|
Your continuous donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics & Religion » Top 25 People to Blame for the Economic Crisis

Default Top 25 People to Blame for the Economic Crisis

February 23rd, 2009, 21:29
You're right, Z — it's a bad habit. Global warming was the original widespread term for it, and it stuck, even after the more precise term spread. I'll try to change that in the future.

I suppose I could say that I was simply phrasing the stuff to be more palatable to the kind of ideologue I mistakenly assumed Unrestigered to be.
Prime Junta is offline

Prime Junta

RPGCodex' Little BRO

#81

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,540

Default 

February 24th, 2009, 01:04
Originally Posted by Prime Junta View Post
You're right, Z — it's a bad habit. Global warming was the original widespread term for it, and it stuck, even after the more precise term spread. I'll try to change that in the future.
It also more directly connects with many of the effects that are more easily cite-able and measureable … even if not precise.

— Mike
txa1265 is offline

txa1265

txa1265's Avatar
SasqWatch

#82

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Corning, NY USA
Posts: 11,267

Default 

February 24th, 2009, 01:14
Whoever is to blame, the irony have to be that capitalism had to be bailed out by socialism.
hishadow is offline

hishadow

Level N+1

#83

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Southern parts of Norway
Posts: 1,138

Default 

February 24th, 2009, 03:59
"more national debt equals more wealth" according to this California congressman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjbPZAMked0&eurl

If you disagree, only means you have not been "educated" properly

"A strong president, means having the strength to resist the temptation of taking all that power isn't yours" - Ron Paul

"If you think the problems we create are bad, just wait until you see our solutions",- Government
mudsling3 is offline

mudsling3

mudsling3's Avatar
Sentinel

#84

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 558

Default 

February 24th, 2009, 14:47
Originally Posted by mudsling3 View Post
"more national debt equals more wealth" according to this California congressman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjbPZAMked0&eurl

If you disagree, only means you have not been "educated" properly
My favorite part was when Stark asked the interviewer if he had an advanced degree in economics since Stark himself doesn't have any kind of degree in economics. If he had, that would have been smug. Instead it was laughable.

But he's no dummy either. Stark's obviously a bright guy (and he does have an MBA) who just got frustrated. Talk about trying to put lipstick on a pig — this bill ain't pretty.

Oh, I wish I had a river I could skate away on. But it don't snow here. It stays pretty green. I'm going to make a lot of money, then I'm going to quit this crazy scene. — [Joni Mitchell]
Squeek is offline

Squeek

Squeek's Avatar
connoisseur of tidbits

#85

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Orange County, California
Posts: 1,807

Default 

February 24th, 2009, 15:52
@Unregistered: In one of your earlier posts you've claimed that one should be open to any opinion. And that there are many truths as I understand your post. I don't fully agree with you, cause imo there is certainly a need of rules. Not every opinion bares truth in it, so you can't be open to ever opinion. In most Western countries it's a crime even to question the numbers of Jews that were killed in WW2. Another thing is a party in the Netherlands I heard about: they are for pedofilia (I mean the term that a grown person wants to have sex with childeren). I'm not open for those opinions and I do consider them a danger for society.
Imo post-modernism is a failure by allowing way to much and to remain open for every opinion. I rather want the way Terry Goodkind used for his fantasy novel -> There's freedom at the end, but it isn't unlimmited.

so very, very tired (Star Trek XI quote according to the Simpsons)
Bartacus is offline

Bartacus

Bartacus's Avatar
BartWatch

#86

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Belgium - Flanders - Antwerp
Posts: 1,538

Default 

February 27th, 2009, 04:02
So, you feel that any position you don't agree with necessarily comes from an ultra-biased source, and therefore anyone holding said position must be an ideologue? I kinda thought as much. In political discourse, the usual functional definition of "ideologue" is "anyone who has the poor taste to hold opinions I disagree with." Good to see that some things haven't changed.
No, I think positions that are ultra-biased and fictitious come from ideologues.

I'm sorry, I couldn't parse this bit, the leap from CRA to Abu Ghraib was a bit long for me to follow.
Sure.

No, thanks, I prefer not to.
Sure.

Sorry, I misunderstood you; when you said "psycho" I thought you meant someone with a psychiatric condition. FWIW, my wife isn't a psycho; she's terribly nice, I can hardly remember the last time we fought (must've happened once or twice over the nine years we've been married), and I love her very very much.

Why are you knocking your wife here, by the way? You're the one who married her, you know. What does that say about your judgment of character?
Nothing, if you knew the circumstances of our marriage. Besides, I like that she has some fire and guts, even if it is derived from estrogen-insanity. Some guys like sheep, some guys like tigers. I got a tiger, and she keeps me on my toes. I could stand her even less if she was some kowtowing push-over.

And I'm from Olympus City, the capital of Mars. What's that supposed to prove?
Republicans don’t run in Brockton. No choice equals corruption and the total degradation of a once prospering city. 80 years of Democrats equaled the death of Brockton, and the retards that still live here keep voting them in. Picking sides was a wonderful idea of for Brockton, wasn’t it? I hope your city on Mars has more than one political party and a population that isn’t brainwashed.

I hereby retract my claim that you're a wingnut. I mistakenly jumped to a conclusion due to insufficient evidence. And I sincerely apologize for my mistake and subsequent rudeness.
Its okay, I forgive you.

Cool, I'm looking forward to your test. If you're interested in getting back on topic, I can explain a bit how I reached the conclusion that the CRA has nothing or next to nothing to do with the financial crisis, and Fannie and Freddie's problems are consequences rather than causes of it.
Sure, I’d like to hear how you came up with this.

I liked Coraline a lot when I read it, although IMO it wasn't quite up the quality of American Gods.
The movie was okay, my kid liked it a lot. I don’t really like Neil Gaimon’s books, but I can’t put them down. I read American Gods in a day, didn’t care for it, but still couldn’t stop reading it. And then went out and bought Anasuni’s Boys (or something like that) right after. I never read stardust but I didn’t care for the movie, same with the other book he had made into a movie. I keep meaning to read Sandman though.

Here is your test:

Is the Fairness Doctrine fair (in the US)?

Is Obama keeping his promise to have a totally transparent Administration?

Does Sean Penn like America?

Is Michael Moore an honest man?

Can Political Correctness be likened to McCarthyism?

Would it be fantastic if America became more like Europe?

More regulation is needed across the board in all markets and industry.


Whoever is to blame, the irony have to be that capitalism had to be bailed out by socialism.
LOL! No. But I like to hear what you mean and how you got the "had to" from. If we really want to talk about the total economic situation we would have to go back to NAFTA. Why is America heading into more of a have-have not state with more and more people dependant on the State? What did everyone think the outcome would be of Asia supplementing our trade deficit for years and years? Just think what can only be the outcome of this situation/far-stretched analogy: you go to best-buy but can’t afford what they have to sell so they give you a “best-buy credit-card” financed by best buy. You max it out, so they increase the credit limit. They keep raising the credit limit so you can keep buying stuff from them. What is the only outcome from this situation?
Unrestigered is offline

Unrestigered

Watchdog

#87

Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 166

Default 

February 27th, 2009, 04:14
wait, wait … BROCKTON? That run-down, third-rate used-to-make something but is not just a way point for criminals between Boston and Providence? Are you KIDDING me? Brockton is a shameful place - you drive down West St and see what *used to be* … you go there at night and see that there is nothing left but the shambles of a 19th century industry. It makes Worcester look like freakin' Paris!

— Mike
txa1265 is offline

txa1265

txa1265's Avatar
SasqWatch

#88

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Corning, NY USA
Posts: 11,267

Default 

February 27th, 2009, 07:11
Originally Posted by Unrestigered View Post
No, I think positions that are ultra-biased and fictitious come from ideologues.
Bias is a relative term. What's more, people sometimes make honest mistakes and come up with wacky ideas on their own.

Sure, I’d like to hear how you came up with this.
In a very small nutshell:
* The economic crisis was caused by the collapse of the real-estate bubble.
* The real-estate bubble was caused by a massive expansion of residential real-estate lending.
* The lending expansion was caused by banks *wanting* to issue much more credit. The collapse of underwriting standards was a consequence of the desire to expand credit; not a cause.
* The banks wanted to issue much more credit because there was enormous global demand for credit derivatives, which were high-yielding yet perceived safe. No credit = no credit derivatives = your competitors eating all the pie.
* The massive demand for credit derivatives was caused by herd mentality, bad information, and lack of oversight: these instruments were not properly overseen, and the organizations rating them had perverse incentives (and were not properly overseen themselves).

Therefore:

(1) The CRA is completely incidental to this. By far the enormous majority of the loans from which the derivatives were created were *not* issued under the CRA. Fannie and Freddie were very late to the party anyway; their market share dropped like a rock as the bubble started to inflate. The collapse of underwriting standards is tangential to the problem: better oversight and enforcement of the standards would have slowed down the bubble's inflation, but the bubble was not caused by a relaxation of the standards; it's the other way around.

(2) Clinton's responsibility is the same as every Congress's and Administration's since Reagan's: he subscribed to the "markets-always-know-best" mentality and did nothing to stop the "deregulate-everything" movement. (I don't think it's entirely fair to blame him for Gramm-Leach-Bliley, since Gramm, Leach, and Bliley are all Republicans, and it was a hugely popular bill.)

I could go on, but that's it in a nutshell.

Here is your test:

Is the Fairness Doctrine fair (in the US)?
No way. It's not exactly censorship, but it's uncomfortably close. Anti-trust legislation ought to be enough to keep mass media monopolies (business or political; which are indeed dangerous — just ask any Italian who doesn't vote for Berlusconi) from appearing.

Is Obama keeping his promise to have a totally transparent Administration?
I'd give him a B+ on this so far. IOW, I'd answer "yes, about as well as any politician keeps any campaign promise." It's not *totally* transparent, to be sure, but it's a lot more transparent than we've been used to seeing. It's early days yet, though.

Does Sean Penn like America?
I have no idea. What does he say about America? I don't follow celebrity gossip much, so about the only thing I know is that he played this gay politician in a movie recently.

Is Michael Moore an honest man?
Hell no! I like him, though — it's refreshing to see someone on the left doing what Rush Limbaugh does on the right, *and* being entertaining about it. He does make some good points though, unlike Rush.

Can Political Correctness be likened to McCarthyism?
Sure, it *can*, but I don't think it's a very valid comparison. McCarthyism wasn't mere rhetorical anti-Communism, you know — there was the Commission on Anti-American Activities, the Hollywood blacklists, lots of people losing their livelihood and so on. McCarthyism was also *the* dominant political discourse in the country — there were hardly any dissenting voices to be heard. I haven't seen anything comparable for PC, as irritating as it is.

Would it be fantastic if America became more like Europe?
In what ways? I think it'd be fantastic if America lost some of its streak of reflexive anti-intellectualism, its reflexive assumption that no country anywhere ever does anything better than it, and learned to eat better and walk more, but then I think it'd be fantastic if Europe learned to take more individual initiative, figured that moving after a job isn't something the government should compensate them for, lost some of their bureaucratic rigidity, and found some way to make Brussels democratic rather than purely bureaucratic.

More regulation is needed across the board in all markets and industry.
Not all, and not necessarily more (the Prez's favorite turn of phrase appears to be "better regulation, not more regulation" and it's hard to disagree with that), although currently the balance in many highly visible industries has clearly swung toward too little regulation. Finance, obviously (the credit derivatives and other new instruments I mentioned need to be properly regulated), institutions that are too big to fail must be either split up so they're *not* too big to fail, or regulated so tightly that they can't fail. Foodstuffs need better regulation, or at least better enforcement of existing regulation. Those are the only two industries I can name that are IMO in glaring need of regulation, although I'd personally tighten some labor laws and regulations as well.
Prime Junta is offline

Prime Junta

RPGCodex' Little BRO

#89

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,540

Default 

February 27th, 2009, 07:12
You know, I'm totally lost in this discussion/topic!!

If God said it, then that settles it!!

Editor@RPGWatch
Corwin is offline

Corwin

Corwin's Avatar
On The Razorblade of Life
RPGWatch Team

#90

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 10,245
Send a message via Skype™ to Corwin

Default 

February 27th, 2009, 09:10
Don't worry, you're just the moderator.
Prime Junta is offline

Prime Junta

RPGCodex' Little BRO

#91

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,540

Default 

March 7th, 2009, 14:13
Originally Posted by Prime Junta View Post
Bias is a relative term. What's more, people sometimes make honest mistakes and come up with wacky ideas on their own.



In a very small nutshell:
* The economic crisis was caused by the collapse of the real-estate bubble.
* The real-estate bubble was caused by a massive expansion of residential real-estate lending.
* The lending expansion was caused by banks *wanting* to issue much more credit. The collapse of underwriting standards was a consequence of the desire to expand credit; not a cause.
* The banks wanted to issue much more credit because there was enormous global demand for credit derivatives, which were high-yielding yet perceived safe. No credit = no credit derivatives = your competitors eating all the pie.
* The massive demand for credit derivatives was caused by herd mentality, bad information, and lack of oversight: these instruments were not properly overseen, and the organizations rating them had perverse incentives (and were not properly overseen themselves).

Therefore:

(1) The CRA is completely incidental to this. By far the enormous majority of the loans from which the derivatives were created were *not* issued under the CRA. Fannie and Freddie were very late to the party anyway; their market share dropped like a rock as the bubble started to inflate. The collapse of underwriting standards is tangential to the problem: better oversight and enforcement of the standards would have slowed down the bubble's inflation, but the bubble was not caused by a relaxation of the standards; it's the other way around.

(2) Clinton's responsibility is the same as every Congress's and Administration's since Reagan's: he subscribed to the "markets-always-know-best" mentality and did nothing to stop the "deregulate-everything" movement. (I don't think it's entirely fair to blame him for Gramm-Leach-Bliley, since Gramm, Leach, and Bliley are all Republicans, and it was a hugely popular bill.)

I could go on, but that's it in a nutshell.



No way. It's not exactly censorship, but it's uncomfortably close. Anti-trust legislation ought to be enough to keep mass media monopolies (business or political; which are indeed dangerous — just ask any Italian who doesn't vote for Berlusconi) from appearing.



I'd give him a B+ on this so far. IOW, I'd answer "yes, about as well as any politician keeps any campaign promise." It's not *totally* transparent, to be sure, but it's a lot more transparent than we've been used to seeing. It's early days yet, though.



I have no idea. What does he say about America? I don't follow celebrity gossip much, so about the only thing I know is that he played this gay politician in a movie recently.



Hell no! I like him, though — it's refreshing to see someone on the left doing what Rush Limbaugh does on the right, *and* being entertaining about it. He does make some good points though, unlike Rush.



Sure, it *can*, but I don't think it's a very valid comparison. McCarthyism wasn't mere rhetorical anti-Communism, you know — there was the Commission on Anti-American Activities, the Hollywood blacklists, lots of people losing their livelihood and so on. McCarthyism was also *the* dominant political discourse in the country — there were hardly any dissenting voices to be heard. I haven't seen anything comparable for PC, as irritating as it is.



In what ways? I think it'd be fantastic if America lost some of its streak of reflexive anti-intellectualism, its reflexive assumption that no country anywhere ever does anything better than it, and learned to eat better and walk more, but then I think it'd be fantastic if Europe learned to take more individual initiative, figured that moving after a job isn't something the government should compensate them for, lost some of their bureaucratic rigidity, and found some way to make Brussels democratic rather than purely bureaucratic.



Not all, and not necessarily more (the Prez's favorite turn of phrase appears to be "better regulation, not more regulation" and it's hard to disagree with that), although currently the balance in many highly visible industries has clearly swung toward too little regulation. Finance, obviously (the credit derivatives and other new instruments I mentioned need to be properly regulated), institutions that are too big to fail must be either split up so they're *not* too big to fail, or regulated so tightly that they can't fail. Foodstuffs need better regulation, or at least better enforcement of existing regulation. Those are the only two industries I can name that are IMO in glaring need of regulation, although I'd personally tighten some labor laws and regulations as well.
I haven't had time to respond and got word from prime junta that he is taking a break from Politics for a while. I'll respond when he is back and my lack of responce is not an inicator of argeement.
Unrestigered is offline

Unrestigered

Watchdog

#92

Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 166

Default 

March 28th, 2009, 22:11
Iíve seen you post in the politics forum so Iím guessing your break is over and we can continue.

In a very small nutshell:
* The economic crisis was caused by the collapse of the real-estate bubble.
* The real-estate bubble was caused by a massive expansion of residential real-estate lending.
* The lending expansion was caused by banks *wanting* to issue much more credit. The collapse of underwriting standards was a consequence of the desire to expand credit; not a cause.
* The banks wanted to issue much more credit because there was enormous global demand for credit derivatives, which were high-yielding yet perceived safe. No credit = no credit derivatives = your competitors eating all the pie.
* The massive demand for credit derivatives was caused by herd mentality, bad information, and lack of oversight: these instruments were not properly overseen, and the organizations rating them had perverse incentives (and were not properly overseen themselves).

Therefore:

(1) The CRA is completely incidental to this. By far the enormous majority of the loans from which the derivatives were created were *not* issued under the CRA. Fannie and Freddie were very late to the party anyway; their market share dropped like a rock as the bubble started to inflate. The collapse of underwriting standards is tangential to the problem: better oversight and enforcement of the standards would have slowed down the bubble's inflation, but the bubble was not caused by a relaxation of the standards; it's the other way around.

(2) Clinton's responsibility is the same as every Congress's and Administration's since Reagan's: he subscribed to the "markets-always-know-best" mentality and did nothing to stop the "deregulate-everything" movement. (I don't think it's entirely fair to blame him for Gramm-Leach-Bliley, since Gramm, Leach, and Bliley are all Republicans, and it was a hugely popular bill.)

I could go on, but that's it in a nutshell.
No. In my smaller nutshell: What caused it were banks issuing bad debt for government kickbacks and the government promising the banks ďno loseĒ because Fanny and Freddy would buy up the bad debt on defaults. The world goes mad and everyone is buying the government backed securities. Then Fanny and Freddy take a shit and the issuers are stuck holding the bad debt. And everyone who invested in these securities takes a bath. Again, watch the video and see what your buddies say when all this was brought up.

Whoís Afraid of Virginia Woolf? This is where you say, ďI am, George. I am.Ē

Why would Barney Frank say, ďeverything is fine, everything is fine,Ē when there was time to fix things, and then be up-in-arms when what everyone predicted happened? Then say of course the only fix is to ďnationalizeĒ banking?

No way. It's not exactly censorship, but it's uncomfortably close. Anti-trust legislation ought to be enough to keep mass media monopolies (business or political; which are indeed dangerous — just ask any Italian who doesn't vote for Berlusconi) from appearing.
It is exactly censorship, unless censorís definition has changed.

I'd give him a B+ on this so far. IOW, I'd answer "yes, about as well as any politician keeps any campaign promise." It's not *totally* transparent, to be sure, but it's a lot more transparent than we've been used to seeing. It's early days yet, though.
Iíll just give one example to the contrary back when this question was asked and answered. Many people and groups asked Obama to post the proposed ďstimulus packageĒ three days before it was voted on so the American people would have some time to review it. He said no. If thatís a B+ for transparency I guess Nixon would get a B- or C+ with the same ranking criteria.

Hell no! I like him, though — it's refreshing to see someone on the left doing what Rush Limbaugh does on the right, *and* being entertaining about it. He does make some good points though, unlike Rush.
Oh yeah? Michael Moore who blatantly tells known lies is like Rush? The Rush of the left would be the leftís most successful radio host, which is Alan Colmes. There is no Michael Moore of the right because the cult would destroy him far worse than any of their assassinations in the past (which the left has turned into a past-time as cruel and entertaining as Romeís arenas; how proud and filled with glee they are when they destroy a good person who dares have the audacity to think differently). Rush must be evil because the cultís leaders say he is evil. How dare he say he say the things about our cult leadership that everyone in our cult says about the leadership of his party? That would be blasphemous.

Sure, it *can*, but I don't think it's a very valid comparison. McCarthyism wasn't mere rhetorical anti-Communism, you know — there was the Commission on Anti-American Activities, the Hollywood blacklists, lots of people losing their livelihood and so on. McCarthyism was also *the* dominant political discourse in the country — there were hardly any dissenting voices to be heard. I haven't seen anything comparable for PC, as irritating as it is.
I see things differently and disagree wholeheartedly.

In what ways? I think it'd be fantastic if America lost some of its streak of reflexive anti-intellectualism, its reflexive assumption that no country anywhere ever does anything better than it, and learned to eat better and walk more, but then I think it'd be fantastic if Europe learned to take more individual initiative, figured that moving after a job isn't something the government should compensate them for, lost some of their bureaucratic rigidity, and found some way to make Brussels democratic rather than purely bureaucratic.
Why not just appreciate diversity in government and thought instead of just superficial cosmetics?

Not all, and not necessarily more (the Prez's favorite turn of phrase appears to be "better regulation, not more regulation" and it's hard to disagree with that), although currently the balance in many highly visible industries has clearly swung toward too little regulation. Finance, obviously (the credit derivatives and other new instruments I mentioned need to be properly regulated), institutions that are too big to fail must be either split up so they're *not* too big to fail, or regulated so tightly that they can't fail. Foodstuffs need better regulation, or at least better enforcement of existing regulation. Those are the only two industries I can name that are IMO in glaring need of regulation, although I'd personally tighten some labor laws and regulations as well.
Nothing is too big to fail. Everything that can fail and does fail should fail. I canít say I donít believe in any regulation (as monopolies are as bad as socialism) but Iíd side with consumer awareness and proactivity, and a lot of pain from a failed business, than more Government regulation (I know proactivity isnít a word, but it could and should be and everyone knows what it means).
Unrestigered is offline

Unrestigered

Watchdog

#93

Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 166

Default 

March 29th, 2009, 08:30
Originally Posted by Unrestigered View Post
Iíve seen you post in the politics forum so Iím guessing your break is over and we can continue.
Sure.

No. In my smaller nutshell: What caused it were banks issuing bad debt for government kickbacks and the government promising the banks ďno loseĒ because Fanny and Freddy would buy up the bad debt on defaults. The world goes mad and everyone is buying the government backed securities. Then Fanny and Freddy take a shit and the issuers are stuck holding the bad debt. And everyone who invested in these securities takes a bath. Again, watch the video and see what your buddies say when all this was brought up.
The chronology doesn't match. The boom in credit derivatives started before F&F got into the game, and F&F weren't even the worst hit — AIG, for example, was hit much worse. What's more, the demand for credit derivatives was global.

So I'm respectfully going to have to disagree: I believe the boom was a demand-driven phenomenon (demand for credit derivatives), not a supply-driven one as you're proposing.

It is exactly censorship, unless censorís definition has changed.
Actually, not exactly. Censorship means forbidding expression of some views, usually for political reasons. The Fairness Doctrine means forcing expression of some views in addition to others, also for political reasons. Not *exactly* censorship, but uncomfortably close, as I said.

Iíll just give one example to the contrary back when this question was asked and answered. Many people and groups asked Obama to post the proposed ďstimulus packageĒ three days before it was voted on so the American people would have some time to review it. He said no. If thatís a B+ for transparency I guess Nixon would get a B- or C+ with the same ranking criteria.
Could you cite a source? I was under the impression that all bills submitted to Congress are public documents. How could Obama have bypassed this?

Oh yeah? Michael Moore who blatantly tells known lies is like Rush? The Rush of the left would be the leftís most successful radio host, which is Alan Colmes. There is no Michael Moore of the right because the cult would destroy him far worse than any of their assassinations in the past (which the left has turned into a past-time as cruel and entertaining as Romeís arenas; how proud and filled with glee they are when they destroy a good person who dares have the audacity to think differently). Rush must be evil because the cultís leaders say he is evil. How dare he say he say the things about our cult leadership that everyone in our cult says about the leadership of his party? That would be blasphemous.
Yeah, MM is like Rush. Both of them tell known lies. The only difference is that MM's politics are better.

I see things differently and disagree wholeheartedly.
So, you believe that whining and finger-wagging are functionally equivalent to depriving people of their livelihood? Fair enough, I guess…

Why not just appreciate diversity in government and thought instead of just superficial cosmetics?
But I do. That's why I like the EU so much — it's managed to cobble together something that actually works on some levels while accommodating political systems and models as different as Slovakia Sweden, Slovenia and Italy.

Nothing is too big to fail. Everything that can fail and does fail should fail.
Even if the cost of the failure takes the entire economy with it? Fair enough, I guess. Do you also believe that if a building violates fire regulations and burns should be allowed to burn down, even if it means the entire block catches fire?

By the way, Unrestigered: am I an ideologue? I took your quiz, but you forgot to grade me. Here's a re-statement of my answers in simple yes/no format (except where it's not applicable):

Q: Is the Fairness Doctrine fair (in the US)?
A: No.

Q: Is Obama keeping his promise to have a totally transparent Administration?
A: No. (Trick question: he never promised a TOTALLY transparent Administration.)

Q: Does Sean Penn like America?
A: I don't know.

Q: Is Michael Moore an honest man?
A: No.

Q: Can Political Correctness be likened to McCarthyism?
A: No.

Q: Would it be fantastic if America became more like Europe?
A: Yes.

Q: More regulation is needed across the board in all markets and industry.
A: No.
Prime Junta is offline

Prime Junta

RPGCodex' Little BRO

#94

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,540

Default 

March 29th, 2009, 15:42
The chronology doesn't match. The boom in credit derivatives started before F&F got into the game, and F&F weren't even the worst hit — AIG, for example, was hit much worse. What's more, the demand for credit derivatives was global.

So I'm respectfully going to have to disagree: I believe the boom was a demand-driven phenomenon (demand for credit derivatives), not a supply-driven one as you're proposing.
What kind of credit derivative? The kind that has become popular in the last 10 years relating to mortgages? In which case it perfectly fits the timeline of Cuomo and Clintonís kickback scheme?

Going into detail is hard without a certain similar foundation because there are some examples that will always be long standing exceptions. For instance: generally, not factoring in anything else, if a white guy, a black guy, and a Mexican went to a mortgage lender and asked for a mortgage loan the key thing to look for is that their monthly income will be three-times more than the monthly mortgage payment. But, it has been known forever there are certain populations that would not ask for a loan unless they can pay it and will pay it somehow. Like Indian, Chinese, and Korean immigrants (of the top of my head). They think not paying is dishonorable or something. Theyíll take 47 jobs to pay if they have to.

There is no financial equation to factor this. Does this apply to first generation as well? When do their offspring become Americanized and lose that sense of honor for repaying back debt? And of course this is something off the books since you canít really have a policy of giving loans to selected races. I can tell you that issuers try and squeeze them with interest, because on paper the issuance looks risky and the high-interest can be justified. But you canít get crazy because you are looking at zero risk debt and they will get a better deal at the next place the go to.

Iíve seen issuers give debt they had no hope of collecting on first hand. And the reason is they got kickbacks to do so and a promise the debt would be bought up from them (if it met specific criteria).

<script src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/js/2.0/video/evp/module.js?loc=dom&vid=/video/politics/2009/02/17/acosta.housing.cnn" type="text/javascript"></script><noscript>Embedded video from <a href="http://www.cnn.com/video">CNN Video</a></noscript>

I like how the banks get blamed for doing what the government gave them incentives to do. A bus driver with an 800k mortgage. While I have an apartment because I want to do things right and want to pay my own way. The world has gone mad. There is no longer any accountability. Remember the old tried and true plot where the hero revealed the evil scheme of some evil politician and the people where in an uproar? Yeah, no way that can work today. The ugly truth isnít even an inconvenience anymore. People are actively being ignorant. Itís scary.

Actually, not exactly. Censorship means forbidding expression of some views, usually for political reasons. The Fairness Doctrine means forcing expression of some views in addition to others, also for political reasons. Not *exactly* censorship, but uncomfortably close, as I said.
Okay, so if someone is forced to devote half the time to an opposite expression he is being forced to not express what he wants. Itís censorship of private industries, bottom-line.

Definition of censor: an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.

Suppression.

Could you cite a source? I was under the impression that all bills submitted to Congress are public documents. How could Obama have bypassed this?
Since you only asked for one:
http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/2…s-legislation/


Yeah, MM is like Rush. Both of them tell known lies. The only difference is that MM's politics are better.

So MM is like Rush how? Tell me a known lie? You just made every Politian or political commenter/entertainer into Michael Moore, which is garbage, and troubling. People have the right to have any opinion they want, regardless of how ridiculous. What Michael Moore does is the sleaziest disgusting act of deplorableness. This troubles me a lot.

So, you believe that whining and finger-wagging are functionally equivalent to depriving people of their livelihood? Fair enough, I guess…
No. I see depriving people of their livelihood as depriving people of their livelihood. I see people scared to talk and go against the mainstream as people scared to talk and go against the mainstream. I see x as equaling x. Iím sure the ideologues during McCarthyism didnít see anything more than whining and finger-wagging either.

But I do. That's why I like the EU so much — it's managed to cobble together something that actually works on some levels while accommodating political systems and models as different as Slovakia Sweden, Slovenia and Italy.
Iíll leave this for another time as a response would be too lengthy.

Even if the cost of the failure takes the entire economy with it? Fair enough, I guess. Do you also believe that if a building violates fire regulations and burns should be allowed to burn down, even if it means the entire block catches fire?
It never would. Only 5% of the banks were in trouble. Those 5% control far too much. When I worked for Bank of America they were teetering right at the maximum number of checking accounts any bank could have in the US. Itís like 20% of the total or something. I hate Bank of America. It deserves to fail. To explain exactly why it would take 20 pages or so, so Iíll highlight a couple of points. They claimed to have Six-Sigma. Their ďblack-beltsĒ would always say three- errors per million. Itís fucking six. There are two sides to the bell curve, three on each side. It equals six. Any fucking moron that can add should be able to see that. If you want three errors per million you have to tighten specs and only allow 1.5 on each side per million. No one knew what the fuck they were doing there. And the errors I saw I could count in percentage points easy, high percentage points. People really thing really big corporations are evil. Theyíre not. They are stupid and wasteful. Most people, in all management brackets, have no idea what they are doing. They fake it. They know they are over their heads, they know they shouldnít be sitting at whatever table they are, but they arenít going to admit it. They fake it. And since no one can see the big picture they focus on what they can, their little slice of the pie and in the short term, because that is all they can handle.

People think large corporate entities are run short-term for profit. Long term is far more profitable, always has been, always will be. They are run short-term because the people in charge are regular people, the people under them are regular people, and everyone is in over their heads. Theyíre not bad people, theyíre not evil, just regular and in over their heads, and they donít even know it. But you need those people to keep the beast going. The beast grows to fast and you need more people and you lower quality and now you have stupid people with the regular people and you mix stupid with short-term thinking. But the beast keeps growing, and there is more waste, and more stupid decisions, and more people in over their heads.

And then it comes to a head. The beast collapses. But it doesnít die. Its cut up and incorporated into other beasts, which then grow too fast, and then collapses, and is bought up.

If we allowed the banks to fail, the 95% of smaller banks wouldíve cut up the failed beasts and grown a little. Instead of 5% controlling 65% of the game, we would have had a lot spread out and even game for a while. It wouldnít have hurt that bad and would have been hugely beneficial in the long run. You can see that long-run is the way to view things, yes? And that 5% controlling most of the game is not optimal, yes? Things wouldíve worked great if the government stayed the fuck out of it and let nature takes its course.

By the way, Unrestigered: am I an ideologue? I took your quiz, but you forgot to grade me. Here's a re-statement of my answers in simple yes/no format (except where it's not applicable):
Well, I have to go with ideologue since you seem to have swallowed the Ron Emmanuel and friend's Rush attack plan hook, line, and sinker. I can't abide that kind of character assassination and the mindsets that revel in it. Iím not an ideologue so I can like Alan Colmes and Rush and appreciate their different point of views. And I canít see any decent person liking Michael Moore, even if they agree with his message as his tactics are so dishonorable and devious. I can appreciate diversity in thought and I donít have hypocritical double-standards for the political entertainers of either spectrum, you should give it a try. Itís fun and enlightening.
Unrestigered is offline

Unrestigered

Watchdog

#95

Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 166

Default 

March 29th, 2009, 17:26
Originally Posted by Unrestigered View Post
Well, I have to go with ideologue since you seem to have swallowed the Ron Emmanuel and friend's Rush attack plan hook, line, and sinker.
OK, in that case I'm going to respectfully withdraw from this discussion. If you consider me an ideologue who's impervious to reason, I very much doubt a meaningful conversation is possible — you'll simply keep flinging invective at me instead of, for example, entertaining the possibility that something I say might have some value to it. I'm not in the mood for that kind of thing right now; I'll let you know if that changes.
Prime Junta is offline

Prime Junta

RPGCodex' Little BRO

#96

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,540

Default 

April 17th, 2009, 21:46
Sorry, next time Iíll lie to make you feel better about being an ideologue, and we can skip away singing the sesame street theme song while occasionally stopping to make out and fondle each otherís sensitive areas. That would obviously be the adult and mature thing to do.
Unrestigered is offline

Unrestigered

Watchdog

#97

Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 166

Default 

April 18th, 2009, 07:48
Please don't, Unrestigered — I wasn't offended, and I appreciate your honesty. I just have no desire to get drawn into shouting matches, and that's what's you're going to get if one of the parties to a conversation believes the other one is impervious to reason, as ideologues are.
Prime Junta is offline

Prime Junta

RPGCodex' Little BRO

#98

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,540

Default 

April 18th, 2009, 21:48
Okay, sorry. I think invective was a little too strong of a word to use, but I'm still willing to hold your hand and skip around if you are willing to download and play the seseme street song for us while we do so. We should probably put the sensitive area touching and making out off until we meet each other's parents at least. Things are just moving a little too fast for my comfort zone.
Unrestigered is offline

Unrestigered

Watchdog

#99

Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 166
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics & Religion » Top 25 People to Blame for the Economic Crisis
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 21:25.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch