Re: Marxists like you and he know nothing about world finance or the reality of this affair. You are ignorant, uneducated and gullible. Always accepting partisan spin over the facts because your mental weakness compels you to only believe what you want to hear.
TigerLuck
> Marxists like you and he know nothing about world finance or the reality of
> this affair.
Marxists like you and *him* know nothing about world finance or the
reality of this affair.
You wouldn't write, "Marxists like he know nothing about world finance
or the reality of this affair", would you?
The third person masculine in the above sentence is used as the object
of a preposition, not the subject, hence it's case should be objective,
not subjective.
>
> You are ignorant, uneducated and gullible. Always accepting partisan spin
> over the facts because your mental weakness compels you to only believe what
> you want to hear.
>
>
>
>
> atticus1 <atti...@live.ca> wrote:
>> In the following article the author explains how government, not the market
>> system, or Wall Street "greed" has been the cause of the financial mess that
>> is resounding throughout the whole global economic system.
>>
>>
>> Skip to:
>> SOME milestones in the prehistory of the crisis. 1933: As part of the New
>> Deal, investment banks are stopped from also acting as commercial banks
>> (which would have given them bank deposits and more stability). 1938: As
>> part of the New Deal, president (Franklin D.) Roosevelt creates Fannie Mae
>> and in 1970 Congress creates Freddie Mac. With their implicit government
>> guarantees they can offer cheaper loans and expand until they dominate the
>> American mortgage market. 1989: The American government step(s) in and
>> pay(s) for the savings and loan crisis, which sets a precedent. 1995: The
>> Community Reinvestment Act is revised so that banks and thrifts are forced
>> to give home loans to low and moderate-income households as well. In return
>> they are allowed to repackage and sell those sub-prime risks to others,
>> which Bear Stearns pioneers in 1997. 2001-03: Instead of letting the market
>> get rid of bad businesses and loans after the dotcom bubble and 9/11, the
>> (Federal Reserve) reduces its rate from 6.5 per cent to 1 per cent (with) a
>> dramatic expansion of the money supply, which creates a real estate bubble.
>>
>> Mae and Mac ran leverage ratios that exceeded 60 to one (cheered on by the
>> Democrats) to keep giving loans to people who could not really afford it. It
>> only took more traditional interest rates for the bubble to burst. The
>> independent investment banks that did not have access to bank deposits
>> collapsed and almost brought the whole system down. All those who now think
>> that the solution is to give more powers to politicians, authorities and
>> central banks should look at what they did with the powers they already had.
>>
>> Quadrant Online provides more detail:
>>
>> IN the past week, the Australian media (has) given copious quantities of
>> space and time to commentators seeking to blame the American sub-prime loans
>> crisis on the market economy. These commentators, most of them from
>> state-funded universities and media, think their own commitment to state
>> ownership, government intervention and a heavily regulated economy has been
>> vindicated as market forces and corporate greed apparently spin out of
>> control. It is revealing, therefore, to re-read an article from the
>> conservative City Journal in 2000 predicting problems for the banking sector
>> from the Clinton administration's resurrection of Jimmy Carter's 1977
>> Community Reinvestment Act, which appears to have been the major single
>> factor in the origins of American high-risk sub-prime loans. Under Bill
>> Clinton: banks were required to provide loans on an affirmative action basis
>> to poor inner-urban ghettoes; the scheme's intentions were to help
>> low-income earners buy homes and revive decaying neighbourhoods; much of the
>> money was funnelled through a nationwide network of left-wing community
>> activist groups; government regulators were appointed to measure banks'
>> performance and ensure they reversed their previous racially discriminatory
>> policies of declining to lend money to high-risk clients; by 2000, banks had
>> committed nearly $1 trillion for loans to low-income ethnic and inner-urban
>> groups; at the time, the chairman of the US Senate banking committee,
>> Republican senator Phil Gramm, denounced the program as a vast extortion
>> scheme against the nation's banks.
>>
>> Mark Steyn, at NationalReview.com, on why Sarah Palin should speak freely:
>>
>> THE Palin nomination has generated the only real enthusiasm on the
>> Republican side and keeping her under wraps until she can mouth the
>> appropriately nuanced platitudes isn't worth it. There's nothing to be
>> gained by taking Miss Authenticity and turning her into a Foggy Bottom bore.
>> Plus a gazillion interviews a day with WZZZ-AM Presque Isle, Maine, would
>> lessen the elimination round stakes attached to the once-a-month highwire
>> acts with (Katie) Couric and (Charlie) Gibson. And, as Gibson's
>> condescending schoolmarm act suggests, the "name the deputy fisheries
>> minister of Hoogivsastan" school of questioning is likely to wear thinner a
>> lot quicker than any duff answers. My favourite repulse of the gotcha
>> technique was proposed after Andy Hiller's famous interrogation of George W.
>> Bush in 2000: Hiller asked him to name the new prime minister of India. "The
>> new prime minister of India is ... no," Bush said. "Can you name the foreign
>> minister of Mexico?" "No, sir," Hiller replied. "But I would say I'm not
>> running for president and I don't write foreign policy." Upon hearing this
>> weaselly dodge, which is perfectly in keeping with the spirit of gotcha,
>> Bush should have switched fields to Hiller's area of expertise. "You're in
>> television," Bush might have said. "Who played the professor on Gilligan's
>> Island?"
>>
>> All Governor Palin should insist on, after the desperate editing of her
>> words by Gibson, is that every interview be live. And if they're all
>> disasters, they'll wind up like (Joe) Biden's gaffes or (Bill) Clinton's
>> adulteries. As Stalin remarked in another context, one is a tragedy, a
>> million is a statistic.
>>
>> Story ToolsShare This Article Email To A Friend Share This ArticleFrom here
>> you can use the Social Web links to save Blame the bubble on FDR, Jimmy
>> Carter and Bill Clinton to a social bookmarking site.
>>
>> del.icio.us Digg it Furl Netscape Yahoo MyWeb StumbleUpon Google Technorati
>> BlinkList Newsvine ma.gnolia reddit Windows Live Tailrank Slashdot .Email To
>> A Friend* Required fields
>> Recipient's Name:* Required Recipient's Email:* Required Your Name:*
>> Required Your Email:* Required Email Format:*
>> HTML
>> Text Only Your Comments:* Required
>> Information provided on this page will not be used for any other purpose
>> than to notify the recipient of the article you have chosen.
>>
>> .Ads By Google1 flat stomach rule: obey
>> I cut down 8 lbs of stomach fat in 1 month by obeying this 1 old rule.
>> Wu-YiSource.comThe Biden-Palin Debate
>> NYTimes.com has analysis of 2008's only VP debate.
>> www.nytimes.comFree Credit Report Canada
>> Free Credit Report and Credit Score for Canadians in just 60 seconds
>> FreeCreditReportsinCanada.ca..Latest Cut & Paste
>> Blame the bubble on FDR, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton
>> Zoellick, McCain and Bush turn to Kevin for advice
>> A global go-to place for governators
>> Yellow treasurer's peril predicting a China meltdown
>>
>>
>>
>>
--
Sinatra & Sarah do Witchcraft
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqs_2CVcWb0
Meet Pastor Muthee -- the man who laid hands on Sarah Palin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsnrIVj9IbM
Dan Clore
> firefly wrote:
>> Marxists like you and he know nothing about world finance or the
>> reality of this affair.
>
> Marxists like you and *him* know nothing about world finance or the
> reality of this affair.
>
> You wouldn't write, "Marxists like he know nothing about world
> finance or the reality of this affair", would you?
>
> The third person masculine in the above sentence is used as the
> object of a preposition, not the subject, hence it's case should be
> objective, not subjective.
But, but, but only an Evil Liberal Elitist would know such an arcane
point of grammar!
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://tinyurl.com/2gcoqt
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
Bill
"Dan Clore" <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message
news:6lbg9fF...@mid.individual.net...
> TigerLuck wrote:
>> firefly wrote:
>
>>> Marxists like you and he know nothing about world finance or the
>>> reality of this affair.
>>
>> Marxists like you and *him* know nothing about world finance or the
>> reality of this affair.
>>
>> You wouldn't write, "Marxists like he know nothing about world
>> finance or the reality of this affair", would you?
>>
>> The third person masculine in the above sentence is used as the
>> object of a preposition, not the subject, hence it's case should be
>> objective, not subjective.
>
> But, but, but only an Evil Liberal Elitist would know such an arcane point
> of grammar!
This is Usenet, not a doctoral dissertation. Mine has every i dotted and
t crossed; posts are just mind-fucking bullshit.