530
US inflation unexpectedly increases
(www.bbc.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Feb 2025
530 points (100.0% liked)
News
36043 readers
2837 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It's not "one of my guys", I'm not even American, I have no idea who Clinton ran against.
I just don't condone blaming someone for a disaster that happened a decade after they left office, with two general elections in between.
The speed of events is very much relevant, specially when it's preventable. Once you release toxic waste into groundwater it is impossible to get out. Here a simple bill could have undone it, especially as more information was collected over time. Tobacco manufacturers are responsible for continuing to sell tobacco once the harmful effects are known. In particular, whoever is the CEO today. We don't blame native Americans for coming up with the idea of smoking tobacco leaves.
Then you know nothing of Finance, Economics or how Sector Regulation works - the full impact of regulatory measures on those things takes years or even decades to unfold: we wouldn't have had 5 decades of Neoliberalism if the full effects of unlimited deregulation were manifested immediately after a regulation is removed.
I was in the Finance Industry when the 2008 Crash happenned and most of what went wrong then would not have been possible if the Glass-Steagal act was still in place, so much so that after the Crash a weakened version of that act was put back in place, only to be thrown out again by Trump during his first presidency.
Clinton knew what the Act was for (plenty of Economists very publicly explained it back then) and why it had been put in place and he repealed it anyways because the Finance Industry could make more profits without that regulation (which they did, for a time, until the Crash, hence the boom-related suplus you loudly celebrated), all of which is very much the situation you described of, once knowing the long term harmful effects of something (specifically in this case, of removing certain regulations), doing it anyway for the short term benefits (the tobbaco industry got profits in their case, Clinton fueled a bubble and that yielded those celebrated Clinton surpluses, plus he personally got lots of money from the Finance Industry after he retired from the presidency).
His responsability is undisputable in Finance circles and all that's in dispute is how much of the total is his and if he was either reckless ("Conditions have changed so this time it's not going to happen"), incompetent (i.e. literally did not informed himself about the purpose of the Act he was repealing) or machiavelic ("My friends in the Finance Industry will be very thankful if I remove these costly regulations and if something happens it will be well after I'm POTUS and somebody else will get the blame") in repealing Glass-Steagal.
Ah yes the "all the secret experts agree with me" argument, and "if you don't, you have no idea". Disregarding that a decade passed where two administrations could have done something about it, and didn't. Let's blame the Wright borders for Boeing's fuckups while we're at it. After all, if they hadn't invented the airplane, those accidents wouldn't have been possible.
Ah, yes, the "I don't trust experts" argument.
If my explanation so far on how the Glass-Steagal forced separation of Retail banking from speculative investing and in doing so protected retail depositors' money from the bank's speculative investments blowing up, and the nonexistence of said protections was exactly why the 2008 Crash was so bad and had such widespread effects hence why we can directly trace most of the problems of that Crash to the repealing of said act, then me talking to you is a real life illustration of the pearls to pigs saying.
Your ignorance is 100% willful and there is no point in feeding such trolls.
You don't even get my point. The inexistece of those protections in 2008 is not Clinton's fault, unless he created a constitutional ammendment to forbid them or something irreversible. Bush was president for 7 years at that point, and as they say "the buck stops here". He had 7 years to bring them back and he didn't. Might as well blame Washington for creating the country.