|
Alright, so I've had something rattling around in my head, but I'm not sure where exactly to post to get some feedback. If this isn't a good thread for it let me know. I keep hearing the phrase "drone warfare", again and again. But as far as I know, drones are just big remote-control aircraft. There's still a human telling it where to go, aiming the weapons, and sometimes crashing it because of Air Force machismo about landing the plane themselves rather than letting the autopilot handle it more safely. So maybe it's about human judgment. Well, except that at the distances these weapons are going to be shot at, or the speeds which any aircraft would be whizzing by at, the unaided eyeball isn't going to really do any better at distinguishing "harmless civilian" from So maybe it's about some novel moral or ethical aspect of remote-control robots doing the killing for us. But it's not novel. We've been using suicide bomber robots for decades, known as Tomahawk missiles. A cruise missile is basically a kamikaze drone that can't be reused. And we used to shoot those things all over the drat place. Didn't we shoot several of them at places where we thought Osama bin Laden was hiding? Was there a similar outcry about cruise missile warfare? This is a serious question, I can't remember, maybe there was. (If anything, launching a cruise missile from hundreds of miles away that might take several minutes or more to hit seems like it would be more troublesome.) So I find myself assuming it comes down to one of two things: - Ignorance about what exactly "drone warfare" is. Maybe they think these things are autonomously selecting and killing targets, like some kind of Terminator/Skynet thing? Because that would be pretty god drat terrifying, yeah. - Inconsistency (or even outright cowardice) in confronting the reality of American foreign policy. What's the difference between a guy killed by an F-18 and a guy killed by a Predator drone? Nothing, they're BOTH DEAD. But that seems too simple. Am I missing something here? Am I the ignorant one? Is there something specially abhorrent about the use of remote-control planes rather than human-piloted planes or artillery or whatever? It seems to me like if there weren't drones we'd still be flying planes out and killing people from the sky, but maybe I'm wrong on that. Even then it seems like a dodge to be focusing on the tactic/technology (remote/computer-controlled aircraft) rather than on the policy and results (killing a lot of people overseas based on flimsy evidence). But I could be wrong. Please let me know if I'm dumb or sperging out or something.
|
# ? Oct 19, 2012 04:53 |
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2024 23:03 |
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:But that seems too simple. Am I missing something here? Am I the ignorant one? Is there something specially abhorrent about the use of remote-control planes rather than human-piloted planes or artillery or whatever? It seems to me like if there weren't drones we'd still be flying planes out and killing people from the sky, but maybe I'm wrong on that. Even then it seems like a dodge to be focusing on the tactic/technology (remote/computer-controlled aircraft) rather than on the policy and results (killing a lot of people overseas based on flimsy evidence). Nope, literally 99% of the outrage over drones are either because it's a shiny new military toy or that people think it's exactly like playing a video game. Functionally it's exactly the same as our current pilots except there's no chance that they'll (the pilots anyway) get shot down.
|
# ? Oct 19, 2012 05:23 |
|
I thought it was a reference to Obama using terror attacks more liberally than predecessors did because there's no chance of an American dying/being captured now e: unless he's the victim, obviously Enjoy fucked around with this message at 06:18 on Oct 19, 2012 |
# ? Oct 19, 2012 05:31 |
|
computer parts posted:Nope, literally 99% of the outrage over drones are either because it's a shiny new military toy or that people think it's exactly like playing a video game. Functionally it's exactly the same as our current pilots except there's no chance that they'll (the pilots anyway) get shot down. No, this is totally wrong. People use the drone strikes as short-hand for executive assassinations since they are extremely visible and touted by the administration; the specific method is not important.
|
# ? Oct 19, 2012 06:07 |
|
Install Gentoo posted:Why would Mississippi OR Louisiana be the sole state with gun control laws in the area in the first place? You think MS and/or Louisiana are the only two states that have hundreds of roads between them? Don't think you can really wave the problem away and assume that checkpoints would be all encompassing.
|
# ? Oct 19, 2012 15:06 |
|
Will Rice posted:No, this is totally wrong. People use the drone strikes as short-hand for executive assassinations since they are extremely visible and touted by the administration; the specific method is not important. Maybe my perceptions are skewed, then. Is the "drone strike" phrase being pushed by those who are actually criticizing the policy of murdering people, or is it being pushed by the media and government as a clinical and detached descriptor? Because when I hear "these drone strikes are evil" my takeaway isn't "we need to stop loving murdering people", it's "we need to stop using drones to murder people".
|
# ? Oct 19, 2012 15:19 |
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:Maybe my perceptions are skewed, then. Is the "drone strike" phrase being pushed by those who are actually criticizing the policy of murdering people, or is it being pushed by the media and government as a clinical and detached descriptor? Because when I hear "these drone strikes are evil" my takeaway isn't "we need to stop loving murdering people", it's "we need to stop using drones to murder people". The media specifically is pushing it because it's a "new way of warfare". There are people on here who were decrying bombing afghan weddings a decade ago but most of America only cares that it's a *new way* to kill people.
|
# ? Oct 19, 2012 15:25 |
|
Zuhzuhzombie!! posted:You think MS and/or Louisiana are the only two states that have hundreds of roads between them? No I'm saying it's extremely unlikely that either of those two particular states would enact that law except together at once. Considering their politics and all. However: I'm also saying the hundreds roads aren't even the problem in the first place, the actual problem is handling all the traffic on major roads that would have to be checked. 5 guys a month use anonymous track #512 between Louisiana and Mississippi. 40,000 vehicles a day are crossing between Louisiana and Mississippi at the point I-55 crosses the border. Covering those 40,000 vehicles each day at that crossing alone would require monumental effort whereas minor roads in the woods you could just block at the state line if you really wanted.
|
# ? Oct 19, 2012 15:58 |
|
I have a friend whose husband just joined the military. She is a huge Romney-Ryan supporter, but also a low-information voter. She is worried about the premium increases Obama proposed for Tricare. Actually, she believes that he is going to eliminate the program, which is easy enough to disprove, but I am having trouble gathering acceptable sources that aren't too complex to discuss the following: I want to express that what she is dislikes (price increases) under Obama's plan for modifying Tricare is not dissimilar to the effects that Romney and Ryan's voucher proposals will have for people in general, except without the decent actually-being-able-to-provide-for-retirees part. She was angry at union members in Wisconsin and Michigan (our state), for being unwilling to pay more for benefits. I'd draw a parallel but I suppose she'd probably say the being in the military is different. I would like some reputable source to talk about the difficulties of funding benefits programs, because my parents (her neighbors) are Obama supporters and I generally support socialists so anything I explain without an easy-to-understand, published person to back me up is suspect. The link below is the most recent non-partisan article I found to discuss the likely increased costs under a voucher program, but it doesn't discuss the funding of benefit programs. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57532676/study-privatized-medicare-would-cost-patients-more/ The fact that Krugman's column is called "The Conscience of a Liberal" rules him out as reputable for her, otherwise I think something in that sort of style would be suitable.
|
# ? Oct 19, 2012 17:39 |
|
quote:I'm sorry but that's just completely wrong. It's just the opposite. The Government initiated the crisis by intruding too much in the housing market and honestly the economy in general. This is in response to me: quote:bankers were actively pushed (by their superiors) to pursue loans that they knew couldn't be repayed then sold off the loans to investors to bet against them and make even more money. the government and fed didn't tell them to do this. granted the interest rates provided by the fed allowed for them to get sweet money to gently caress poo poo up with. I just need help articulating (possibly with sources) a defense, essentially it's me vs. a bunch of libertarians. I posted the link showing how the fed contributes to lessening recessions and his only response was that they caused the recessions.
|
# ? Oct 19, 2012 18:17 |
|
computer parts posted:Nope, literally 99% of the outrage over drones are either because it's a shiny new military toy or that people think it's exactly like playing a video game. Functionally it's exactly the same as our current pilots except there's no chance that they'll (the pilots anyway) get shot down. I think you're glossing over the difference that that "chance they'll get shot down" element makes. It's just one more step back on the impersonality spectrum, and it has every chance of making our foreign policy even more gung-ho if we're not careful. That said, it is the next logical progression in warfare, and it's hardly unheralded given how much has been written on the topic over the decades, so accepting it shouldn't be an issue.
|
# ? Oct 19, 2012 18:35 |
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:Maybe my perceptions are skewed, then. Is the "drone strike" phrase being pushed by those who are actually criticizing the policy of murdering people, or is it being pushed by the media and government as a clinical and detached descriptor? Because when I hear "these drone strikes are evil" my takeaway isn't "we need to stop loving murdering people", it's "we need to stop using drones to murder people". Again, drone strikes are by far the most prominent tool of executive assassinations these days, so they get referred to as an umbrella term for all similar actions (manned planes, special forces, etc). I've never heard someone make the argument that killing people with actual manned aircraft would be any different morally. Critics of the programs almost always target the fact that we are killing people with abandon that we know almost nothing about. Where are you hearing such narrow criticisms? The government and media (well, most outlets-exceptions exist) do by and large consider drone strikes to be effective/legal, especially given the "military aged male = militant" metric for classifying the people they killed.
|
# ? Oct 19, 2012 19:50 |
|
Blowdryer posted:This is in response to me: There are a lot of factors that played into this recession and the collapse of the housing market; I'm not an expert in financial workings but I'll try to provide some information as to what I've read on the subject, going piece by piece. If you want further information feel free to ask. I find this video covers the same subject matter pretty well if you don't want to read a wall of text: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx_LWm6_6tA&hd=1 --------------- The first thing that needs explaining is the basic underlying premise of how financial instruments work, particularly things like prime vs. subprime mortgages, collateralized debt obligations, credit default swaps and mortgage backed securities. The terms prime and subprime refer to the creditworthiness of a borrower: those with a good credit history, high ability to repay and assets to use as collateral against their loans would be considered prime borrowers, and those with poor or no credit history, low ability to repay and few or no assets to use as loan collateral are considered subprime. This is essentially a risk assessment made by the lending institution: riskier loans generally require higher interest payments or have a lower amount on money available to be loaned out. Now, normally a bank has a vested interest in having their loans repaid and so they try to avoid making subprime loans; after all, if they don't get repaid they lose money and that's no good. One of the primary factors for the housing market collapse and the recession is the decoupling of risk and reward in this manner. What caused this decoupling? Three financial instruments were primarily responsible: mortgage backed securities, collateralized debt obligations, and credit default swaps. A Mortgage Backed Security (or MBS) is a financial investment based on the flow of funds from a (usually small) pool of assets, in this case mortgages. In simpler terms, a MBS works like this: The bank creates a MBS and offers it to investors. The investor pays the bank an agreed upon cost (and typically a fee as well) and in return the investor gets the future loan payments on the mortgages instead of the bank. Banks get a few benefits from this: they get money right now, and they get to remove the risk of those mortgages from their portfolios, allowing them to invest more money (I'll be coming back to this later). Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDO) are like MBSs, but with a bit more financial engineering: it's broken up into divisions typically called "tranches" with varying amounts of risk and return. So a bank takes a bunch of mortgages or MBSs, bundles them all together, then splits that combined product into tranches; the top tranche is the least risky and the bottom tranche is the most risky. As payments come in for the CDO, the top tranche is paid off first, then the next tranche down, all the way to the bottom tranche. This means the bank sets a lower rate of return for the safest top tranche and a higher rate of return for the risky bottom tranche before selling them to investors; CDOs were rated by rating agencies and usually the top tranche would get a very good rating, AA or even AAA, meaning as safe as you can get. In order to get a stronger rating banks would often contract with another entity, typically an insurance company, in what is called a Credit Default Swap (CDS). A CDS is an agreement for the insurer to pay a set amount to the bank in the circumstance that the loans default. In this way, the risk is once again passed off to another agency. These three innovations in financial markets led to a shift in risk-reward for mortgage originators and banks. Where before if you gave out a mortgage to a home buyer you had to be concerned about their repayment, now things were not so straightforward. From the banks point of view, it would go like this: I go to another lending institution and borrow a bunch of money to buy mortgages with (this process is called leveraging). A mortgage originator provides my bank with a bunch of mortgages they provided to home buyers, then I bundle them up and sell them to investors for a nice fee. I don't care if the home buyers pay back the loan anymore, because the investors hold that risk now. I pay back my original loan, keep the excess profit on the deal and I've got money on my books that I can use to make more loans or investments. From the investors point of view, they win too! They get a new place to keep their money that offers good returns, and they want more of these investments. There's just one problem: there are only so many good prime mortgages that you can provide. So banks start agreeing to take on subprime mortgages with little collateral and no proof of income and poor credit history for amounts that are beyond ridiculous. They keep bundling them up and having CDSs put onto them for ensure a good rating and selling that risk off. This goes on for a while, and everyone is really pleased with themselves: people who couldn't afford a house get a nice house, banks make a profit, investors get a good return, insurance companies laugh because they are insuring these investments that aren't viewed as risky. We're all winners, the slot machine is coming up all 7's, what could possibly go wrong? What goes wrong is risk. Virtually everyone in the financial system is underestimating the risk in these investment tools and with limited regulatory oversight they don't have to keep nearly enough money on hand to deal with that risk. Banks had fought against that sort of regulation for years, arguing that holding the money in their accounts was hurting the economy. Quietly, with almost no one noticing, the risk built, and built, and spread throughout the financial system. Banks were making these investments too; in some cases banks would buy the lovely BB or even unrated tranches of CDOs, bundle them in with new mortgages, then split them up again for sale to other investors. Presto, those lovely loans are now rated AA or AAA! Low risk! All this risk builds up in the system, completely independent of any government action in the process; in fact, government banks like Fannie and Freddie wound up getting into the game late and with a lower percentage of subprime mortgages because they were dragged into it by the market. They had to keep up with private banks who were making money doing this financial innovating, and the only way to do that was to join in themselves. And eventually, a problem hits. The problem that tips the tower over is the housing market. The bubble has gotten so big that when it finally bursts, poo poo hits the fan hard. As people start to default on the loans they couldn't afford, the houses go on the market. For years the housing market had seen prices rise and rise and rise; however as these defaults started to occur in large numbers, the number of houses available exceeded the number of people looking to buy houses. Prices start to fall. People who owe 300k on their loan learn their house is only worth 150k on the market, and some people decide it makes more sense to walk away from that debt than hold it for no reason. Default rates skyrocket across the country. The banks suddenly realize they have a very serious problem here, for two reasons. The first is that their recently enjoyed revenue stream has collapsed. The second is that these CDOs and CDSs and MBSs are spread out all over the place, cut up and recombined and sold over and over so much that banks can't tell what they're worth anymore or how risky they are. If that seems insane then good, because it is loving insane. It's not just held by banks either. Investment funds, mutual funds, government pensions, businesses, this poo poo is all over the market. Because banks don't know their own books and they don't know each others books, they stop lending because they don't want to lose any more money after leveraging so much. The economy goes tits up as a result, people lose their jobs, their homes, and find out their life savings for retirement have gone away in a puff of smoke. The whole thing is pretty complicated and a lot of other factors also played into it (terrible credit rating agencies for example) but that covers the gist of the meltdown. Government involvement didn't cause it, and given our regulatory laxness it's pretty straightforward to see that more regulation could've helped ameliorate the outcomes even if it couldn't stop it entirely. Mo_Steel fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Oct 19, 2012 |
# ? Oct 19, 2012 20:21 |
|
Will Rice posted:I've never heard someone make the argument that killing people with actual manned aircraft would be any different morally. Critics of the programs almost always target the fact that we are killing people with abandon that we know almost nothing about. Where are you hearing such narrow criticisms? One example: BrotherAdso posted:4. Drone Warfare Is Insidious and Evil
|
# ? Oct 19, 2012 21:41 |
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:One example: That's pretty much the same thing though: the problem with being distanced from the human costs of warfare isn't that it is dishonorable, it's that it makes it easier and therefore more likely to conduct war without considering the consequences. (Okay, to be fair from that quote it is possible that the author means it is bad because it is unchivalrous or that it removes the opportunity for men to experience the glory of war, but I kind of doubt it.)
|
# ? Oct 19, 2012 21:47 |
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:One example: It's worth noting that the paragraph you quoted is from a BrotherAdso post attempting to praise President Obama and that he characterized it in just that way because it was his explicit goal to downplay the criticism.
|
# ? Oct 19, 2012 21:55 |
|
eSports Chaebol posted:That's pretty much the same thing though: the problem with being distanced from the human costs of warfare isn't that it is dishonorable, it's that it makes it easier and therefore more likely to conduct war without considering the consequences. You're also plenty distanced from it using cruise missiles or even a modern plane. It's not like we're going from dropping bombs out the side of an open cockpit biplane straight to drones here.
|
# ? Oct 19, 2012 21:58 |
|
eSports Chaebol posted:That's pretty much the same thing though: the problem with being distanced from the human costs of warfare isn't that it is dishonorable, it's that it makes it easier and therefore more likely to conduct war without considering the consequences. Kind of how tasers make cops more comfortable in using force much more readily than they would without tasers, just because it's less lethal. To make up numbers, let's say with just a gun on hand, a cop might be 5% likely to use the gun and 95% likely to use less lethal methods like tackling or words. With a taser and a gun on hand, the cop is still 5% likely to use the gun, but is now 50% likely to use the taser. Having the less-lethal weapon has perhaps decreased deaths, but it has still increased use of weaponry. So, having the less-lethal (to pilots) weapon has decreased pilot deaths but has increased use of weapons in general.
|
# ? Oct 19, 2012 22:13 |
|
Golbez posted:So, having the less-lethal (to pilots) weapon has decreased pilot deaths but has increased use of weapons in general. Is there actual evidence of that? Bearing in mind that drones have been in use in a combat capacity since the late 1980s (the Iranians happening to be the first to use one in combat, and Israel being the first to use them widely).
|
# ? Oct 19, 2012 22:18 |
|
Install Gentoo posted:You're also plenty distanced from it using cruise missiles or even a modern plane. It's not like we're going from dropping bombs out the side of an open cockpit biplane straight to drones here. That's true, but it is a pretty significant advancement of an already present trend.
|
# ? Oct 19, 2012 22:22 |
|
I find the government caused the crisis logic odd, as it seems to centre around claims that the government 'encouraged' homeownership and then this led to all the financial instruments, fraud, oversized banks and whatever. So, if the government 'encouraged' the opening of new nurseries which were subsequently targeted by paedophiles, I guess the government would be to blame?
|
# ? Oct 20, 2012 12:25 |
|
Cahal posted:I find the government caused the crisis logic odd, as it seems to centre around claims that the government 'encouraged' homeownership and then this led to all the financial instruments, fraud, oversized banks and whatever. Well, I think the implication here is that certain people are incapable of home ownership, either because they don't generate enough income to service the debts associated with home ownership, or because they don't provide adequate care to the building and the neighborhood to keep housing prices up (whereas allowing housing prices in your neighborhood to crash can result in you being 'under water' on your mortgage). Is home ownership a right? I don't think it is. I do think it's a right for a person to have a safe, clean, warm place to lay their head at the end of the day. But if we want to tackle the larger issue of how best to provide that to all people on this planet, it becomes abundantly clear that suburbs are unsustainable (as a general strategy). This gets into issues of population density, public transit, heating and cooling costs (compared between small houses and large apartment complexes), and land use. If the government naively said 'home ownership is a right!' (with very good intentions, and putting in place systems to help first-time home owners and particularly minorities), they may fail to take the further step of considering the implications for sustainability. If the strategy employed can reasonably be expected to produce an unsustainable situation, then yes, a degree of responsibility can be placed on those that designed and implemented the strategy - namely, the government. But there is a hateful implication in the logic - if one believes that poor people and foreigners are incapable (by their nature) of taking care of a home, or accept that it is right and good for neighborhoods with high minority populations to have their property value drop (simply because White Folk don't exclusively inhabit it), this same criticism ends up being 'The government is at fault because they over-estimated the worth of minorities and poor people, resulting in a collapse.' And that whole argument is ignoring the parasitic terms of mortgages targeting those populations, and dismisses the role that banks have an obligation to play in helping someone that is trying for upward social mobility to do it in a wise, achievable manner. The banks are there to make a profit, but their profit model should be as much to market guidance and wisdom to their borrowers as it is to collect the borrowers checks and distribute the profits to shareholders. Uglycat fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Oct 20, 2012 |
# ? Oct 20, 2012 17:56 |
|
This talk given at the London School of Economics called "War in the Borderlands" is a really interesting discussion of how the use of drone warfare is on the cutting edge of a new style of conflict. Honestly the technology behind drones is far from the most revolutionary part about them. In principle they are just a really efficient evolution on missiles or human guided aircraft. What makes drones so fascinating and controversial is that they are being developed in a geopolitical context where traditional warfare is being superseded by low intensity asymmetrical conflicts. Drones are also being deployed domestically in the war on drugs, so technologies that are currently being tested overseas will eventually find their way into civilian law enforcement. This is analogous to the way that security equipment and new techniques get live tested by Israel and then eventually adopted by domestic US security and police. When people discuss drones it really isn't just the technology they are discussing. Drones are part of a wider change in how our society fights conflicts.
|
# ? Oct 20, 2012 18:13 |
|
Cahal posted:I find the government caused the crisis logic odd, as it seems to centre around claims that the government 'encouraged' homeownership and then this led to all the financial instruments, fraud, oversized banks and whatever. You've missed the common libertarian argument that the anticipation of government bailouts led the banking industry to use riskier practices in the pursuit of profit.
|
# ? Oct 20, 2012 18:23 |
|
esquilax posted:You've missed the common libertarian argument that the anticipation of government bailouts led the banking industry to use riskier practices in the pursuit of profit. Is it necessarily a wrong statement to make? I thought moral hazard is considered a well-founded concept in economics and finance?
|
# ? Oct 20, 2012 23:38 |
|
ThirdPartyView posted:Is it necessarily a wrong statement to make? I thought moral hazard is considered a well-founded concept in economics and finance? No, I don't think it is a wrong statement. But it is a common libertarian/conservative argument and an example of a government intervention that helped cause the crisis, so if you're arguing against them you either have to be prepared to say that some government intervention helped cause the crisis, or be prepared to defend the concept of bailouts.
|
# ? Oct 20, 2012 23:43 |
|
esquilax posted:No, I don't think it is a wrong statement. But it is a common libertarian/conservative argument and an example of a government intervention that helped cause the crisis, so if you're arguing against them you either have to be prepared to say that some government intervention helped cause the crisis, or be prepared to defend the concept of bailouts. Bailouts are done in /response/ to a crisis. The bailout money wasn't earmaked to bail out banks prior to the collapse. Moral Hazard was assumed, going into the crisis, and the bailout was done despite that assumption (to stave off a total collapse, not out of greed).
|
# ? Oct 21, 2012 00:41 |
|
Uglycat posted:Bailouts are done in /response/ to a crisis. The bailout money wasn't earmaked to bail out banks prior to the collapse. Moral Hazard was assumed, going into the crisis, and the bailout was done despite that assumption (to stave off a total collapse, not out of greed). I specified the 'anticipation of bailouts' and the 'concept of bailouts'. Not the post-crisis bailouts specifically (which did prevent collapse but will influence future behavior). I don't understand how you're using the term moral hazard there and who's doing the assuming. It doesn't quite fit with the normal sense of "the concept of people doing riskier actions when they don't suffer the cost of the risk". Can you rephrase?
|
# ? Oct 21, 2012 01:14 |
|
The issue of Moral Hazard was raised when the bailout was being considered. The bailout was being considered because the crisis was imminent. Ergo, Moral Hazard is not responsible for the crisis. There are people who argue that the banks should have been allowed to fail, and the 'moral hazard' discussion falls within (but does not exhaust) arguments for that conclusion, but nobody is pinning the crisis on the bailouts.
|
# ? Oct 21, 2012 01:29 |
|
Is "They only did it because they thought they could get away with it" supposed to make the banks look better? Because to any sane person, it really doesn't. I honestly don't get how that's supposed to be a good thing. It's basically just saying they're not greedy, they're greedy and cowards.
|
# ? Oct 21, 2012 01:53 |
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:Is "They only did it because they thought they could get away with it" supposed to make the banks look better? Because to any sane person, it really doesn't. I honestly don't get how that's supposed to be a good thing. It's basically just saying they're not greedy, they're greedy and cowards. No. I'm saying they're incompetent. Or rather, not sufficiently competent. The task they're being charged with is to take as stab at a sustainable plan. The plan fell apart - but they did get somewhere. It hurt a lot of people when it fell apart. There were things that could have been done differently that would have made for a better outcome. But things did fall apart. It's neither greed nor cowardice that was, in the Ultimate sense, the cause of the crash. It wasn't that they 'thought they could get away with it.' It's that they had to do something with it, and they wrote it into the plan that they would be rewarded well for trying. Once it failed, we were in new territory - and a new plan was formed. The first action of the new plan was to bail out the banks. It's sorta like you might elect to allow a fireman to go into your house with a hose, flooding your basement and causing massive water damage to everything on the first floor, to stop the structure itself from burning to ashes. Yeah, it's not a good idea to spray massive amounts of water all over your house. The water didn't cause the fire. edit - and, mind you, the stab they took was a distributed process. There wasn't any one person at the helm, and for any limited group of people that you could rightly ascribe a high degree of influence to, there are major points of disagreement (in philosophy, advocated action, and aim) between the members of that group. The design of the machine was imperfect, and there were imperfect cogs at every level of the machine. The machine needs to be designed with the assumption that all of the cogs are imperfect. And that alone is not sufficient to produce a sustainable future. Uglycat fucked around with this message at 06:17 on Oct 21, 2012 |
# ? Oct 21, 2012 06:14 |
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:Is "They only did it because they thought they could get away with it" supposed to make the banks look better? Because to any sane person, it really doesn't. I honestly don't get how that's supposed to be a good thing. It's basically just saying they're not greedy, they're greedy and cowards. The libertarian counter to this might be that if you can get away with something, why shouldn't you do it?
|
# ? Oct 21, 2012 07:02 |
|
Helsing posted:This talk given at the London School of Economics called "War in the Borderlands" is a really interesting discussion of how the use of drone warfare is on the cutting edge of a new style of conflict. I think another big part of it has to do with how how technology influences how people imagine warfare. With a tomahawk there's targeting and everything, but with a drone you can 1.) imagine some guy at an instrument panel thousands of miles away being able to see the 'target' moments before he kills him, and you can 2.) imagine that human being automated out of the process by automatic targeting systems. That isn't really true with a Tomahawk strike in the same way.
|
# ? Oct 21, 2012 07:42 |
|
Uglycat posted:The issue of Moral Hazard was raised when the bailout was being considered. You're right that the 2008 bailouts specifically did not contribute to the crisis. However, the bailouts in 2008 were not the first bailouts to ever exist. Previous bailouts, both nationally and internationally, and the cozy relationship between banking and regulators, created the implicit expectation of bailouts for the entire finance industry which led to riskier practices. Those interventions (not the post-2008 ones) created moral hazard in the finance industry in the 2001-2007 period which was one of the contributors to the crisis. And of course, I need to state that "some government interventions contributed to the crisis" does not contradict the statement "proper government regulation could have prevented the crisis." A Fancy 400 lbs posted:Is "They only did it because they thought they could get away with it" supposed to make the banks look better?
|
# ? Oct 21, 2012 17:12 |
|
esquilax posted:You're right that the 2008 bailouts specifically did not contribute to the crisis. Fair point. Nonetheless, I feel a more productive narrative will be formed by explicitly identifying the 'riskier practices' than by blaming 'greed' and stringing up bankers. edit - and such a narrative can still be open to the absence of 'moral hazard' being in some way responsible for the riskier practices, while also considering other legal, economic and psychological forces that encouraged that risk. Additionally, there may be some riskier practices that are called for in the present circumstances that might accelerate a recovery and growth. We shouldn't shy away from them - but transparency and rational skepticism is necessary in considering such ideas. Uglycat fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Oct 21, 2012 |
# ? Oct 21, 2012 21:30 |
|
esquilax posted:No, I don't know why you'd get that idea. I mean from the libertarian point of view, as I've actually seen several libertarians use it as a defense. Chantilly Say posted:The libertarian counter to this might be that if you can get away with something, why shouldn't you do it? And my response to that is if I was alone in a room with a random person and could get away with murdering them, should I do it? It's a weak rear end defense that shows a lack of self-critical thinking from the person employing it.
|
# ? Oct 22, 2012 05:14 |
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:And my response to that is if I was alone in a room with a random person and could get away with murdering them, should I do it? It's a weak rear end defense that shows a lack of self-critical thinking from the person employing it. [libertarian]Don't be so facile and histrionic. Murder has a clear victim (the dead person); with the economy the whole point is that there were no victims save those who had made poor economic decisions of their own free will--the employees of the financial agencies knew that the government would step in to prevent complete disaster if necessary, allowing them to take normally inadvisable risks without real fear of consequences. It's the presence of these kind of governmental institutions that allowed the people with the power to take those risks to reasonably take them. Remove the institutions and no large financial company would take such risks. No government, no crash, no recession.[/libertarian]
|
# ? Oct 22, 2012 08:51 |
|
esquilax posted:You've missed the common libertarian argument that the anticipation of government bailouts led the banking industry to use riskier practices in the pursuit of profit. And this is where we tell the libertarian that the state is not outside capitalism but the main mechanism through which it operates. If they want to blame expectations of bailouts, they can blame limited liability laws on similar logic. But they refuse to believe that.
|
# ? Oct 22, 2012 09:44 |
|
quote:But the thing is, the regulation needed to take place on Fannie and Freddie, not the banks which ere forced to hand out loans to people who could not afford them. I sent what mo_steel said (which was awesome by the way), and this is what I got back.
|
# ? Oct 22, 2012 18:14 |
|
|
# ? Mar 28, 2024 23:03 |
|
Blowdryer posted:I sent what mo_steel said (which was awesome by the way), and this is what I got back. Just call him a liar. No banks were "forced to hand out loans to people who could not afford them." It's a lie. He lied to you.
|
# ? Oct 22, 2012 18:25 |