Privatized profits and socialised losses...
-
BoneSoft wrote:
sell them into slavery to fund a recovery
A bit harsh, perhaps if we called it 30,000 hours community service, and require those to be served in .. oh .. Helmand, say :D
Bar fomos edo pariyart gedeem, agreo eo dranem abal edyero eyrem kalm kareore
Sure, I'll vote for that. But first we have to keep the mob from stringing them up before we can squeeze them for all they're worth.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
Balance the two concepts into a workable hybrid. The greed of humans in positions of power and influence is too great of a factor to trust.
But why would a hybrid be any less vulnerable to precisely the same human short comings? The notion that if only we can get sufficient power into the hands of the right group of really honest people is the real problem here. It is never going to happen. Free Market capitalism is absolutely as vulnerable to greed, corruption and stupidity as is any other human endeavor. But that is not going to ever be solved by giving ever more regulatory power to a bunch of government bureaucrats who are only there in the first place because of how easy it is to corrupt such systems. When any business executive breaks the law, they should be held to exactly the same legal standards that anyone else in the society is who breaks the law. If they lie or cheat or steal to acquire wealth, they should be punished for it. But otherwise they should be free to pursue their business as they please. If that simple formula can not be made to work, than nothing else possibly can.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But why would a hybrid be any less vulnerable to precisely the same human short comings?
Regulation and the market. There is a push/pull mechanism here. The concept is equilibrium. There should be some tension from both sides such that one doesn't get too far out of hand. There needs to be some regulation that sets bounds within which the market can operate that protects the taxpayer from a situation like we have now. The problem is that when the free market is responsible for services that society depends on then we get into a co-dependent situation where when the market makes bad decisions based on greed like the current mortgage crisis the taxpayers are forced to provide the market with welfare. Which is an oxymoron to the nth degree. If the free market needs welfare its not free. I keep hearing conservatives state that this is necessary considering the alternatives. Sounds like democrats arguing for social services. Stick to your guns man. Let this fall flat on its face. We are a strong people. If we need to start over then so be it. But to argue that we need to bail out these companies from a conservative standpoint is to justify every social program any democrat has ever argued for.
I've heard more said about less.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
But why would a hybrid be any less vulnerable to precisely the same human short comings?
Regulation and the market. There is a push/pull mechanism here. The concept is equilibrium. There should be some tension from both sides such that one doesn't get too far out of hand. There needs to be some regulation that sets bounds within which the market can operate that protects the taxpayer from a situation like we have now. The problem is that when the free market is responsible for services that society depends on then we get into a co-dependent situation where when the market makes bad decisions based on greed like the current mortgage crisis the taxpayers are forced to provide the market with welfare. Which is an oxymoron to the nth degree. If the free market needs welfare its not free. I keep hearing conservatives state that this is necessary considering the alternatives. Sounds like democrats arguing for social services. Stick to your guns man. Let this fall flat on its face. We are a strong people. If we need to start over then so be it. But to argue that we need to bail out these companies from a conservative standpoint is to justify every social program any democrat has ever argued for.
I've heard more said about less.
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
The concept is equilibrium.
The attempt to achieve equilibrium is precisely the problem. You must either accept total control by a centralized state entitity of some kind to achieve equilibrium, which means that you are placing precisely the same trust in government bureaucrats that you are afraid to place in the hands of business people, or you must accept the ups and downs of the market that is inherent to a less regulated system. The only real question is can we trust the legal system to punish the wealthy as readily as it punishes the less wealthy. That is ultimately the only real problem in obtaining a fair system.
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
But to argue that we need to bail out these companies from a conservative standpoint is to justify every social program any democrat has ever argued for.
I don't know that any conservative is arguing that. I'm not. I would be perfectly happy to see the entire system collapse and take modern civilization with it. That would certainly kill liberalism, which badly needs to happen. But no politician is going to do that. There is absolutely no one that you could possibly vote for that would. But that was the hope of the left all along. There was never any doubt that a little bit of socialism would ultimately collapse into complete socialism. That was the plan from the very beginning. There is no hybrid possible. It is one thing or the other. A house divided against itself cannot stand, it must become all of one thing or all of the other.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
From what I understand it wasn't conservatives that forced lenders to hand out mortgages that they knew wouldn't get paid. Deregulation wasn't the issue, liberals believing everybody in America should own a home forced this. And now we want to stick government's hands into health care as well? I don't think so. Maybe after the first trillion dollar tax hike is past. X|
shiftedbitmonkey wrote:
Our dollars are reserved for those who create them.
That trillion isn't going to the people that did this, they already got their money. It's going to clean up the mess. Free market? Not as long as socialists are allowed in office.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
Deregulation wasn't the issue, liberals believing everybody in America should own a home forced this.
It's not really/merely that "liberals" believe everyone in America should own a house. Hell, that's a "conservative" goal (because those with a concrete/tangible investment in their communities [and in their own lives] tend to become more "conservative" and more socially stable). The problem is the same same problem we keep having government-sponsored crisis after government-sponsored crisis -- "liberals" aren't at all concerned with whether their nostrums actually help *anyone,* much less whether they work as advertised; looking into that doesn't even enter the picture. "Liberal" policies aren't about *helping* "the disadvantaged;" "liberal" policies are always and entirely about demonstrating what morally superior persons "liberals" are. And about doing it on someone else's dime.
-
Sure, I'll vote for that. But first we have to keep the mob from stringing them up before we can squeeze them for all they're worth.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
But first we have to keep the mob from stringing them up before we can squeeze them for all they're worth.
How about we invite 1:10 to be guest of honor at a necktie party? That should be enough to have a nice celebration and still leave a workfoce.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
"But experts say the administration could have done even more to curb excesses in the housing market, and much more to police Wall Street, which transmitted those problems around the world."
And I've said as much myself. But the people guarding the system were the democrats.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
But the people guarding the system were the democrats.
Neither Paulson nor Bernake are Democrats. Bush is not a Democrat. You're as bad as the pisants in Congress with you finger-pointing.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The entire thing was caused by the government forcing lenders to make loans to people who they otherwise would not have lent to.
Are you saying that banks were forced to make these loans? They HAD TO? By law??? BS. I'm also not talking about blame for how this got to this point. I'm talking about the bailout. The banks did not have to make those loans. They profited from them so they stuck their necks out. They should pay for it. Not taxpayers. That's all I'm saying. Take billions of dollars from the taxpayers and give it to the banks for making bad decisions. Talk about redistributing wealth.
I've heard more said about less.
-
Le Centriste wrote:
while bankers are laughing their asses off.
...along with all the leftists...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
...along with all the leftists...
Like a jack-in-the-box, you pop up with your idiotic desire to absolve Bush and his administration in every sub thread. You contribute about as much to this conversation as Adnan would. Have you got anything worth saying or is it all variations on "the liberals did it, mommy."
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
a United States federal law that requires banks and thrifts to offer credit throughout their entire market area and prohibits them from targeting only wealthier neighborhoods with their services[^] The CRA directs four federal banking agencies to evaluate the extent to which banks and savings institutions are meeting local credit needs before they grant banks’ requests to expand, either by opening new branches or through mergers and acquisitions. A weak CRA record may be grounds for denial of an expansion request[^]
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
modified on Monday, September 22, 2008 7:48 PM
-
Le Centriste wrote:
while bankers are laughing their asses off.
...along with all the leftists...
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
...along with all the leftists...
And the self-superior cynical lying asses, like DryRot. edit: Trying to open the eyes of these willfully blind lefties is important ... though thankless and quite unlikely to succeed because they don't *want* to see reality as it really is. I don't have the patience to try this (I have no patience for dealing with lies and liars), and since *they* will never thank you for attempting to open their eyes, please accept my expression of gratitude.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
But the people guarding the system were the democrats.
Neither Paulson nor Bernake are Democrats. Bush is not a Democrat. You're as bad as the pisants in Congress with you finger-pointing.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Every attempt to reform the system has been stopped by the democrats. Every attempt to exapnd it has been instigated by democrats. I suspect that if the social security system collapsed tomorrow and had to be bailed out you would also blame that on Bush.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
...along with all the leftists...
Like a jack-in-the-box, you pop up with your idiotic desire to absolve Bush and his administration in every sub thread. You contribute about as much to this conversation as Adnan would. Have you got anything worth saying or is it all variations on "the liberals did it, mommy."
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
or is it all variations on "the liberals did it, mommy."
They did.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Okay, I could nit-pick, but you definitely made your point.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
This [^] is the best analysis I've read. What we need to do is remove the government's power to coerce, bribe, reward and bail out irrational decisions. The unfree market has failed. It's time for a truly free market. There were many factors, but the one common element is the attempt by the government to micro-manage the economy.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
True, but Caesar didn't have the Secret Service. ;)
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Every attempt to reform the system has been stopped by the democrats. Every attempt to exapnd it has been instigated by democrats. I suspect that if the social security system collapsed tomorrow and had to be bailed out you would also blame that on Bush.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Every attempt to reform the system has been stopped by the democrats. Every attempt to exapnd it has been instigated by democrats.
Not every, but many. I understand your frustration with the Dems. What I don't understand is your willingness to let the Republicans crap all over you.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I suspect that if the social security system collapsed tomorrow and had to be bailed out you would also blame that on Bush.
Nope. Reagan.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
It seems to me that everybody has forgotten the fact that these sub-prime mortgages were only part of the problem. Another part of the problem was "short selling" where an even larger sum of money, I understand, was at threat. I rather suspect that if the "short selling" and other dubious Wall Street activities were not conducted, the issue of sub-prime mortgages probably would not be receiving the amount of attention here and in the press as it is getting. (Anyhow I'm off to bed)
Nonsense. Shorting stocks has been around forever. A short position is taken in response to an precived trend in a stock (or optionable security/commidty). Just by shorting a company doesn't gaurentee a loss of that companies value. It mearly is a bet based on a trend or insight that the stock will lose value. Shorting has been made a recent boogyman because it is eaiser to blame the shorts than to look and the flaws in a fiat based economy.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long
-
Is the $120 billion the total value of the homes or the total value of all the mortgages (and don't forget 2nd and 3rd ones) on those homes?
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra]
If you add up every mortgage in the United States (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc) it totals $7 trillion. About 2.7% of all mortgages are either delinquent, in default, or in foreclosure, which is about $190 billion altogether. The $120 billion is a high-end estimate of mortgages in foreclosure and the actual value is probably lower. Also, foreclosed properties generally fetch 60% of market value, so the potential loss is 40% or so of the $120 billion. Actually, the subprime crisis is pretty much over, because those loans typically ballooned in 2 or 3 years and have worked their way out of the market. It's prime loans given to people with good incomes and good credit that are now experiencing the greatest rate of increase in defaults. It's best we stop blaming lower-income people for this mess because the middle and upper-middle classes are defaulting in much higher numbers than any other group.
-
Nonsense. Shorting stocks has been around forever. A short position is taken in response to an precived trend in a stock (or optionable security/commidty). Just by shorting a company doesn't gaurentee a loss of that companies value. It mearly is a bet based on a trend or insight that the stock will lose value. Shorting has been made a recent boogyman because it is eaiser to blame the shorts than to look and the flaws in a fiat based economy.
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long
I agree - shorting is always limited too. Criticism of the strategy only ever comes up when there's a crisis because it's easier to pin the problems on some sub-group than to sort through the complicated reality of the problem. Today short-sellers, tomorrow speculators...
...that mortally intolerable truth; that all deep, earnest thinking is but the intrepid effort of the soul to keep the open independence of her sea; while the wildest winds of heaven and earth conspire to cast her on the treacherous, slavish shore.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Every attempt to reform the system has been stopped by the democrats. Every attempt to exapnd it has been instigated by democrats.
Not every, but many. I understand your frustration with the Dems. What I don't understand is your willingness to let the Republicans crap all over you.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I suspect that if the social security system collapsed tomorrow and had to be bailed out you would also blame that on Bush.
Nope. Reagan.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
What I don't understand is your willingness to let the Republicans crap all over you.
Stan has a fecal fetish!
...that mortally intolerable truth; that all deep, earnest thinking is but the intrepid effort of the soul to keep the open independence of her sea; while the wildest winds of heaven and earth conspire to cast her on the treacherous, slavish shore.
-
I agree - shorting is always limited too. Criticism of the strategy only ever comes up when there's a crisis because it's easier to pin the problems on some sub-group than to sort through the complicated reality of the problem. Today short-sellers, tomorrow speculators...
...that mortally intolerable truth; that all deep, earnest thinking is but the intrepid effort of the soul to keep the open independence of her sea; while the wildest winds of heaven and earth conspire to cast her on the treacherous, slavish shore.
Yet when you look at the history of shorts, it has always courted both controversy and crude speculation that allegedly caused (1) the Wall Street crash of 1929, (2) the dotcom bubble of just a few years ago. It is a practice that has previously been banned as it has been now curbed albeit temporary.