Lol of course big business make up a larger portion of gdp. Either way my point was that it was rich people and private companies that create growth in the U.S. and not the government or the poor or middle classes.

What did that straw man ever do to you? Leave him alone.

looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooool bahbah. Atlas Shrugs is a work of fiction dude.

Just stick to being a racist, leave the economic analysis to the 99% of the board that isn't brain damaged.

Haha. Such a terrible argument.

That company wouldn't be there without the owner. The company would be fine if a tornado killed all those people.

hahahahaahahaahaha

remember when bahbah got all upset and indignant when I pointed out he's a terrible human being

hahahahahahahahaha

So when the factory workers take over the factory and lock the owner out ShameTrolly style, please explain what the owner is going to do without using the government or its agents since government is such a bane on the existence of job creators?

I appreciate you sticking up for me/ trying to keep the thread on topic, but don't bother trying to stop Gambool from making personal attacks. Every time he sees me in a thread he comes in and tries to change the thread topic to "Gambool vs bahbah".

You are trying to argue that anyone who is not rich is an interchangeable widget whose death in meaningless and that rich people drive all the growth in this country and you are mad we are moving off topic?

hhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahaha

hahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oool

No, I didn't. I did argue that a factory full of unskilled workers could be replaced though. The death of a factory full of workers would have a significant impact on the economy (especially the local one), but the factory is very likely to make it out okay.

If the people who are creating apps and inventing new technology's aren't the people who are responsible for most of the growth who are?

?

.

I'm not sure if this is aimed at me, but if it is can you explain the point?

We can go back and forth about how one side or the other can do illegal things to harm the other. What if the business owner kills the grandparents of all workers one by one until they agreed to work 80 hour/wk for $1/day?

If this was your way of saying government is necessary, I agree. That doesn't mean that our government doesn't do a lot of stuff that slows economic growth.

You shouldn't have said the government is a drag on economic progress then. Saying government interference in the marketplace is incoherent, the market is created through government interference. I'm glad we can agree government interference can create a better overall outcome.

Yeah bahbah, thanks for confirming your herrrrppp derrrrrrppp generalities and platitudes you learned from some guys newsletter (he made a successful investment in 2005, this is gospel!) and your heeerppp derrrrrp government bad, rich people good, wall street good derp aren't exactly well thought out.

But hey, you didn't celebrate "tiny brained" black people getting shot to death in this exchange, so you are making progress!

EDIT: hey remember when you advocated not raising the debt ceiling because it wouldnt cause any pain to the economy (lol) and then got angry that Congress voted like 565-0 to pay the government workers for the time the government was shutdown and you got super angry and blamed the media for forcing Congress to vote that way? Yeah, things like that and this exchange have you permanently labeled as a moron. People don't forget.

Okay, I agree that this government is better than no government at all.

What guy? What '05 investment?

I said not kicking the can down the road wouldn't be the end of the world like politicians told us.

Gambool, keep ruining threads. Noble work.

Lol at paying bills you already incurred as kicking the can down the road and lol at not raising the debt ceiling as "no big deal"

Im mocking your last attempt at "analysis" where you posted some newsletter from some random dude as if it was from God almighty himself and he's like some rando who was relevant ten years ago.

lol ruining threads. Your analysis did that and the adults are discussing Bernie in alpha. Come join if you'd like.

That may be the easiest pot meet kettle in 2p2 history.

The kicking of the can refers to increasing the debt ceiling not paying bills.

That guy isn't some nobody. He is an elite economist.

To answer your earlier question:

It was the department of housing and urban development that forced Fannie May and Freddie Mac to buy sub-prime mortgages. Freddie and Fannie then pushed banks to give loans to low income families. Then mark-to-market accounting (which they were forced to use) further compounded the problem.

The change from mark-to-market just so happened to be at the bottom of the crash. The govt still gets credit for saving the economy despite the market still going down ~40% after tarp started.

No one outside of the AEI calls what May and Freddie Mac were pitching "subprime". The truly subprime mortgages, what people think of when they think of subprime mortgages, were ineligible for the exact reason you'd think, they were extremely risky.

bahbah is such a low functioning moron, can you believe this is actually the subject he thinks he's an expert on? Cant imagine how moronic he must be on every other subject.

looooooooooooooooooooooool at not thinking the government helped avert a worse crash. Yeah, Im sure AIG would have been just fine and Goldman and Morgan Stanley converted into bank holding companies with lots of regulations because.....reasons.

lol bahbah. loooooooooooooooooooooool. Always and forever.

You guys should read bahbah's home buying and selling adventures. It's hilarious.

I think I'd pay $1000 to meet a real human who says "man I need to figure out what to do with my money lets ask this bahbahmickey fellow". I refuse to believe they exist until then. Just lol after lol across forums

I just said the govt did do something to avert an even worse crash. You just know so little about all of this you missed it. I said they changed mark to market accounting laws. Of course they shouldn't be given credit for averting a worse problem since it was their law they were fixing though.

Stick with what you know best, personal attacks.

This is wrong Fannie bought plenty of subprime and alt-a loans $1 trillion plus and the buyers of Fannie Mae paper had the implied guarantee against default on the MBS which later became a real guarantee. There can be no doubt that Fannies underwriting standards became a lot more relaxed at that time. Given what developed with the accounting major problems that were exposed with Fannie it is pretty funny to hold them up as some paragon of virtue. The fact is that a lot of factors led to the bubble and collapse. The bond rating agencies were a big factor.

Lol Bahbah. The guy who got fooled by an article designed to fool racists and that posted African Americans have tiny brains and that thinks not raising the debt ceiling is no big deal doesn't get to talk down to anyone ever.