Jill Stein

FluffyMcDeath

FluffyMcDeath

Active Member
Member
Joined
May 17, 2005
Messages
12,133
Reaction score
2,624
Since we have threads for two other candidates...

If you want a woman for president, vote for an honest one.
(Interview starts at 0:30)
 
I don't agree with her politics, but for heavens sake she would make a better president than Hillary.
 
Missed this thread whilst I was away but, yes, she'd almost certainly make a better president than either of the two arseholes being touted currently.

-EDIT-
Just finished watching the video.
I haven't watched Fox for awhile so had forgotten how much I loathe it.
Stein made some valid points and came across far better than Clinton or Trump, despite the constant and sometimes irrelevant interruptions from two moronic goons 'interviewing' her.
 
Last edited:
the interview was on Fox Business not Fox News

the questions were all economic questions.
what are your proposed programs? how are you going to pay for it?

The write off of student loans is poorly thought out. If you allow students to default on loans, then the taxpayer takes the hit. Colleges, Universities & Students need skin in the game

If a proposal requires the University to take the default hit when students default, they will quickly adjust their curriculums towards degrees companies actually want to hire people to do

the current student loan systems makes it too easy for Universities to continually raise tuition, because students are approved for any course of study, for any amount of tuition, no matter how unemployable & economically worthless the degree program is
 
metalman said:
The write off of student loans is poorly thought out. If you allow students to default on loans, then the taxpayer takes the hit.
Click to expand...
But her point was that when the banks were bailed out enormous chunks of money went to the tax avoiders and the taxpayers had to take the hit. On the other hand, when you bail out the student they will become tax payers (thus they take their own hit but moved into the future - the loans are basically transferred to themselves instead of having the banks hold them and getting paid for doing so).

If a proposal requires the University to take the default hit when students default, they will quickly adjust their curriculums towards degrees companies actually want to hire people to do
Click to expand...

Personally I think that's still not quite the solution. Companies should hire candidates and educate them. That way the companies get to specify exactly what skills they want and the Unis that don't do that well don't get the contracts. Then skills will match demand much better and the people with the aptitude will get the education. Those that want to take the esoteric courses still can but they won't be taking them to "get a job", just for personal growth - and the prices will come down to what people can pay without loans (just like martial arts and yoga etc - people take courses for their own personal reasons but no-one takes a loan to do a yoga class).
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Defraud the entire US economy and government to the tune of billions, get a raise.
Murder hundreds of thousands in foreign countries, get a peace prize.
Fund terrorists, launder billions in drug profits, aid and abet dictators, all fine.

Join a protest against money some guys with serious money, get charged.
Click to expand...

It was a silly stunt by her, but I agree.

Run an illegal private server, illegally delete classified emails, lie under oath to congress, lie to the FBI, get major party nomination for president.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Companies should hire candidates and educate them. That way the companies get to specify exactly what skills they want and the Unis that don't do that well don't get the contracts. Then skills will match demand much better and the people with the aptitude will get the education. Those that want to take the esoteric courses still can but they won't be taking them to "get a job", just for personal growth - and the prices will come down to what people can pay without loans (just like martial arts and yoga etc - people take courses for their own personal reasons but no-one takes a loan to do a yoga class).
Click to expand...

The University of Iowa became the first school in the state to add a bachelor’s program in social justice to its list of degrees

"since more and more students have “expressed a desire to integrate academic work more deeply with anticipated career paths,” such as social activism & working at a non-profit."

Estimated cost of attendance University of Iowa

Breaking store windows, looting and blocking traffic can now be done for college credit!

A degree in Social Justice will provide you with highly sought credentials in the McBurger Industry, and after a short period of on the job training you will be fully qualified to ask:
"Would you like fries with your cis gender privileged hetero normal hamburger ?"
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
But her point was that when the banks were bailed out enormous chunks of money went to the tax avoiders and the taxpayers had to take the hit. On the other hand, when you bail out the student they will become tax payers (thus they take their own hit but moved into the future - the loans are basically transferred to themselves instead of having the banks hold them and getting paid for doing so).
Click to expand...

she is comparing apples to oranges

the discount window banking loans were made by the FDIC to banks & brokers to prevent a liquidity crisis, and the loans were enormous because the FDIC is the lender of last resort
The loans were either repaid or the companies were liquidated

700 billion TARP loans were another program
TARP bought preferred stock in eight banks: Bank of New York Mellon, Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America/Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and State Street. The banks were required to give the government a 5% dividend that would increase to 9% in 2013. To encourage banks to buy back the stock within five years.

In addition to the eight banks, TARP funds were used to either buy preferred stock in, or make loans to: AIG ($40 billion), small banks & credit unions ($92 billion), General Motors, GMAC & Chrysler ($24.8 billion). Citigroup and Bank of America ($45 billion). An additional $20 billion of TARP was loaned to the TALF program, managed by the Federal Reserve.

As of 2016, the banks had paid the government back with interest. In total, $250.46 billion in TARP funds were committed to assisting 700 banks. Of that, $165.33 went to the big banks (assets of $10 billion or greater.) Another $14.57 billion went toward the smaller banks. The remaining went to prop up Citigroup and Bank of America.

The big banks paid back $179.51 billion in principal and interest. The small banks only returned $13.94 billion, since more of them went bankrupt despite assistance. Citigroup and Bank of America returned $81.59 billion. All told, the banks repaid $275.04 billion, creating a $25 billion profit.

Now the loans going to the politically connected is another discussion


Why write off student debt of students silly enough to go $200k in debt at some Ivy league school, so they could get a degree in woman's studies ?
Isn't that subsidizing those rich enough to go to an Ivy league school?
 
metalman said:
she is comparing apples to oranges

the discount window banking loans were made by the FDIC to banks & brokers to prevent a liquidity crisis, and the loans were enormous because the FDIC is the lender of last resort
The loans were either repaid or the companies were liquidated
Click to expand...
In the video, she specifically references the Federal Reserve and quantitative easing (with a volume of 4.4 trillion USD, according to her). These are not loans, they do not have to be paid back and, worst of all, there are no strings attached.
 
JoBBo said:
In the video, she specifically references the Federal Reserve and quantitative easing (with a volume of 4.4 trillion USD, according to her). These are not loans, they do not have to be paid back and, worst of all, there are no strings attached.
Click to expand...

Then she is even more wrong about economic policies,

Central banks control money supply by raising or lowering the discount rate of bank overnight borrowing. If firms were growing nervous about the economic future and scaling back on investments, then central bank would reduce the overnight rate. That would reduce banks' funding costs and encourage them to make more loans, keeping the economy from falling into recession. By contrast, if credit and spending were booming and inflation of commodies was rising then the central bank would raise the interest rate to discourage lending. When the banking crisis struck, big central banks like the Fed and the Bank of England slashed their overnight interest-rates to boost the economy. But even cutting the rate to almost zero, failed to spark recovery. Central banks therefore began using quantitative easing to boost the economy once the discount rate was zero.

When using quantitative easing central banks create money by buying high grade securities, such as government bonds, from banks, with central bank funds, creating money that did not exist before. The new money swells the size of bank reserves in the economy by the quantity of assets purchased—hence "quantitative" easing. Like lowering interest rates, QE is supposed to stimulate the economy by encouraging banks to make more loans. QE is used to stop a deflationary spiral. When the economy improves, the securities can be re-sold, which offsets the original transactions, removing money from bank reserves, which in turn slows the economy

Even using QE the economic results have not been what the central banks expective, because the velocity of money slowed

Whether QE is better than a deflationary/depression downturn is another debate

Since elected officials tend to become unelected during economic downturns, there is lots of political pressure applied to "do something"

the Keynes vs. Hayek debate


 
metalman said:
When using quantitative easing central banks create money by buying high grade securities, such as government bonds, from banks, with central bank funds, creating money that did not exist before. The new money swells the size of bank reserves in the economy by the quantity of assets purchased—hence "quantitative" easing. Like lowering interest rates, QE is supposed to stimulate the economy by encouraging banks to make more loans. QE is used to stop a deflationary spiral. When the economy improves, the securities can be re-sold, which offsets the original transactions, removing money from bank reserves, which in turn slows the economy
Click to expand...
Well, there is theory, and then there is practice (Wall Street Journal).

Cliff notes:
  • "The job: managing what was at the heart of QE's bond-buying spree—a wild attempt to buy $1.25 trillion in mortgage bonds in 12 months." (Note: As the banking crisis proved, mortgage bonds are hardly "high grade securities".)
  • "The banks were only issuing fewer and fewer loans. More insidiously, whatever credit they were extending wasn't getting much cheaper. QE may have been driving down the wholesale cost for banks to make loans, but Wall Street was pocketing most of the extra cash."
  • "The final results confirmed that, while there had been only trivial relief for Main Street, the U.S. central bank's bond purchases had been an absolute coup for Wall Street. The banks hadn't just benefited from the lower cost of making loans. They'd also enjoyed huge capital gains on the rising values of their securities holdings and fat commissions from brokering most of the Fed's QE transactions. Wall Street had experienced its most profitable year ever in 2009"

Whether QE is better than a deflationary/depression downturn is another debate
Click to expand...
Actually, this is not another debate but what Jill Stein was talking about. Her argument is: Instead of only paying high commissions to Wall Street for selling huge volumes of their own bonds to the Federal Reserve (at arguably inflated prices) just so the banks would then hopefully give out more loans and pass on low interest rates to individuals and businesses, which we now know has not worked out as well as hoped, why not go straight to Main Street and forgive student debts, which is very likely to have the fewest "moral hazard" implications than any other type of debt relief (including buying shitty bonds)?

I am not saying I am in favor of the proposal, but in the grand scheme of things the idea is not nearly as crazy as you imply it is.
 
JoBBo said:
Well, there is theory, and then there is practice (Wall Street Journal).

Cliff notes:
  • "The job: managing what was at the heart of QE's bond-buying spree—a wild attempt to buy $1.25 trillion in mortgage bonds in 12 months." (Note: As the banking crisis proved, mortgage bonds are hardly "high grade securities".)
  • "The banks were only issuing fewer and fewer loans. More insidiously, whatever credit they were extending wasn't getting much cheaper. QE may have been driving down the wholesale cost for banks to make loans, but Wall Street was pocketing most of the extra cash."
  • "The final results confirmed that, while there had been only trivial relief for Main Street, the U.S. central bank's bond purchases had been an absolute coup for Wall Street. The banks hadn't just benefited from the lower cost of making loans. They'd also enjoyed huge capital gains on the rising values of their securities holdings and fat commissions from brokering most of the Fed's QE transactions. Wall Street had experienced its most profitable year ever in 2009"
Click to expand...
I'm on the Hayek side of the debate, see above

The Keynesian policies keep requiring larger easing and produce smaller stimulus ( velocity of money changes )
Keynesian policy requires another World War stimulus to become fully effective again ( broken window fallacy )

but hey, politicians "did something" which gets politicians re-elected, and it provides more opportunities for enhanced revenues to the politically connected, and more campaign contributions to those making policy

JoBBo said:
what Jill Stein was talking about. Her argument is: Instead of only paying high commissions to Wall Street for selling huge volumes of their own bonds to the Federal Reserve (at arguably inflated prices) just so the banks would then hopefully give out more loans and pass on low interest rates to individuals and businesses, which we now know has not worked out as well as hoped, why not go straight to Main Street and forgive student debts, which is very likely to have the fewest "moral hazard" implications than any other type of debt relief (including buying shitty bonds)?

I am not saying I am in favor of the proposal, but in the grand scheme of things the idea is not nearly as crazy as you imply it is.
Click to expand...

then Jill is really confused
the total amount of quantitative easing stimulus has to be a large percentage of the whole economy, or it has no effect
the commissions are a fraction of that amount ( 2% ?? or less ), and who gets what is determined by campaign contributions

Why do you think Goldman Sachs was paying Hillary 500k a speech ??

Why do you favor forgiving the student loans of rich ivy league students over poor students who borrowed small amounts to go to a technical school to learn a trade?
 
14570502_1228661967153916_8224857458622603068_n.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top