatory agencies and encouraging the housing bubble. Add in two unfounded, unwarranted wars, and a massive tax cut that turned the U.S. Surplus into a pretty significant deficit. All Obama did was stave off that depression, save the auto industry, and get us back to five percent unemployment. The nerve.

Jeez. Nice job making BS up.

1. While Bush '43 was a disaster, the one mess you can't really lay at his feet is the housing bubble. The Bush admin was sounding the alarm on housing, but congress--and Barney Frank in particular--had no desire whatsoever to make a move on housing.

2. The TARP legislation is what staved off the potential global depression. TARP was a Bush '43 program passed with (almost exclusive) Democratic support. Yes, Obama did inherit a mess of an economy, but the chance of a global depression by the time Obama was sworn in was insignificant. To credit Obama with staving off the threat of global depression is pure partisan rewriting of history.

3. Bush was the one who decided to bail out the auto industry by extending TARP to GM and Chrysler. Bush absolutely broke ranks with his party to do that, but he stands behind that decision as the rob thing to do. Yes, Obama came along and expanded the auto bailout which provided some much needed marginal liquidity, but in the process he lbasicalky rode roughshod over the Bankruptcy code to achieve his real goal of bailing out the UAW whose members were going to get wiped out in BK court. To credit Obama with bailing out the auto industry is also a purely partisan interpretation of the facts on the ground. And none of this even addresses the threshold question of whether the auto industry needed to be bailed out given that Ford found a way to survive the economic crisis without Uncle Sam's help.

I am in no way a Bush '43 fan or supporter, BU my question to you is simple: Are you intentionally being misleading or do you just not know and understand what happened in the fall of 2008?

Please, you lost me when you tried to blame a single Congressman with no executive agency responsibilities for the housing bubble when the real problem was the lax management of the banking agencies. CFTC and SEC by Bush appointees. Should I find a link of the OTS agency head appointed by Bush posing with a chainsaw as he claimed he would roll back regulations. You surely are familiar with the institutions his agency was responsible for regulating -- AIG, Countrywide, WaMu, Indy Mac, should I continue?

Compounded it when you said that risk of depression was past when Obama took office. Complete bs and you know it. Post the unemployment numbers from the first half of 2009 and please demonstrate how they support your argument.

The two most important things that the government could have done to prevent the 2008 meltdown were: removing the implicit backstop to the two big GSEs so that mortgage underwriting standards would have tightened up and increase collateral requirements/reduce concentration risk for swap transactions. Neither of those two steps could have been accomplished without the legislature.

Yes, the risk of the depression was over by the time Obama was sworn in. Are you really meaning to suggest that unemployment numbers were indicative of the risk of a depression in connection with the financial crisis? The unemployment numbers were a result of, not the cause of, the deterioration of the financial system.

The risk of a depression was from the liquidity crisis that was going to ocur in financial markets as confidence in the financial sector was deeply at risk in the Oftober of 2008. TARP was a blended program that would most accurately be described as the government making a weird/hybrid preferred equity/Mezz debt extension of capital/debt to the banks + providing a backstop to the banks on certain types of assets.

While job loss certainly leads to economic contraction and recessions, historically speaking, our only other experience with a depression was also driven by a financial meltdown/crash associated with a major asset bubble bursting. There is simply no reason to believe that there was risk of a financial meltdown in January of 2009. TARP specifically addressed that.

Now, if you want to identify the risk of financial meltdown in 2009 that Obama addressed and thereby staved off a depression, I'm more than happy to be proven wrong.

[Anonymous]

Why People Who Really Wanted Brexit Will Regret It Most

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/25/why-people-who-really-wanted-brexit-will-regret-it-most/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_wb-regret-1114am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

[Anonymous]

Were citizens living outside the UK able to vote??

[Anonymous]

Best take I've seen on the Brexit, and how it mirrors the current conflict between neoliberal crony capitalism and nativism that is also happening in the US.

https://theintercept.com/2016/06/25/brexit-is-only-the-latest-proof-of-the-insularity-and-failure-of-western-establishment-institutions/