The Economy / Sports analogy

Printable View

11-06-2008, 12:25 AM
ninja9578

The Economy / Sports analogy

Some people don't seem to understand what is going on with the economy, so I'm going to put it into a simple analogy that everyone can understand: football. What the metaphors mean are in green.

The Brazilians (liberals) and the Americans (conservatives) are on the same team and up against Spain (economic collapse.) For the first 30 minutes (1992 - 2000) the Brazilians play very strictly to their positions (well regulated) get a 2 point lead (300 billion dollar surplus.) Then the team comes together and votes on whether or not the Americans should play for a while. The vote is tied except one American player (Kathy Harris) pulls up one of the Brazilian's hands (Florida) by force (32,000 vote fraudulent advantage.)

The Americans go in and run around playing whatever position they feel like (unregulated,) but in the 31st minute the Mexicans (Afghanis) throw rocks (planes) at them so the Americans send one player (a few billion a year) to play against them, but also sends 5 players (10 billion a month) to play the Iraqis (uhm... the Iraqis [they actually have a decent team].) We can afford to because we are far ahead and think Iraq will be over fast. In the 35th minute (2002) the Americans said that they've beaten the Iraqis (Mission Accomplished speech) but then stayed there for 25 more minutes (6 more years.)

Now with only 5 players the Spanish start scoring left and right (building debt.) The Americans know that they are losing so they pull the goalie out to play striker (take 700 billion out of the tax money and give it to wall street.) The pulled goalie gets one point (minor rebound) but then because of the pulled goalie (tax money) they score even more (stocks plummet.)

In the 60th minute (2008) the Brazilians are pissed and take back the field. The Americans (Universal Mind :P) says that their game plan (unregulated market) is better than the brazilians (regulate market) in theory. The brazilians (me) say that if the americans can beat the brazilians in a scrimmage (red state's economy be better than blue state's economies) then they will agree, but until then to shut up and sit on the bench while the brazilian captain (President Obama) and the team (democratic congress) go back out to try and pick up the pieces and win.

I love sports :D
11-06-2008, 12:31 AM
Oneironaut Zero

Quote:

Originally Posted by ninja9578

...but also sends 5 players (10 billion a month) to play the Iraqis (uhm... the Iraqis [they actually have a decent team].)

Haha. I :chuckle:'d at that one.
11-06-2008, 12:36 AM
ninja9578

They do, they made it to the top 16 in 2002 and beat the Portuguese in the olympics in 2004.
11-06-2008, 12:39 AM
Oneironaut Zero

Quote:

Originally Posted by ninja9578

They do, they made it to the top 16 in 2002 and beat the Portuguese in the olympics in 2004.

Haha. Nah, not that I was disagreeing. Just the way it was worked in to the analogy. :)
11-06-2008, 12:42 AM
ninja9578

Oh, ok.

Maybe I should say that in the 35th minute (2002) the Americans said that they've beaten the Iraqis (Mission Accomplished speech) but then stayed there for 25 more minutes (6 more years.) :P
11-06-2008, 12:54 AM
aceofspades

nice well thought out analogy ninja...

you always impress me xD
11-06-2008, 01:15 AM
spockman

Although I disagree wholeheartedly with most all of what was said, (except for the fact that we've thrown money around like confetti for the last 8 years without fruit,) I tip my hat to your cleverness.
11-06-2008, 08:24 PM
Original Poster

Inaccurate.
11-06-2008, 08:27 PM
Universal Mind

What country represents lowering the Hell out of loan standards because of dumb ass political correctness pressure?
11-06-2008, 08:46 PM
Original Poster

I'm sorry, loan standards were lowered because people were trying to make money.
11-06-2008, 09:16 PM
Universal Mind

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

I'm sorry, loan standards were lowered because people were trying to make money.

On loans that could not be paid back? Hardly. Credit exists for a reason. It was the Democrats in Congress who were all gung-ho about the lowering of standards, and there are tapes of them praising it and talking about how much good it would do.
11-06-2008, 10:29 PM
Original Poster

There's also a tape of Ron Paul telling them how retarded they all were for thinking it would work.
11-07-2008, 12:24 AM
ninja9578

Quote:

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

On loans that could not be paid back? Hardly. Credit exists for a reason. It was the Democrats in Congress who were all gung-ho about the lowering of standards, and there are tapes of them praising it and talking about how much good it would do.

Why do you continually bring this up? That wasn't the Clinton's congress' fault. They set it up, and it did work. The thing is, the Clinton congress (which was Republican btw) put huge regulations on them so that the banks wouldn't give loans to people who couldn't afford them. It was the Bush's congress who took down the regulations.

The democrats never thought that it would work without those regulations, the republicans did. The congress should have either taken the whole thing down or left the regulations up. Why did they think that part of a working program would work by itself?
11-07-2008, 12:24 AM
spockman

Quote:

There's also a tape of Ron Paul telling them how retarded they all were for thinking it would work.

Which is why Ron Paul=Winner! (Even though he's a loser.)

Quote:

Why do you continually bring this up? That wasn't the Clinton's congress' fault. They set it up, and it did work. The thing is, the Clinton congress (which was Republican btw) put huge regulations on them so that the banks wouldn't give loans to people who couldn't afford them. It was the Bush's congress who took down the regulations.

The democrats never thought that it would work without those regulations, the republicans did. The congress should have either taken the whole thing down or left the regulations up. Why did they think that part of a working program would work by itself?

The 'Clinton Congress' was idealistic to think that the corporations wouldn't try and find a way out of the hole the government had put them in. The corp. were losing profit by the regulation so they try and find a way around the laws. It was inevitable. So the regs weren't working like they were expected too because understandably the corporations weren't falling in line.

So the regulation was doomed to fail for that reason.

Besides, the way that it allegedly 'worked' was by giving a temporary and artificial boost to the economy making people think that they had either A. more bargaining power for loans or B. more equity than they actually had. Fast forward to today, we see the aftermath of basing assmuptions of artificial 'jumpstarts.'

So the 'score' the Clinton administration/congress made didn't count, since they had made a penalty seconds before the goal was made.
11-07-2008, 02:27 AM
Universal Mind

Quote:

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Why do you continually bring this up? That wasn't the Clinton's congress' fault. They set it up, and it did work. The thing is, the Clinton congress (which was Republican btw) put huge regulations on them so that the banks wouldn't give loans to people who couldn't afford them. It was the Bush's congress who took down the regulations.

The democrats never thought that it would work without those regulations, the republicans did. The congress should have either taken the whole thing down or left the regulations up. Why did they think that part of a working program would work by itself?

No matter who did what when, it was a terrible idea with any level of regulations, and I know with certainty that Barney Frank and other Democrats were all for it. Look at what a disaster they created. If Republicans are responsible also, then screw them too. It was political correctness placed on a pedestal over reality, which is the formula that is literally ruining the country.