OT: Thoughts on current US Economic condition
Jon Slaughter
economic disaster mainly because of the blatent greed and ignorance that has
taken over corporate America. Although I believe that fundamentally America
is just as strong as ever I think that there is a huge disconnect with what
is happening on the market and in the lifes of every day Americans.
What I mean is that the infrastructure is somewhat solid(well, for the most
part... not that it couldn't be better) but that there is extreme volatility
in the markets. The markets are no longer what the were created for.
There reason is, is that the markets serve almost no purpose except to make
people rich who know how to play the game... and many of those people do not
contribute any tangable product or service. In some sense they are like
actors and actresses. Their is no purpose but they seem to be a sink for
huge amounts of money. (sure they enterain but at a disproportionate amount)
I curious as to what others are thinking about the what is going on with the
recent events? To me it is a predictor that america will most likely go
into a huge depression where many of the top companies will drop like a
chain of dominos. I do not know exactly why it is going on, if it's
ignorance at the top or greed but I imagine it is a combination.
In any case I'd like to here a few of the moronic ideas that will no doubt
come out of a discussion... I figure it will be entertaining.
Jim Thompson
You'd probably prefer to "hear" a few ;-)
America has been killed by the bean counters who can think only in
terms of "growth this next quarter"... a constant steady percentage
profit is considered failure.
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
What's the difference between a horse's ass and Barack Obama?
Lipstick!
Jamie
And here is a real honest person that'll lays it all out for us if we
don't vote wisely to save our country :)
Tim Wescott
I've been thinking along those lines myself, and I've been thinking how
we might fix this without entirely revamping corporate law (which has
worked since the middle ages, practically, so you wouldn't want to dink
with it too much) or becoming 100% socialist (instead of the 99.44% that
you claim we have achieved :-).
About the best I can come up with is a corporate watchdog ".org", that
rates public corporations on how well they do on the steady pull (or the
short-term gee-whiz profits, if that's what you want), and let investors
decide.
People would have to pay attention, and you'd have to extend the rating
out to mutual funds since most individuals are in mutual funds through
their 401k accounts if they have any investment at all.
--
Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com
Do you need to implement control loops in software?
"Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" gives you just what it says.
See details at http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html
Jim Thompson
Who's he? Obama's new minister ?:-)
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
Obama snickers, claiming McCain is running for Bush's third term,
While he thinks running for Carter's second term is a good thing?
Jim Thompson
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:41:02 -0700, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com>
wrote:
To see an example of the absurdity that we've gotten ourselves into...
mpm
This is a long way of saying:
You can make more money designing the shoe, than actually
manufacturing & selling them.
The Economy has morphed into a financial instrument - something the
average worker does not understand, and therefore cannot compete
effectively. Couple that with lax regulatory oversight, and you have
the makings for a tremendous transfer of wealth from the have-nots, to
the downright greedy.
Choose any industry you like.
-mpm
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
[snip]
> I curious as to what others are thinking about the what is going on with the
> recent events? To me it is a predictor that america will most likely go
> into a huge depression where many of the top companies will drop like a
> chain of dominos. I do not know exactly why it is going on, if it's
> ignorance at the top or greed but I imagine it is a combination.
America will go into a huge depression because the top companies'
rotting corpse will be propped up in their seats as if they are still
alive.
Look at how Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac were bailed out. Government steps
in to take them over, lock stock and barrel. This means assets,
liabilities, corporate jets and all. It would have been better to let
them go Chapter 7, auction off all the performing assets (mortgages) and
turn the bad debt and office furniture over to collection agencies and
auction houses. Notice which debt was honored first. The exec's took
their employment contracts and cashed them in. Before even waiting to
see if the new organization might have kept them on the job. They knew
better.
Japan went through a similar problem that lasted for more than a decade.
Lets look at what they did wrong: They refused to cut the good old boys
off at the knees and walk away from their losses.
The financial institutions are claiming that nobody is smart enough to
unwind the mortgage backed securities because nobody knows who is
holding which piece of a mortgage.
Bullshit! They seem to figure out how to take my monthly payment and
distribute it among the holders pretty efficiently every month.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Matter cannot be created or destroyed, nor can it be returned without a
receipt.
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
[snip]
>
> There reason is, is that the markets serve almost no purpose except to make
> people rich who know how to play the game... and many of those people do not
> contribute any tangable product or service. In some sense they are like
> actors and actresses. Their is no purpose but they seem to be a sink for
> huge amounts of money. (sure they enterain but at a disproportionate amount)
Now would be the time to ask the candidates about their stands on
privatizing Social Security.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
On a clear disk, you can seek forever.
Ross Herbert
<To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
:
:On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 15:28:23 -0500, "Jon Slaughter"
What, you don't think it has anything to do with the fact that banks forgot that
credit is for those who can repay?
nospam
>I'm been a firm believer for many years that the US is headed for major
>economic disaster mainly because of the blatent greed and ignorance that has
>taken over corporate America.
But wasn't it blatant greed and ignorance of all the sub-prime borrowers to
pay much more for housing than it was worth on the assumption it would
continue to rise and show a notional profit?
In the UK governments have fucked the housing market for years by severely
restricting land on which housing can be built. In any other market
increasing demand leading to increasing prices would stimulate supply and
restore balance.
What happened in the States to make people pay more for housing than it was
worth? More than it costs to build? Was there something artificially
restricting building or increasing build costs?
--
Jim Thompson
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 03:26:34 +0100, nospam <nos...@please.invalid>
wrote:
>"Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Sl...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm been a firm believer for many years that the US is headed for major
>>economic disaster mainly because of the blatent greed and ignorance that has
>>taken over corporate America.
>
>But wasn't it blatant greed and ignorance of all the sub-prime borrowers to
>pay much more for housing than it was worth on the assumption it would
>continue to rise and show a notional profit?
>
>In the UK governments have fucked the housing market for years by severely
>restricting land on which housing can be built. In any other market
>increasing demand leading to increasing prices would stimulate supply and
>restore balance.
>
>What happened in the States to make people pay more for housing than it was
>worth?
"Worth" is defined by demand.
>More than it costs to build?
Where did you come up with that hare-brained idea?
>Was there something artificially
>restricting building or increasing build costs?
Huh? You clearly have no clue.
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
Why are Europeons so ignorant?
They think they know it all about the U.S.A.
But never have bothered to visit
Jeff Liebermann
<pa...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
>Look at how Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac were bailed out. Government steps
>in to take them over, lock stock and barrel. This means assets,
>liabilities, corporate jets and all. It would have been better to let
>them go Chapter 7, auction off all the performing assets (mortgages) and
>turn the bad debt and office furniture over to collection agencies and
>auction houses.
That's exactly what happened in the last Savings and Loan crisis.
Insolvent S&L's were simply absorbed or sold piecemeal. A friend of
mine was one of the administrators in charge of sell off the wreckage.
During the melt-down, the number of S&L's declined from 3200 to about
half that number. However, the problem was not limited to just the
S&L's. Of the 4000(?) federally insured (FDIC) banks, 1600 close up
shop, or had to get bailed out between 1980 and 1995. Basically, this
is business as usual, except that the numbers are much bigger this
time around.
What's interesting is that the basic cause of the current sub-prime
meltdown is partly a result of the S&L crisis. The banks offering
sub-prime mortgages were inspiring home owners to refinance at lower
rates, thus stealing the customers from the S&L's. To get the best
rates, the S&L's bought paper that was backed by the same mortgages
they had just unloaded.
>Notice which debt was honored first. The exec's took
>their employment contracts and cashed them in. Before even waiting to
>see if the new organization might have kept them on the job. They knew
>better.
Nope. They're covering their posterior in case the government gets
wise. I don't expect that, so the execs will probably keep their jobs
unless someone can find some appropriate criminal charges. That's
highly likely as they also tend to pocket their investors money.
Incidentally, executives are pair exorbitant salaries primarily so
they won't steal from the company. That doesn't always work.
>The financial institutions are claiming that nobody is smart enough to
>unwind the mortgage backed securities because nobody knows who is
>holding which piece of a mortgage.
One of my neighbors has their house in foreclosure. They're not being
very cooperative and have refused to move. Apparently, the eviction
ceremony was set for Sept 1. I arrived in the middle of a major
argument. It seems that were 2 mortgages and 5 different entities
claiming they owned a piece of the puzzle. My guess(tm) is that
someone sold some "financial paper" using the mortgage as backing
perhaps 3 times.
>Bullshit! They seem to figure out how to take my monthly payment and
>distribute it among the holders pretty efficiently every month.
Cash flow not symmetrical. Money in and money out are completely
different channels and mechanisms. Banks religiously track money
coming in to the fraction of a cent. Money going out is vague and
almost uncontrolled process because there are many people with their
hands in the cookie jar.
--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558 je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
# http://802.11junk.com je...@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
Jim Thompson
Quarterly performance greed applies to bank management just as easily
as to other forms of corporations. They were playing statistics when
anyone with half a brain knows that the economy IS trickle down/up...
every economic gain/fault is multiplied by 5X/10X.
Anyone who thinks that liberals aren't full of hate hasn't watched
Bill Maher on HBO :-(
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
Liberals are so cute. Dumb as a box of rocks, but cute.
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
> "Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Sl...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I'm been a firm believer for many years that the US is headed for major
> >economic disaster mainly because of the blatent greed and ignorance that has
> >taken over corporate America.
>
> But wasn't it blatant greed and ignorance of all the sub-prime borrowers to
> pay much more for housing than it was worth on the assumption it would
> continue to rise and show a notional profit?
Housing is worth what people are willing (and able) to afford. That
means, people buy based on their anticipated monthly payments.
(Interesting anecdote: I had a hell of a time getting realtors to show
me cheap houses. They all insisted on starting with buyers wages and
squeezing them into the biggest house they could afford. In the end, I
had to lie about my income and tell them that I made a hell of a lot
less than I do.) Everyone was happy until the Fed tried to 'get
inflation under control' by jacking up interest rates. Rates went up
more than people anticipated, payments went up, people walked away from
houses and new buyers don't qualify for the same price. One or two 'fire
sales' in a neighborhood drag down the appraised value of al the
surrounding properties, so the people still making payments now had
larger mortgages than their houses were worth. They sent the keys to the
bank and walked away.
> In the UK governments have fucked the housing market for years by severely
> restricting land on which housing can be built. In any other market
> increasing demand leading to increasing prices would stimulate supply and
> restore balance.
>
> What happened in the States to make people pay more for housing than it was
> worth? More than it costs to build? Was there something artificially
> restricting building or increasing build costs?
Irrational exuberance.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
"The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably the day
they start making vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge
Jeff Liebermann
<To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>America has been killed by the bean counters who can think only in
>terms of "growth this next quarter"... a constant steady percentage
>profit is considered failure.
> ...Jim Thompson
Really? Who would you guess tells those bean counters to concentrate
on short term profits instead of long term growth? Sure, the execs
want their performance bonuses, even if it's based on fabricated sales
and shipments. However, the bulk of the pressure comes from the
stockholders. They want their profits like -now- and not many many
years later. Since it's very easy to move money in and out of a
company on the stock market, they would happily trash any companys
future in trade for a fast buck and a fast exit. Even institutional
investors have been tempted to think in the short term thanks to their
anxious stockholders. The problem is that they've run out of
companies that can be raided, pumped, and discarded. If it matters, I
worked for a company in about 1980 that worked exactly like you
describe. Make the numbers for next quarter or find a different job.
The most important product was pumping up the stock price.
Don Klipstein
>"Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Sl...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm been a firm believer for many years that the US is headed for major
>>economic disaster mainly because of the blatent greed and ignorance that has
>>taken over corporate America.
>
>But wasn't it blatant greed and ignorance of all the sub-prime borrowers to
>pay much more for housing than it was worth on the assumption it would
>continue to rise and show a notional profit?
>
>In the UK governments have fucked the housing market for years by severely
>restricting land on which housing can be built. In any other market
>increasing demand leading to increasing prices would stimulate supply and
>restore balance.
>
>What happened in the States to make people pay more for housing than it was
>worth? More than it costs to build?
Expectation that home value would go up beyond combination of inflation
and population density in the nation of concern.
Also, there have been municipalities that upon experiencing "McMansion"
building produced zoning laws to allow no less! As in McMansion residents
have expectation to not have fellow citizens of the same township to pay
less "school tax"!
> Was there something artificially
>restricting building or increasing build costs?
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Jon Slaughter
I'm starting too believe their might be such a rift between ideologies in
America now and because each is about 50/50 that maybe it's time for america
to split into two? Obviously this isn't going to happen but what is one 1/2
was ran be the democrats and the other 1/2 was republicans.
Instead of competing ideas that end up sabotaging each other so nothing gets
done and actually hurts each "country-state"(don't know what they would be
called).
I'm looking at it from a pure economic and social aspect.
The way I see it is democrats try to take this country in one direction and
republicans in another. Each pulling their own way and makeing no ground but
the tension is destorying this country.
For example, Democrats try to regulate through government while republicans
let the markets do the job. What happens is we get mixed messages, mixed
laws, loop holes, waste, etc...
Maybe government has really become too big just as many of these corporate
companies? Maybe these companies are not failing so much becuase of their
own short commings(ultimately) but because government has "set them up" to
fail.
I guess an analogy would be two parents with completely different ideas of
how their kid should be raised. The kid ends up becoming a total wreck.
(exclude environoment in this because it is outside the domain)
Obviously we are not going to do such a thing but I'm just wondering as it
seems like a logic solution to the problems we have... Of course wiping out
the country is another logical solution to the problems too.
Jon Slaughter
"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
message news:15a0d4pear8902f17...@4ax.com...
Yes... I agree this is a huge prolbem. Even negative profits is failure.
It's wrong to expect that profit must be a monotonicaly increasing. What
this does is push people to do anything to get the profits up without
understanding the consequences.
Jon Slaughter
"nospam" <nos...@please.invalid> wrote in message
news:kqp0d455v6sc32mvn...@4ax.com...
Excuses that the rest of you are making against him are kinda irrelevant
since they don't consider the "average american" and the their psychology.
What happened to make people pay more is that they were lured in a a false
sense of financial security and don't have enough brains to prepare for the
future.
Money was cheap and people were stupid and greedy. You have buyers who want
the biggest and baddest to feed their ego, you have sellers who want as much
money as they can get, and you have creditors who will loan to anyone(and
usually try to swindle in the process).
Should be rules in place and mandatory that all follow:
#1. Never buy above your means.
#2. 25% of your income goes towards personal savings. Not 100% towards
blowing it on junk that you don't need or things you want.
#3. Don't expect your creditor to give you a good deal.. expect the
opposite.
#4. Creditors should not loan more than people can afford for any reason...
no excuses. This would have never happaned 50 years ago.
--------
We are now in a society where people think money grows on tree's and the
government will always be their for them. I guess the socialist have won!
100 years ago people were doing fine with any of this crap we have today.
Their were no morgages, credit cards, social security, etc... Of course
their wasn't 300 M people living in a shoebox either.
I don't know who's fault it is and I most likely it's all of our fault...
it's at least all of our problem(I mean as a collective cause it's
definitely not my fault ;).
Martin Brown
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:46:07 -0700, Jim Thompson
> :On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 15:28:23 -0500, "Jon Slaughter":<Jon_Slaugh...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
> :>I'm been a firm believer for many years that the US is headed for major
> :>economic disaster mainly because of the blatent greed and ignorance that has
> :>taken over corporate America. Although I believe that fundamentally America
> :>is just as strong as ever I think that there is a huge disconnect with what
> :>is happening on the market and in the lifes of every day Americans.
It is called capitalism and is occurring in its most base raw form
now.
> :>What I mean is that the infrastructure is somewhat solid(well, for the most
> :>part... not that it couldn't be better) but that there is extreme volatility
> :>in the markets. The markets are no longer what the were created for.
They were created to allow the very wealthy to become even richer.
Nothing has changed.
Trading of speculative derivative instruments with extremely high
leverage ratios and an opacity so dense that not even top academic
experts can make sense of the intrisic risks has created a false
market bubble. The chickens are coming home to roost. Levers can cause
a lot of damage when used unwisely.
Lehman was caught holding the parcel of worthless paper when the music
stopped. There will be others.
> :>There reason is, is that the markets serve almost no purpose except to make
> :>people rich who know how to play the game... and many of those people do not
> :>contribute any tangable product or service. In some sense they are like
> :>actors and actresses. Their is no purpose but they seem to be a sink for
> :>huge amounts of money. (sure they enterain but at a disproportionate amount)
> :>
> :>I curious as to what others are thinking about the what is going on with the
> :>recent events? To me it is a predictor that america will most likely go
> :>into a huge depression where many of the top companies will drop like a
> :>chain of dominos. I do not know exactly why it is going on, if it's
> :>ignorance at the top or greed but I imagine it is a combination.
> :>
> :>In any case I'd like to here a few of the moronic ideas that will no doubt
> :>come out of a discussion... I figure it will be entertaining.
> :>
> :
> :You'd probably prefer to "hear" a few ;-)
> :
> :America has been killed by the bean counters who can think only in
> :terms of "growth this next quarter"... a constant steady percentage
> :profit is considered failure.
> :
> : ...Jim Thompson
Some growth is usually a good thing. The instrumentation industry had
some rules of thumb and if you were not growing by the right amount
for two years in a row the CEO tended to get the push even in the
80's.
UK bean counters and bankers are even worse. Only in Japan and Germany
is there a decent careeer path for technical experts to get into the
corporate boardroom.
>
> What, you don't think it has anything to do with the fact that banks forgot that
> credit is for those who can repay?
The problem was that they thought they could predicated on
continuously rising house prices. So long as that situation held you
could give NINJAs mortgages in the certain knowledge that they would
default and you got all their premiums up to that point and the house
to sell again at a still higher price. Safe as houses... But in a
falling market it (sub-prime) all goes totally pear shaped. They
invented all sorts of ways to disguise the worthless paper debt in
gold coloured wrapping paper and found they could reclassify it as
AAA. Greed and stupidity in equal measure did the rest. Look at how
high the Masters of the Universe bonuses were right up to the final
crunch point.
Their motto was always "heads we win, tails you lose". Now the
taxpayer foots the bill for their excesses. Wall street banker
spoonerises rather well.
The new trick in this bear market is to pick a perceived to be weak
bank or financial institution start bad rumours, short sell its shares
in very large lumps and then buy them back when the price has dropped
through the floor. HBOS is currently suffering this type of extremely
leveraged attack at the moment. The business is relatively sound, but
they could still be driven under by a combination of concerted
predator attack and malicious rumours.
http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=HBOS.L&t=5d
Note the huge downwards glitch at 0855-0905 on 17/9 someone sold
enough shares to drive the price down by more than a factor of two.
Then it rebounded. Timing is everything. LSE realtime website is
currently not responding.
It is time for short selling attacks on businesses (borrowing huge
numbers of their shares to sell and then buy back after panicking the
market to drive the share price down further) which is a form of
market manipulation to be banned. Until a few big hedge funds have
their arms chopped off this crisis will continue. They are the ones
who benefit from driving good businesses to the wall and then picking
over the pieces in a fire sale. Barclays have in effect done this to
Lehman Brothers. Although without a federal guarantee on liabilities
their moves were entirely rational. AIG got a bail out because it was
too big to fail and another $80bn of US tax payers money down the
drain.
HBOS will be interesting because like AIG it is in the category of
institutions that are "too big to fail".
Regards,
Martin Brown
Eeyore
Martin Brown wrote:
> Ross Herbert wrote:
> > Jim Thompson wrote:
> > "Jon Slaughter": wrote:
> > :>I'm been a firm believer for many years that the US is headed for major
> > :>economic disaster mainly because of the blatent greed and ignorance that has
> > :>taken over corporate America. Although I believe that fundamentally America
> > :>is just as strong as ever I think that there is a huge disconnect with what
> > :>is happening on the market and in the lifes of every day Americans.
>
> It is called capitalism and is occurring in its most base raw form
> now.
No, it's not base or raw. It's been fiddled with by tax fixes, incentives and all manner of
goverment intervention.
Graham
Eeyore
Martin Brown wrote:
> Ross Herbert wrote:
> > Jim Thompson wrote:
> >
> > What, you don't think it has anything to do with the fact that banks forgot that
> > credit is for those who can repay?
>
> The problem was that they thought they could predicated on
> continuously rising house prices.
Or not lose their decent paying jobs to outsourcing.
Graham
Eeyore
Martin Brown wrote:
> HBOS will be interesting because like AIG it is in the category of
> institutions that are "too big to fail".
" HBOS 'in merger talks with Lloyds TSB' after shares plunge another 40% in just one hour "
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1056351/HBOS-merger-talks-Lloyds-TSB-shares-plunge-40-just-hour.html
Graham
Martin Brown
wrote:
> Martin Brown wrote:
> > HBOS will be interesting because like AIG it is in the category of
> > institutions that are "too big to fail".
>
I wouldn't trust anything written in the Mail. Although other sources
seem to agree about the merger talks.
The only working public realtime tickertape on HBOS at the moment
seems to be the BBCs
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/fds/hi/business/market_data/shares/3/23174/intraday.stm
It shows the speculator burst of activity this morning with better
time resolution.
Kneecapping is too good for the speculators driving prices down like
this for instant profiteering. With any luck they will be subject to
insider trading investigations given the timing of the takeover
announcement - but it is notoriously difficult to prove and UK juries
usually fail to understand sophisticated white collar financial fraud
trials. SFO has wasted its money on several cases where nicely dressed
city gents with ultra smart lawyers got away it.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Jan Panteltje
P.E." <pa...@hovnanian.com> wrote in <48D058BA...@hovnanian.com>:
>
>The financial institutions are claiming that nobody is smart enough to
>unwind the mortgage backed securities because nobody knows who is
>holding which piece of a mortgage.
>
>Bullshit! They seem to figure out how to take my monthly payment and
>distribute it among the holders pretty efficiently every month.
The real reason is much simpler.
Look here:
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
The total debt when I looked FOR EACH LIVING SOUL in the US was:
31,622.80
So, each baby, women, child.....
Those do not even have a decent collateral....
How much do you really own?
So what is really happening is that the ones with the money (China, Japan,
some big funds) are withdrawing and investing elsewhere then the US.
The do no longer want to lend YOU money.
This is why it is 'billions' and this is why it affects all banks.
The rest is a consequence.
There is also a point where the national product will no longer be able to pay for the interest
on that loan, then the shit really hits the fan.
I am weary to check if US has reached that point yet.
In such a case even using cheap ink jets to print money will only increase inflation.....
like that African country that has an inflation in the millions of percents.
US has been living on borrowed money for too long.
A tax increase? Would it help?
And other interesting site is this one:
http://economyincrisis.org/
And here you can better see the movement of foreign capital:
http://www.ustreas.gov/tic/mfh.txt
Those guys you have to pay back :-)
nospam
>nospam wrote:
>>
>> "Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Sl...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I'm been a firm believer for many years that the US is headed for major
>> >economic disaster mainly because of the blatent greed and ignorance that has
>> >taken over corporate America.
>>
>> But wasn't it blatant greed and ignorance of all the sub-prime borrowers to
>> pay much more for housing than it was worth on the assumption it would
>> continue to rise and show a notional profit?
>
>Housing is worth what people are willing (and able) to afford. That
>means, people buy based on their anticipated monthly payments.
That isn't an assessment of worth, just and observation that people buy as
much house as they can with the money they have/can get. An assessment of
worth it how much or little house they are prepared to accept for that
money.
>Everyone was happy until the Fed tried to 'get
>inflation under control' by jacking up interest rates.
So the main problem in the states was people borrowed and spent more than
they could afford when interest rates rose and people walking away left an
excess supply of housing resulting in falling prices? Can you buy housing
in the States for less than it would cost to build at the moment?
--
Eric
housing would be built..
Eric
Jim Thompson
Only a liberal can conclude that housing costs more to build than it
sells for initially [snicker].
Tim Williams
every 30 years. The Great Depression? Hardly. Try 1870. Try 1840.
I guess the most recent would be 1970, which wasn't nearly so bad
(what was the big '70s thing, stagflation and OPEC?) as the earlier
ones. And we're in one now that's just getting started, but it's not
looking too bad either. This is proof that modern economic thought
and regulations are stabilizing the economy.
Like Windows Vista, the government is way too big for its own good,
but nonetheless, we cope with it, and on the average end up better for
its benefits, despite its numerous faults.
Tim
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
> "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <pa...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
>
> >nospam wrote:
> >>
> >> "Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Sl...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I'm been a firm believer for many years that the US is headed for major
> >> >economic disaster mainly because of the blatent greed and ignorance that has
> >> >taken over corporate America.
> >>
> >> But wasn't it blatant greed and ignorance of all the sub-prime borrowers to
> >> pay much more for housing than it was worth on the assumption it would
> >> continue to rise and show a notional profit?
> >
> >Housing is worth what people are willing (and able) to afford. That
> >means, people buy based on their anticipated monthly payments.
>
> That isn't an assessment of worth, just and observation that people buy as
> much house as they can with the money they have/can get. An assessment of
> worth it how much or little house they are prepared to accept for that
> money.
Before the real estate market fell on its face, the idea that a
speculator cared about how much or little house they were buying was
completely foreign to the real estate market. People who had money in
their pocket to invest were driving out people who were searching for a
certain size residence, a particular location or similar attributes. The
realtors were used to dealing with people who qualified for a certain
sized mortgage and were shopping for that price range. Period.
That's what came back to bite the market. There's a pile of crap that
has been build based upon the speculative market that may not have any
residential value. I think this is the case because: The rental market
is really heating up. People who walked away from houses need a place to
live and they aren't going to qualify for another mortgage anytime soon.
So, why are so many empty houses siting on the market in the same
region? There's a big disconnect between the utility value of these
properties reflected by rents and their mortgages. In other words,
people were buying what they thought the speculative market would
demand, not what they needed to live in.
> >Everyone was happy until the Fed tried to 'get
> >inflation under control' by jacking up interest rates.
>
> So the main problem in the states was people borrowed and spent more than
> they could afford when interest rates rose and people walking away left an
> excess supply of housing resulting in falling prices? Can you buy housing
> in the States for less than it would cost to build at the moment?
Yes.
> --
--
Paul Hovnanian pa...@hovnanian.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have gnu, will travel.
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 03:26:34 +0100, nospam <nos...@please.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >"Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Sl...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>I'm been a firm believer for many years that the US is headed for major
> >>economic disaster mainly because of the blatent greed and ignorance that has
> >>taken over corporate America.
> >
> >But wasn't it blatant greed and ignorance of all the sub-prime borrowers to
> >pay much more for housing than it was worth on the assumption it would
> >continue to rise and show a notional profit?
> >
> >In the UK governments have fucked the housing market for years by severely
> >restricting land on which housing can be built. In any other market
> >increasing demand leading to increasing prices would stimulate supply and
> >restore balance.
> >
> >What happened in the States to make people pay more for housing than it was
> >worth?
>
> "Worth" is defined by demand.
For once, I've got to agree with Jim. Worth is defined by demand and
(until recently) demand has been distorted by speculation.
Kris Krieger
news:0C1Ak.450$W06...@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com:
> What do you guys think about this:
>
> I'm starting too believe their might be such a rift between ideologies
> in America now and because each is about 50/50 that maybe it's time for
> america to split into two? Obviously this isn't going to happen but what
> is one 1/2 was ran be the democrats and the other 1/2 was republicans.
>
> Instead of competing ideas that end up sabotaging each other so nothing
> gets done and actually hurts each "country-state"(don't know what they
> would be called).
>
> I'm looking at it from a pure economic and social aspect.
>
> The way I see it is democrats try to take this country in one direction
> and republicans in another. Each pulling their own way and makeing no
> ground but the tension is destorying this country.
>
> For example, Democrats try to regulate through government while
> republicans let the markets do the job. What happens is we get mixed
> messages, mixed laws, loop holes, waste, etc...
It's simpler to fall back upon absolutist slogans, and the more complex the
world gets, teh mroe nervous people get and the more they seek the comfort
of absolutes, even when those absolutes are false. There is a spectrum of
nuances in each party, but what's happenein is that the extremist in each
are shouting more loudly every day, which is leading to what IMO is a False
Dichotomy. I think that the vast majority of people want comprimise and
are capable of comprimise, but there can never be comprimise when teh stage
is completely toruned over to those who Screech "Demoncrats" ont he one
side and "Republinazis" on the other.
The problem is IMO not the American people as much as it is the howling
extremists who drown out those who are trying to talk sense.
>
> Maybe government has really become too big just as many of these
> corporate companies? Maybe these companies are not failing so much
> becuase of their own short commings(ultimately) but because government
> has "set them up" to fail.
That's how I see it. A certain amount of regulation *can* keep people from
doing the business version of the "petrie dish" phenomenon.
>
> I guess an analogy would be two parents with completely different ideas
> of how their kid should be raised. The kid ends up becoming a total
> wreck. (exclude environoment in this because it is outside the domain)
Only when those parents are so selfishly obsessed with being "right" that
they end up not giving a damn about the child. The analogy works across
the board. Humans posess both the ability to be empathic, and the ability
to be self-obsessed, with a nuanced spectrum stretching between the two.
IMO, the biggest problem is that we're increasingly a collection of
egotists, rather than a nation. Teh biggest sin these days is not murder,
or child abuse, or theft - the biggest "sin" these days is *conceding a
point*, actually seeing some bit of sense in someone else's viewpoint and
letting go of one's own elf-obsessed absolutism.
>
> Obviously we are not going to do such a thing but I'm just wondering as
> it seems like a logic solution to the problems we have... Of course
> wiping out the country is another logical solution to the problems too.
>
People say they want change, but few willing *to* change. The only way
true change will come to this country is if people stop thinking like
spoiled toddlers, and start accepting the facts that (different poeple are
different and (2) sometimes those who are different from oneself *do* have
valid ideas/opinions and useful suggestions.
Eeyore
Jon Slaughter wrote:
> I'm been a firm believer for many years that the US is headed for major
> economic disaster mainly because of the blatent greed and ignorance that has
> taken over corporate America.
Not just America and to anyone with 2 working brain cells It's been obvious for
over 5 years.
A huge clampdown on wages and bonuses is one of the few things that will stop
the crooks.
Graham
Kris Krieger
news:gaqpf4$7n3$1...@aioe.org:
[snip]
>
>
> There is also a point where the national product will no longer be able
> to pay for the interest on that loan, then the shit really hits the fan.
> I am weary to check if US has reached that point yet.
> In such a case even using cheap ink jets to print money will only
> increase inflation..... like that African country that has an inflation
> in the millions of percents.
Or like Germany after WWI, struggling to pay the excessibly punative war
reparations demanded by France et al. That, IIRC, is what set the stage for
the rise of the National Socialist Party (a.k.a. Nazis).
Therre are also lessons to be learned form the early days of the Industrial
Revolution and the conditions that led to the establishment of labor unions.
The lessons of the past are clear. The main question is whether the current
political system (and current voting prefernces) will/would allow those with
an understanding of history to be in office, or whether it will instead
reject such people as "elitist" and edge fruther towards knee-jerk
reactionism that compeltely ignores the things that can be learned form
history.
>
>
> US has been living on borrowed money for too long.
> A tax increase? Would it help?
THe problem is that people want this and they want that, but they *don't*
want to pay for this and that, and tend to imagine that the solution is
"maintain my entitlements, but cut payments to everyone else".
>
> And other interesting site is this one:
> http://economyincrisis.org/
>
> And here you can better see the movement of foreign capital:
> http://www.ustreas.gov/tic/mfh.txt
>
> Those guys you have to pay back :-)
Scary stuff...
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
[snip]
>
> Money was cheap and people were stupid and greedy. You have buyers who want
> the biggest and baddest to feed their ego, you have sellers who want as much
> money as they can get, and you have creditors who will loan to anyone(and
> usually try to swindle in the process).
Or you have a market that drove gullible people to believe this.
When I was buying a house many years ago, I couldn't get a realtor to
show me anything small, cheap and easy to maintain. Not until I lied and
understated my net worth.
Later on, I bought some acreage with waterfront and tried to get a small
house built on it. I had a tough time getting a contractor to build
something as small as I wanted because they were busy convincing people
that they have to spend a certain amount of their income on housing and
build a certain sized house on a lot of a given price.
Marketing is the art of convincing people that they should buy something
other than what they need. People are gullible, or just not willing to
fight the salesmen.
Kris Krieger
news:48D06031...@hovnanian.com:
> Jon Slaughter wrote:
>>
> [snip]
>>
>> There reason is, is that the markets serve almost no purpose except to
>> make people rich who know how to play the game... and many of those
>> people do not contribute any tangable product or service. In some sense
>> they are like actors and actresses. Their is no purpose but they seem
>> to be a sink for huge amounts of money. (sure they enterain but at a
>> disproportionate amount)
>
> Now would be the time to ask the candidates about their stands on
> privatizing Social Security.
>
True. Also, tho', now would be the time to do as much as one can to prepare
for the disappearance of social security. "Hope for the best but plan for
the worst."
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
> What do you guys think about this:
>
> I'm starting too believe their might be such a rift between ideologies in
> America now and because each is about 50/50 that maybe it's time for america
> to split into two? Obviously this isn't going to happen but what is one 1/2
> was ran be the democrats and the other 1/2 was republicans.
It wouldn't work. The republicans would always be trying to borrow money
from us. Somebody has to go out and make an honest living.
Jim Thompson
>Jim Thompson wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 03:26:34 +0100, nospam <nos...@please.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Sl...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>I'm been a firm believer for many years that the US is headed for major
>> >>economic disaster mainly because of the blatent greed and ignorance that has
>> >>taken over corporate America.
>> >
>> >But wasn't it blatant greed and ignorance of all the sub-prime borrowers to
>> >pay much more for housing than it was worth on the assumption it would
>> >continue to rise and show a notional profit?
>> >
>> >In the UK governments have fucked the housing market for years by severely
>> >restricting land on which housing can be built. In any other market
>> >increasing demand leading to increasing prices would stimulate supply and
>> >restore balance.
>> >
>> >What happened in the States to make people pay more for housing than it was
>> >worth?
>>
>> "Worth" is defined by demand.
>
>For once, I've got to agree with Jim. Worth is defined by demand and
>(until recently) demand has been distorted by speculation.
>
Except it wasn't speculators in houses, it was speculation by lenders.
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
Liberals are so ignorant...
They don't even know the definition of ignorant
Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
> I'm been a firm believer for many years that the US is headed for major
> economic disaster mainly because of the blatent greed and ignorance that
> has taken over corporate America.
Oh, feh - blame the big bad corporations.
What a load of crap!!
The only way for corporations to get your money is to sell stuff to you.
If you don't like the corporations, don't buy their crap!!!!
How Duh can you get?
The government, on the other hand, just takes what it wants, by force if
you don't feel like just bending over for them; blaming the corporations
is just another one of the ways they get you to submit - they tell you,
"Oh, just give ME your money, and I'll make it all better."
And, unfortunately, you don't have the option of not buying the
government's crap.
The problem, as it has been since before the beginning of time, is
government.
Thanks,
Rich
Jim Thompson
>Jon Slaughter wrote:
>>
>> What do you guys think about this:
>>
>> I'm starting too believe their might be such a rift between ideologies in
>> America now and because each is about 50/50 that maybe it's time for america
>> to split into two? Obviously this isn't going to happen but what is one 1/2
>> was ran be the democrats and the other 1/2 was republicans.
>
>It wouldn't work. The republicans would always be trying to borrow money
>from us. Somebody has to go out and make an honest living.
What? You prefer that Obama just TAKE it through regressive taxation?
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
Obama's Hollywood groupies: Obama-tards
Kris Krieger
news:kqp0d455v6sc32mvn...@4ax.com:
> "Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Sl...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm been a firm believer for many years that the US is headed for major
>>economic disaster mainly because of the blatent greed and ignorance that
>>has taken over corporate America.
>
> But wasn't it blatant greed and ignorance of all the sub-prime borrowers
> to pay much more for housing than it was worth on the assumption it
> would continue to rise and show a notional profit?
Yes. Except I wouldn't say ignroance, but "ingore-ance", inthat people
simply *ignored* anything that bore even some small resemblance to common
sense.
>
> In the UK governments have fucked the housing market for years by
> severely restricting land on which housing can be built. In any other
> market increasing demand leading to increasing prices would stimulate
> supply and restore balance.
>
> What happened in the States to make people pay more for housing than it
> was worth? More than it costs to build?
A house stopped being "the home wherein you and your family live", and
became "an investment".
People care about a home: select it carefully, maintain it, improve it,
even develop a sense of Community with those living in the homes around
them.
People don't care about an investment any further tan how much moolah they
think they can get out of it.
In a simplistic nutshell, people saw housing prices go up as inflation
rose, and go up when demand rose, and started merely trading in houses as
opposed to living in homes.
The whole idea was to turn the "investment" over as fast as possible to
someone else who was willing to pay more than what first "investor" paid.
I'd seen several local bubbles, because of having lived in so many places,
and each time, what happened was that prices rose in a flurry of profit-
taking until those prices eventually got to a point where they literally
became unaffordable, at which point sales stopped, demand crashed, and
people were left with somethign that was worth less than they paid for it.
Mainly, people refused to admit to the simple fact that a thing sis *only*
worth what someone else is willing to pay for it. Most reacted sharplyl,
and almost violently, to anyone who said that.
When Bush took office, a campaign was started to maximize home ownership.
All fine and good, excpet that any and all of teh remaining rules and
regulations re: lending were thrown to the winds. Also, the link between
the actual loan, and the insitution *selling* the loan, was severed - the
loans themselves became "commodities", bought and sold between financial
institutions. Mortgage Brokers profitted (got comissions) from setting up
mortgages, whcih would then be sold off as fast as possible, so the brokers
had no accountability whatsoever for bad loans. And the loans were sold in
"bundles", which were not analysed by the buyers but simply purchased as
"black boxes".
So, although any individual with more sense than God gave a turnip saw the
writing on the wall back in 2001-2002 (the advent of "interest-only" loans,
exploding ARMs, and eventually, loans that only looked at the borrower's
credit rating and required *no* poroof of income), there were too many
greedy people feeding at the trough - morthgage brokers, financial
institutions, cities which believed they'd be getting lots of new property-
tax revenue (and the school boards and what not that thought they'd be
reveiving that revenue), and so on - and the gov.t mindlessly cheering it
all on.
THe problem, of course, is that a lot of bonds and whatnot are based on the
assumption that loans will be paid back, and with interest. You've heard
of "mortgage-based securities". But nobody wanted to take their head up
out of the trough long enough to realize that
(1) housing bubbles do occur and prices *cannot* continue going up forever,
or that
(2) if someone's monthly mortgage payment exceeds their monthly income,
it's highly likely that they will have to default on hte loan, especially
if they cannot flip the house for a big profit,
or that
(3) if the bubble pops and home values fall to the point where the mrotgage
is significantly higher than the home value, people will eiteh rend up in
forclosure, or will see more benefit to simply default on the loan rather
than continue to pay it.
All of which lead to excess inventory and depressed demand.
The old rules'n'regulations regarding loans, esp. predatory loans, existed,
NOT because the lenders were all warmfuzzy-touchyfeelie Great Folks who
were concerned with their clients! Those rules'n'regs existed because
people used to be smart enough to realize that the *only* loan that makes
money is a loan which is repaid. ALso, people used to be smart enough to
realize that it beenfits the lender if the lender is also the loan broker,
because an independent broker who works off commission is not going to give
a sh*t about the health of the insititution which ends up owning the loan.
But people - not only brokers and loan-owners, but let's face it, also
borrowers - shutr their eyes to the lessons of the past, and jumped feet-
first into the quagmires of their own greed.
And now, those people who lived sensibly are having to pay for teh
inevitable poison fruits fo all those other people's greed and stupidity.
> Was there something artificially
> restricting building or increasing build costs?
>
No, nothing aside from a building-materials price pop following Katirna,
but that wasn't enough to be a factor in the current situation.
Kris Krieger
Not "we" but a lot of people. And in a great many cases, not "lured into"
as much as "were eager to be lured into". Some peopel did get rooked, but
a great many went into it intending to rook someone else by flipping the
place.
>
> Money was cheap and people were stupid and greedy. You have buyers who
> want the biggest and baddest to feed their ego, you have sellers who
> want as much money as they can get, and you have creditors who will loan
> to anyone(and usually try to swindle in the process).
Yup. "Impressing others." Being a misanthrope, my view has always been,
"Why should I care whether I impress some dooflolly I don't like, don't
resepct, and don't ven know from Adam?", but I'm in a tiny little minority
there.
Most people care about the *appearance* of wealth, and especially, *having*
that appearance. You could be as rich as Croesus, but if you're wearing a
t-shirt and jeans like any poor/average schlepp, the vast majority of
people wouldn't bother giving you the time of day - and that includes the
overdressed poor schlepps =:-o ((The benefit of looking like a poor
schlepp, of course, is not having poeple constantly coming up to you
begging for money <LOL!>))
>
> Should be rules in place and mandatory that all follow:
>
> #1. Never buy above your means.
> #2. 25% of your income goes towards personal savings. Not 100% towards
> blowing it on junk that you don't need or things you want.
> #3. Don't expect your creditor to give you a good deal.. expect the
> opposite.
> #4. Creditors should not loan more than people can afford for any
> reason... no excuses. This would have never happaned 50 years ago.
Hmmm, are you a fellow resident of Cramerica? ;)
>
> --------
>
> We are now in a society where people think money grows on tree's and the
> government will always be their for them. I guess the socialist have
> won!
I don't mind paying to help folks who try their best but just aren't
talented or intellectually-gifted enough to have a good job that pays
enough to let them save. I don't mind Social Security when it keeps
seniors who've worked a lifetime housed and fed; I don't mind disability
payment to people who have real disabilities; I don't mind housing and
feeding people who,through genetics or injury, can't live independently and
need assistance. I do mind when it goes to people making more than the
national average income, and is used for increasing numbers of programs
that have nothing whatsoever to do with retirement or diability. Some
things do benefit teh overall good - decent roads, education (which BTW
does *not* include $multi-million sports stadiums for high schools, esp.
when the kids are tehn sent into the streets to beg for school-book money),
helping those who really need some assistance, and the like.
>
> 100 years ago people were doing fine with any of this crap we have
> today. Their were no morgages, credit cards, social security, etc... Of
> course their wasn't 300 M people living in a shoebox either.
Well, there's the rub. It used to be that you coudl literally go into the
wilderness, claim some land, build a place, and have a small farm. It was
hard as all hell, of course, but it was doable.
Can't really do that now. Land is all owned bysoemone, so mortgages
necessary. But even given the things you mention, it *is* entirely possible
to be responsible, and it *is* a plain fact that a lot of people refuse to
take any responsibility.
>
> I don't know who's fault it is and I most likely it's all of our
> fault... it's at least all of our problem(I mean as a collective cause
> it's definitely not my fault ;).
I think there is a 'famous quote' (whcih I've of course forgotten...) to
the effect that "when everyone is at fault, nobody is at fault".
IMO, each individual has to bear a tleast some responsibility for his or
her own life. Yeah, sometimes catastrophes happen, but there is a vast
difference between that, and simply not taking any responsibility
whatsoever for one's life. Too many people want all the benefits of good
times, but then demand "everyone else" bail out their butts when they make
stupid decisions that land them in tough financial straits. They want what
they want, and they believe they are *entitled* to what they want even if
everyone else has to bail their a$$ out of hock, *entitled* to go straight
from mommie's teat to the gov.t teat.
There is a difference between being a compassionate society, and being a
society consisting of weary nursing sows and greedy unsatisfiable piglets.
And a big problem is that, when many people start feeling like nothing more
than walking teats, backlash tends to occur, with compassion discarded as
well.
Kris Krieger
news:stp0d4lqkc9bmova5...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:46:07 -0700, Jim Thompson
> <To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
>:>
>:
>:You'd probably prefer to "hear" a few ;-)
>:
>:America has been killed by the bean counters who can think only in
>:terms of "growth this next quarter"... a constant steady percentage
>:profit is considered failure.
>:
>: ...Jim Thompson
>
>
> What, you don't think it has anything to do with the fact that banks
> forgot that credit is for those who can repay?
>
Actually, both play into the scenario, because both are manifestations of
short-term thinking which ignores not only long-term consequences, but also
long-term benefits.
Kris Krieger
@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com:
[snip]
>
> Yes... I agree this is a huge prolbem. Even negative profits is failure.
> It's wrong to expect that profit must be a monotonicaly increasing. What
> this does is push people to do anything to get the profits up without
> understanding the consequences.
>
Yup. A company which makes less profit in the current quarter than had
expected, sees its stock take a hit, and never mind that the profit was made
when the market was in the crapper - people are so damn stupid that they even
see *profit* as "a bad thing" if it's "somewhat less than previously expected
profit". Yeesh...
mpm
wrote:
> What a load of crap!!
> The only way for corporations to get your money is to sell stuff to you.
You sir, are very sadly mistaken.!!!!
I will happily give you a lecture in the MANY ways a corporation can
take your money, but first, I want to give you the opportunity to
retract your statement... if you so choose.
-mpm
John Larkin
Given the conservation of money in the universe (well, we may print
more, but we don't recall and burn it) and since great amounts of
money have been lost, somebody must have the money that Bear Sterns
and AIG and all those banks lost.
So who has the money? People who sold houses?
Or did the money never exist, like in the 1990's dot.com bubble?
Maybe the big houses gave away dividends based on imaginary profits?
John
Jan Panteltje
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
<ejt2d49nnikpmsgct...@4ax.com>:
>
>Given the conservation of money in the universe (well, we may print
>more, but we don't recall and burn it) and since great amounts of
>money have been lost, somebody must have the money that Bear Sterns
>and AIG and all those banks lost.
>So who has the money? People who sold houses?
>
George Soros, his hedge fund did bet on the housing bubble bust.
And a few other hedgers.
Charles
"Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Sl...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:PFUzk.458$be...@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
> I'm been a firm believer for many years that the US is headed for major
> economic disaster mainly because of the blatent greed and ignorance that
> has taken over corporate America. Although I believe that fundamentally
> America is just as strong as ever I think that there is a huge disconnect
> with what is happening on the market and in the lifes of every day
> Americans.
Agreed as to the greed and ignorance; but have to add that it is endemic.
Average investors seeking unrealistic profits, young couples seeking life
styles that were ordinarly achieved only after decades of hard work, etc.; a
totality of unrealistic expectations that was destined to crash and burn.
> What I mean is that the infrastructure is somewhat solid(well, for the
> most part... not that it couldn't be better) but that there is extreme
> volatility in the markets. The markets are no longer what the were created
> for.
The markets are now controlled by quick turn-around statistical players who
act as vampires and feed on the greedy. The infrastructure is hurting but
is basically healthy enough to move past this. Given natural resources and
great universities and lots of smart people and our freedom to illuminate
and criticize what is going on, I'll predict that we will survive and come
out of this wiser and basically stronger. And with lumps, bruises and
scars.
> There reason is, is that the markets serve almost no purpose except to
> make people rich who know how to play the game... and many of those people
> do not contribute any tangable product or service. In some sense they are
> like actors and actresses. Their is no purpose but they seem to be a sink
> for huge amounts of money. (sure they enterain but at a disproportionate
> amount)
Manipulators have never added wealth to our planet and they never will.
They move it around as they prey on our greed. They understand greed better
than any other group. No way to get rid of them, BTW. We need them but
must learn to ignore their siren songs.
> I curious as to what others are thinking about the what is going on with
> the recent events? To me it is a predictor that america will most likely
> go into a huge depression where many of the top companies will drop like a
> chain of dominos. I do not know exactly why it is going on, if it's
> ignorance at the top or greed but I imagine it is a combination.
Leverage is over. We are entering a new era where assets talk and bullshit
walks. Just a timely adjustment. Many of the folks who are now going to be
devastated by this or have already been wiped out actually deserve it.
However, many are indeed innocent and my quandry is how to sort them and
help those who deserve assistance.
> In any case I'd like to here a few of the moronic ideas that will no doubt
> come out of a discussion... I figure it will be entertaining.
If you were looking for moronic ideas, you posted in the correct forum.
Engineers are typically dumber than snot when out of their narrow comfort
zones ... but that never stops them from holding forth.
We have the tax and spend democrats and the spend and blame republicans ...
lovely; just simply lovely.
Jim Thompson
The Democrats have it ?:-)
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
The next time the Democrats Jerks whine that new drilling will
take 10 years, remind them of the Chinese proverb:
"Every journey starts with a first step"
Mike Monett
John Larkin <jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> John
Credit swaps. Mark-to market. Derivatives. See Warren Buffett's 2002
shareholder letter.
Ask Mr Google.
Mike Monett
Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
> On Sep 17, 2:2pm, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian <n...@example.net>
>
>> What a load of crap!!
>> The only way for corporations to get your money is to sell stuff to you.
>
> You sir, are very sadly mistaken.!!!!
>
> I will happily give you a lecture in the MANY ways a corporation can take
> your money, but first, I want to give you the opportunity to retract your
> statement... if you so choose.
>
Plese tell me how a corporation can take my money away when I don't buy
anything from them.
If you're saying that they enlist the help of the government to enforce
their theft, then we're back to the basic problem, which is government.
Thanks,
Rich
Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
>
> Given the conservation of money in the universe (well, we may print more,
> but we don't recall and burn it) and since great amounts of money have
> been lost, somebody must have the money that Bear Sterns and AIG and all
> those banks lost.
>
> So who has the money? People who sold houses?
>
> Or did the money never exist, like in the 1990's dot.com bubble?
Real money hasn't existed since they inflicted the Federal Reserve on
us, and went off the gold standard.
IOW, _EVERYTHING_ over US$35.00/oz of gold is imaginary.
Thanks,
Rich
Richard Henry
wrote:
Gold's value is, also, largely imaginary. You can't eat it, drink it
or burn it for energy. Water, wheat, meat, cotton, coal, and oil have
real value.
Simon S Aysdie
> "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <p...@hovnanian.com> wrote innews:48D06031...@hovnanian.com:
The "best" is to abolish it immediately. However, I'm reasonable and
would accept a phaseout.
Simon S Aysdie
> "Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaugh...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
> >I'm been a firm believer for many years that the US is headed for major
> >economic disaster mainly because of the blatent greed and ignorance that has
> >taken over corporate America.
>
> pay much more for housing than it was worth on the assumption it would
> continue to rise and show a notional profit?
>
> In the UK governments have fucked the housing market for years by severely
> restricting land on which housing can be built. In any other market
> increasing demand leading to increasing prices would stimulate supply and
> restore balance.
>
> What happened in the States to make people pay more for housing than it was
> worth? More than it costs to build? Was there something artificially
> restricting building or increasing build costs?
In Sonoma County, CA it costs $50k to break ground cuz of the god damn
government. Obviously there are zoning/permit issues.
Simon S Aysdie
> Can you buy housing
> in the States for less than it would cost to build at the moment?
THe market for housing is not homogeneous. Yes, in some places.
Simon S Aysdie
> Ah, but realize that, back in the day, the economy would crash about
> every 30 years. The Great Depression? Hardly. Try 1870. Try 1840.
> I guess the most recent would be 1970, which wasn't nearly so bad
> (what was the big '70s thing, stagflation and OPEC?) as the earlier
> ones. And we're in one now that's just getting started, but it's not
> looking too bad either. This is proof that modern economic thought
> and regulations are stabilizing the economy.
What color is state flavored kool-aid?
> Like Windows Vista, the government is way too big for its own good,
> but nonetheless, we cope with it, and on the average end up better for
> its benefits, despite its numerous faults.
No.
Simon S Aysdie
Say the reserve ratio is 10%. I get a freshly printed dollar from the
federal reserve. I deposit that $1 into the bank, and they loan out
$0.90. THe guy that borrows the $0.90 deposits it into his bank, and
they in turn loan out $0.81. Assume this process continues ad
infinitum. Solve the series.
Ask all the people how much money they have in the bank and call that
the money supply.
Now do the reverse: there is a run on the banks and everyone tries to
get their money out, what happens to the money supply? Was there an
expansion first, and then a contraction? How would this dynamic
affect investment and malinvestment?
Simon S Aysdie
wrote:
You are essentially asking brainwashed statists to distinguish between
policy entrepreneurs and market entrepreneurs. Can a pig fly?
_The Truth About the "Robber Barons"_, by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
http://mises.org/story/2317
Meanwhile the moral hazard monster bu-fu's the innocent:
_Are Fannie and Freddie Too Big to Fail?_, by Frank Shostak
http://mises.org/story/3110
Michael A. Terrell
Simon S Aysdie wrote:
>
>
> What color is state flavored kool-aid?
Deep yellow, since it gets used over & over.
--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html
aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.
If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm
There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.
Michael A. Terrell
Simon S Aysdie wrote:
>
> Can a pig fly?
Only if it wears enough lipstick.
krw
says...
> nospam wrote:
> >
> > "Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Sl...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >I'm been a firm believer for many years that the US is headed for major
> > >economic disaster mainly because of the blatent greed and ignorance that has
> > >taken over corporate America.
> >
> > But wasn't it blatant greed and ignorance of all the sub-prime borrowers to
> > pay much more for housing than it was worth on the assumption it would
> > continue to rise and show a notional profit?
>
> means, people buy based on their anticipated monthly payments.
> (Interesting anecdote: I had a hell of a time getting realtors to show
> me cheap houses. They all insisted on starting with buyers wages and
> squeezing them into the biggest house they could afford. In the end, I
> had to lie about my income and tell them that I made a hell of a lot
> less than I do.)
Why do you tell them how much you made? I simply told my Realtor
what I wanted to pay. She had no idea what I made or what I was
going to put down. By the time we bought I'm sure she had a pretty
good idea, but she more or less (where more or less = ~10%) stayed
in the range I told her to. We did look at a few houses at the high
end (+10%) mainly because it didn't cost anything to look, but ended
up right where we wanted.
> Everyone was happy until the Fed tried to 'get
> inflation under control' by jacking up interest rates. Rates went up
> more than people anticipated, payments went up, people walked away from
> houses and new buyers don't qualify for the same price. One or two 'fire
> sales' in a neighborhood drag down the appraised value of al the
> surrounding properties, so the people still making payments now had
> larger mortgages than their houses were worth. They sent the keys to the
> bank and walked away.
The badly rated mortgage obligations and insane leveraging or
mortgages were the real culprits. When you lend the same money out
30 times it doesn't take much of a down turn to have the package go
into the negative value region.
> > In the UK governments have fucked the housing market for years by severely
> > restricting land on which housing can be built. In any other market
> > increasing demand leading to increasing prices would stimulate supply and
> > restore balance.
> >
> > What happened in the States to make people pay more for housing than it was
> > worth? More than it costs to build? Was there something artificially
> > restricting building or increasing build costs?
>
> Irrational exuberance.
In VT the artificial restriction is the greenies. Buildable
property is so expensive that no one is going to put a "cheap" home
on it so the median home goes for $300K (+6K/yr taxes).
--
Keith
Nico Coesel
>I'm been a firm believer for many years that the US is headed for major
>economic disaster mainly because of the blatent greed and ignorance that has
>taken over corporate America. Although I believe that fundamentally America
>is just as strong as ever I think that there is a huge disconnect with what
>is happening on the market and in the lifes of every day Americans.
>
>What I mean is that the infrastructure is somewhat solid(well, for the most
>part... not that it couldn't be better) but that there is extreme volatility
>in the markets. The markets are no longer what the were created for.
>
>There reason is, is that the markets serve almost no purpose except to make
>people rich who know how to play the game... and many of those people do not
>contribute any tangable product or service. In some sense they are like
>actors and actresses. Their is no purpose but they seem to be a sink for
>huge amounts of money. (sure they enterain but at a disproportionate amount)
I used to work for a small stock broker / investment firm and I can
assure you: the people buying and selling shares have absolutely no
idea about what the firms actually do. All they do is look at the
numbers. Its like predicting the wheater from looking at color of an
apple they found on the street.
--
Programmeren in Almere?
E-mail naar nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.)
Jon Slaughter
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <pa...@hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:48D145CE...@hovnanian.com...
> Jon Slaughter wrote:
>>
> [snip]
>>
>> Money was cheap and people were stupid and greedy. You have buyers who
>> want
>> the biggest and baddest to feed their ego, you have sellers who want as
>> much
>> money as they can get, and you have creditors who will loan to anyone(and
>> usually try to swindle in the process).
>
>
> When I was buying a house many years ago, I couldn't get a realtor to
> show me anything small, cheap and easy to maintain. Not until I lied and
> understated my net worth.
>
> Later on, I bought some acreage with waterfront and tried to get a small
> house built on it. I had a tough time getting a contractor to build
> something as small as I wanted because they were busy convincing people
> that they have to spend a certain amount of their income on housing and
> build a certain sized house on a lot of a given price.
>
> Marketing is the art of convincing people that they should buy something
> other than what they need. People are gullible, or just not willing to
> fight the salesmen.
>
In either case though it is wrong. Eventually the people will get pinched to
hard and everyone suffers... except thoughts that made their bucks doing the
pinching... which will probably move to a better location(another country).
Everyone is suppose to play fair and that's the bottom line. Since the rule
is a moral one and many people don't have morals some people don't play
fair... and they have learned that it actually tips the favor to their side.
Jon Slaughter
"Kris Krieger" <m...@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
news:Xns9B1C9401841...@216.168.3.70...
Of course... Obviously it's not everyone. I just use that for short hand.
Eager? That might be true but you don't go up to a drug addict and offer
him drugs... that is unless you want him to do them.
Not everyone has common sense, self control, or emotional aptitude. Those
banks were taking advantage of the ignorant people without regard to the
risk.
It's not an ignorant persons fault for being ignorant. (not that you can't
but blame on them and punish them)
>>
>> Money was cheap and people were stupid and greedy. You have buyers who
>> want the biggest and baddest to feed their ego, you have sellers who
>> want as much money as they can get, and you have creditors who will loan
>> to anyone(and usually try to swindle in the process).
>
> Yup. "Impressing others." Being a misanthrope, my view has always been,
> "Why should I care whether I impress some dooflolly I don't like, don't
> resepct, and don't ven know from Adam?", but I'm in a tiny little minority
> there.
>
less than 1/1000th of a percent probably. I'm not a misanthrope but just
value self-worth(essentially what exists in my brain... my knowledge and
experiences) over any materialistic thing. This is not to say that I don't
need materials because they can help me expand my self worth but that they
are far less valuable to me. I guess this might steam from knowing that I
won't take materialistic things with me when I die but their might be a
chance I will take my thoughts.
> Most people care about the *appearance* of wealth, and especially,
> *having*
> that appearance. You could be as rich as Croesus, but if you're wearing a
> t-shirt and jeans like any poor/average schlepp, the vast majority of
> people wouldn't bother giving you the time of day - and that includes the
> overdressed poor schlepps =:-o ((The benefit of looking like a poor
> schlepp, of course, is not having poeple constantly coming up to you
> begging for money <LOL!>))
>
Yes. As you know, image is everything.
>>
>> Should be rules in place and mandatory that all follow:
>>
>> #1. Never buy above your means.
>> #2. 25% of your income goes towards personal savings. Not 100% towards
>> blowing it on junk that you don't need or things you want.
>> #3. Don't expect your creditor to give you a good deal.. expect the
>> opposite.
>> #4. Creditors should not loan more than people can afford for any
>> reason... no excuses. This would have never happaned 50 years ago.
>
> Hmmm, are you a fellow resident of Cramerica? ;)
>
Well, they were just things I thought were logical for economic stability...
but if that's Cramerica then I'd like to move there ;)
>
>
>>
>> --------
>>
>> We are now in a society where people think money grows on tree's and the
>> government will always be their for them. I guess the socialist have
>> won!
>
>
> I don't mind paying to help folks who try their best but just aren't
> talented or intellectually-gifted enough to have a good job that pays
> enough to let them save. I don't mind Social Security when it keeps
> seniors who've worked a lifetime housed and fed; I don't mind disability
> payment to people who have real disabilities; I don't mind housing and
> feeding people who,through genetics or injury, can't live independently
> and
> need assistance. I do mind when it goes to people making more than the
> national average income, and is used for increasing numbers of programs
> that have nothing whatsoever to do with retirement or diability. Some
> things do benefit teh overall good - decent roads, education (which BTW
> does *not* include $multi-million sports stadiums for high schools, esp.
> when the kids are tehn sent into the streets to beg for school-book
> money),
> helping those who really need some assistance, and the like.
>
Sure I agree, but do you mind when it is done extremely inefficient... and
most likely the guise of helping?
Similarly to the commericas about helping the africans in rowanda, for
example. They've had the same comercials by the same people for decades yet
nothing ever gets better there. Only 6 cents a day? These "non-profits" are
definitely profiting and at the guise of helping ;/
>> 100 years ago people were doing fine with any of this crap we have
>> today. Their were no morgages, credit cards, social security, etc... Of
>> course their wasn't 300 M people living in a shoebox either.
>
> Well, there's the rub. It used to be that you coudl literally go into the
> wilderness, claim some land, build a place, and have a small farm. It was
> hard as all hell, of course, but it was doable.
>
> Can't really do that now. Land is all owned bysoemone, so mortgages
> necessary. But even given the things you mention, it *is* entirely
> possible
> to be responsible, and it *is* a plain fact that a lot of people refuse to
> take any responsibility.
>
Yes. I wonder if it was intentially setup that way or just happenstance.
After all, with a bunch ignorant people it is sure easy to take their money.
>
>>
>> I don't know who's fault it is and I most likely it's all of our
>> fault... it's at least all of our problem(I mean as a collective cause
>> it's definitely not my fault ;).
>
> I think there is a 'famous quote' (whcih I've of course forgotten...) to
> the effect that "when everyone is at fault, nobody is at fault".
>
hehe..
> IMO, each individual has to bear a tleast some responsibility for his or
> her own life. Yeah, sometimes catastrophes happen, but there is a vast
> difference between that, and simply not taking any responsibility
> whatsoever for one's life. Too many people want all the benefits of good
> times, but then demand "everyone else" bail out their butts when they make
> stupid decisions that land them in tough financial straits. They want what
> they want, and they believe they are *entitled* to what they want even if
> everyone else has to bail their a$$ out of hock, *entitled* to go straight
> from mommie's teat to the gov.t teat.
>
I believe, more strongly now, that it is the democrats that have supported
such things. By telling the people that they will be taken care of they have
lowered the bar for responsiblity. What the people hear is that they will be
taken care of! The democrats love this because it then locks those people
into the democratic party. I do not know if it was intential with the
democrats but I do believe that is what happened.
> There is a difference between being a compassionate society, and being a
> society consisting of weary nursing sows and greedy unsatisfiable piglets.
> And a big problem is that, when many people start feeling like nothing
> more
> than walking teats, backlash tends to occur, with compassion discarded as
> well.
and unfortunately we are either too big or too selfish(not willing to
sacrfice) to change. It's a sad state and I don't see any light at the end
of the tunnel... but hell, maybe that's a good thing.
Michael A. Terrell
Your world is imaginary.
Tim Williams
> "Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaugh...@Hotmail.com> wrote innews:0C1Ak.450$W06...@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com:
>
>
>
> > What do you guys think about this:
>
> > I'm starting too believe their might be such a rift between ideologies
> > in America now and because each is about 50/50 that maybe it's time for
> > america to split into two? Obviously this isn't going to happen but what
> > is one 1/2 was ran be the democrats and the other 1/2 was republicans.
>
> > Instead of competing ideas that end up sabotaging each other so nothing
> > gets done and actually hurts each "country-state"(don't know what they
> > would be called).
>
> > I'm looking at it from a pure economic and social aspect.
>
> > The way I see it is democrats try to take this country in one direction
> > and republicans in another. Each pulling their own way and makeing no
> > ground but the tension is destorying this country.
>
> > For example, Democrats try to regulate through government while
> > republicans let the markets do the job. What happens is we get mixed
> > messages, mixed laws, loop holes, waste, etc...
>
> It's simpler to fall back upon absolutist slogans, and the more complex the
> world gets, teh mroe nervous people get and the more they seek the comfort
> of absolutes, even when those absolutes are false. There is a spectrum of
> nuances in each party, but what's happenein is that the extremist in each
> are shouting more loudly every day, which is leading to what IMO is a False
> Dichotomy. I think that the vast majority of people want comprimise and
> are capable of comprimise, but there can never be comprimise when teh stage
> is completely toruned over to those who Screech "Demoncrats" ont he one
> side and "Republinazis" on the other.
>
> The problem is IMO not the American people as much as it is the howling
> extremists who drown out those who are trying to talk sense.
>
>
>
> > Maybe government has really become too big just as many of these
> > corporate companies? Maybe these companies are not failing so much
> > becuase of their own short commings(ultimately) but because government
> > has "set them up" to fail.
>
> That's how I see it. A certain amount of regulation *can* keep people from
> doing the business version of the "petrie dish" phenomenon.
>
>
>
> > I guess an analogy would be two parents with completely different ideas
> > of how their kid should be raised. The kid ends up becoming a total
> > wreck. (exclude environoment in this because it is outside the domain)
>
> Only when those parents are so selfishly obsessed with being "right" that
> they end up not giving a damn about the child. The analogy works across
> the board. Humans posess both the ability to be empathic, and the ability
> to be self-obsessed, with a nuanced spectrum stretching between the two.
>
> IMO, the biggest problem is that we're increasingly a collection of
> egotists, rather than a nation. Teh biggest sin these days is not murder,
> or child abuse, or theft - the biggest "sin" these days is *conceding a
> point*, actually seeing some bit of sense in someone else's viewpoint and
> letting go of one's own elf-obsessed absolutism.
>
>
>
> > Obviously we are not going to do such a thing but I'm just wondering as
> > it seems like a logic solution to the problems we have... Of course
> > wiping out the country is another logical solution to the problems too.
>
> People say they want change, but few willing *to* change. The only way
> true change will come to this country is if people stop thinking like
> spoiled toddlers, and start accepting the facts that (different poeple are
> different and (2) sometimes those who are different from oneself *do* have
> valid ideas/opinions and useful suggestions.
I'm going to write-in Kris Krieger this November.
Tim
Tim Williams
Well let's see. Follow the money. These were houses that were worth
a lot, right? So people were paying a lot. But they weren't actually
paying, because nobody buys a house in cash or deposit these days, so
it was on loan. And shady loans at that. So these people bought
money to buy their houses. Then suddenly their property value dropped
and they didn't need all that loan so they said skip it, leaving the
banks without the cash flow they were expecting. (If the loans were
never paid, then the banks aren't out anything other than operating
costs, so I don't really see why this made several go under outright.
Does that have more to do with people buying and trading loans after
their declaration?) So they didn't pay for their money, which they
didn't get and didn't need; what's more, the thing they thought they
were buying is suddenly not worth as much, so the capital (that was
being purchased) disappeared. So money did in fact disappear, but in
the value of capital, not literal dollars.
When those loans are handed in, are they defaulted (at the expense of
credit ratings to the buyer), or does the bank take on the
responsibility of the loan and whatever it was for (the house)? If
that's the case, then that would explain how the banks got shafted.
In fact, I can't believe that would be the case, because it doesn't
make sense that an institution would allow itself to be shafted!
Tim
Rich Grise
> On Sep 17, 4:55 pm, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian <n...@example.net>
If people will accept bits of gold in exchange for wheat, meat, etc, then
it has value.
I think we should start hoarding pennies and nickels - soon, the cost of
the metal will actually exceed the face value!
Cheers!
Rich
Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
>> People say they want change, but few willing *to* change. The only
>> way true change will come to this country is if people stop thinking
>> like spoiled toddlers, and start accepting the facts that (different
>> poeple are different and (2) sometimes those who are different from
>> oneself *do* have valid ideas/opinions and useful suggestions.
>
> I'm going to write-in Kris Krieger this November.
We should exhort everyone to vote for Bob Barr:
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/splash/?s0820
Cheers!
Rich
Charlie E.
wrote:
>"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <pa...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
>
>>nospam wrote:
>>>
>>> "Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Sl...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >I'm been a firm believer for many years that the US is headed for major
>>> >economic disaster mainly because of the blatent greed and ignorance that has
>>> >taken over corporate America.
>>>
>>> But wasn't it blatant greed and ignorance of all the sub-prime borrowers to
>>> pay much more for housing than it was worth on the assumption it would
>>> continue to rise and show a notional profit?
>>
>>Housing is worth what people are willing (and able) to afford. That
>>means, people buy based on their anticipated monthly payments.
>
>That isn't an assessment of worth, just and observation that people buy as
>much house as they can with the money they have/can get. An assessment of
>worth it how much or little house they are prepared to accept for that
>money.
>
>>Everyone was happy until the Fed tried to 'get
>>inflation under control' by jacking up interest rates.
>
>So the main problem in the states was people borrowed and spent more than
>they could afford when interest rates rose and people walking away left an
>excess supply of housing resulting in falling prices? Can you buy housing
>in the States for less than it would cost to build at the moment?
Oh, yes, you can definitely get it cheaper than you can build.
I bought my house 2 1/2 years ago, just before the bust. Fortunately,
I paid cash, so the loss in value at this point is just a paper loss,
and I live here, so I don't have that worry.
But, the builder has stopped after only building 1/4 of the houses he
was going to. He can't sell a new home for what it costs to build it.
All the developers here in our small town have stopped construction,
which means that all the construction workers are pretty much
unemployed. That means that they can't afford their mortgages either!
It is definitely having a domino effect
Even if a builder wanted to build new houses or stores, they can't get
financing to do the building. All the credit sources have pretty much
dried up. That was what stopped our builder, he lost his financing.
Here in the desert, we have something like a 20-25% foreclosure rate
right now. Many of the houses here were bought by speculators or were
to be used as second homes. Now, those owners can't afford the
payments, or realize that they are under water, so they are just
abandoning them.
Charlie
Charlie E.
<Jon_Sl...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>In either case though it is wrong. Eventually the people will get pinched to
>hard and everyone suffers... except thoughts that made their bucks doing the
>pinching... which will probably move to a better location(another country).
>
>Everyone is suppose to play fair and that's the bottom line. Since the rule
>is a moral one and many people don't have morals some people don't play
>fair... and they have learned that it actually tips the favor to their side.
>
>
Well, I guess you mean me!
Ten year ago we bought our first house for $200K. We lived there for
eight years, and then sold it for $575K, and then moved out here to
the desert where we bought our home for basically cash. At the end of
last year, when I was laid off, my wife came up with a budget that
only required $2K a month to live off. Between the layoff package and
unemployment, we have resources for about two more years.
So, we started our own company. We have just gotten our first
contract, so we are on our way.
BTW, when we sold our house for $575, the prevailing sales for our
model home were $600K, so we didn't get everything the market could
bear...
Charlie
Richard Henry
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 18:35:58 -0700, Richard Henry wrote:
> > On Sep 17, 4:55 pm, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian <n...@example.net>
> >> On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:35:24 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
>
> >> > Given the conservation of money in the universe (well, we may print
> >> > more, but we don't recall and burn it) and since great amounts of
> >> > money have been lost, somebody must have the money that Bear Sterns
> >> > and AIG and all those banks lost.
>
> >> > So who has the money? People who sold houses?
>
> >> > Or did the money never exist, like in the 1990's dot.com bubble?
>
> >> Real money hasn't existed since they inflicted the Federal Reserve on
> >> us, and went off the gold standard.
>
> >> IOW, _EVERYTHING_ over US$35.00/oz of gold is imaginary.
>
> > Gold's value is, also, largely imaginary. You can't eat it, drink it or
> > burn it for energy. Water, wheat, meat, cotton, coal, and oil have real
> > value.
>
> If people will accept bits of gold in exchange for wheat, meat, etc, then
> it has value.
Imaginary value.
Jon Slaughter
"Charlie E." <edmo...@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:5a45d4hoq3jvq9j8d...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 04:31:57 -0500, "Jon Slaughter"
> <Jon_Sl...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>In either case though it is wrong. Eventually the people will get pinched
>>to
>>hard and everyone suffers... except thoughts that made their bucks doing
>>the
>>pinching... which will probably move to a better location(another
>>country).
>>
>>Everyone is suppose to play fair and that's the bottom line. Since the
>>rule
>>is a moral one and many people don't have morals some people don't play
>>fair... and they have learned that it actually tips the favor to their
>>side.
>>
>>
>
> Well, I guess you mean me!
>
get ahead. Basically a prime example is the olympics.
> Ten year ago we bought our first house for $200K. We lived there for
> eight years, and then sold it for $575K, and then moved out here to
> the desert where we bought our home for basically cash. At the end of
> last year, when I was laid off, my wife came up with a budget that
> only required $2K a month to live off. Between the layoff package and
> unemployment, we have resources for about two more years.
>
> So, we started our own company. We have just gotten our first
> contract, so we are on our way.
>
> BTW, when we sold our house for $575, the prevailing sales for our
> model home were $600K, so we didn't get everything the market could
> bear...
>
You are only capitalizing on what other cheats have done. You are not
necessarily bad but obviously went with the flow that someone else created.
Do you think the house was "worth" what you sold it for? I mean, honestly?
Would you have brought that house for that much?
Jon Slaughter
"Rich Grise" <ri...@example.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.09.18....@example.net...
They already are!
John Larkin
<Jon_Sl...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
If you advertized a rusty old 1972 VW for sale, and somebody offered
you $300 for it, and somebody else offered you $2500, who would you
sell it to?
John
Simon S Aysdie
This is complete nonsense. Where do you people get these crazy-assed
kook ideas?
Gold, silver, coins, notes, seashells, and etcetera has "high
liquidity" and high liquidity is what makes something money by
definition. It is valued because it eliminates the "coincidence of
wants" that would be otherwise necessary in trade. Thus it has _real
value_ in greatly facilitating trade. Since people trade to make
themselves more well off ("wealthier"), the "value of money" is how
much richer they are with a liquid medium of exchange than they would
be without it.
You are welcome.
Solving the problem of coincidence of wants is the main defining
characteristic that makes "some material" money. You homework
assignment is to define the secondary characteristics of money. Extra
credit: What is M1, M2, & M3?
Jan Panteltje
Aysdie <gwh...@ti.com> wrote in
<3ed189b8-0d58-4fe8...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>:
>> Gold's value is, also, largely imaginary. You can't eat it, drink it
>> or burn it for energy. Water, wheat, meat, cotton, coal, and oil have
>> real value.
>
>This is complete nonsense. Where do you people get these crazy-assed
>kook ideas?
>
>Gold, silver, coins, notes, seashells, and etcetera has "high
>liquidity" and high liquidity is what makes something money by
>definition.
In case of disaster, you may have tons of gold, and
no food and water, you will die.
From that P.O.V. gold is worthless.
In case of those very hard times, people will come together and trade services,
and essential stuff, for food.
I had actually the impression that CDs were the new currency,
but these days perhaps it is mp3s or mp4s.
Richard Henry
>
> - Show quoted text -
Read what you have just written. For the so-called "liquid" assets to
have value, there must be a system of trade, and that system assigns
those assets an artificial value. Thus paper money, diamonds, subway
tokens, and stones with holes in them can have as much value as gold
_within that system_.
Ken S. Tucker
You would figure AIG knows everything there is
to know about life statistics and demographics,
such as the value of houses are in proportion to
demand, and that "Baby-Boomers" downsizing
is inevitable. In this case the *commodity* is
*bricks & dirt*.
In our studies, we de-valued investing in *bricks
& dirt* in the mid 90's and began the planning
of divesting in that commodity, simply because
many "empty nesters" we spoke with wanted to
downsize, as we wanted to do. Mainly to reduce
maintence and over-head costs.
Have a look at history: in about 1970, Boomers
hit the housing market and housing demand and
prices skyrocketed, hiccuping in 1990, and now
plummeting, as demand is turning negative.
The period 1970-2005 is a *demographic* bubble,
that must inevitably and with good reason burst.
The hard part is why the Big Bankers didn't see
that coming, and adjust accordingly but instead
produced artifical demand for the "bricks & dirt"
commodity via slick mortage plans.
Selling McMansions to the unemployed, might
be a socialist experiment, but not good business.
Ken
Charlie E.
<Jon_Sl...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
Well, it was only a 1200 square foot two story house, with a lot not
much larger than the house itself. On the other hand, it was in a
prime neighborhood in Irvine, just a mile from the spectrum and
thousands of jobs, with shopping and transportation within walking
distance, and a pool, tennis courts and park just next door...
Last I looked, (which is right now...) the same floorplan in the
neighborhood is selling for $580K to $600K, so it hasn't lost value
even in today's market. And, ours had a prime location...
Charlie
Kris Krieger
d565cb...@l43g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
> On Sep 17, 12:45 pm, Kris Krieger <m...@dowmuff.in> wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> People say they want change, but few willing *to* change. The only way
>> true change will come to this country is if people stop thinking like
>> spoiled toddlers, and start accepting the facts that (different poeple ar
> e
>> different and (2) sometimes those who are different from oneself *do* hav
> e
>> valid ideas/opinions and useful suggestions.
>
> I'm going to write-in Kris Krieger this November.
>
> Tim
>
<LOL!>
Thanks but, Nah, I don't wanna be Pres. - I'd be assassinated =:-o
An advisory position, tho'... ;)
Hey! Maybe I should put out an ad:
"For sale or rent: Used intelligence analyst, up on blocks, needs new tires
and body work, upholstery shot, but engine still runs well."
<LOL!>
Kris Krieger
news:48D14663...@hovnanian.com:
> Jon Slaughter wrote:
>>
>> What do you guys think about this:
>>
>> I'm starting too believe their might be such a rift between ideologies
>> in America now and because each is about 50/50 that maybe it's time for
>> america to split into two? Obviously this isn't going to happen but
>> what is one 1/2 was ran be the democrats and the other 1/2 was
>> republicans.
>
There are a lot of people who make *very* large salaries by fomenting
divisiveness. Don't ever forget that.
As always:
Follow The Money.
("Money" also covers "influence, power, and similar benefits".)
Too many people think that hatemongers and partisan bliveters have "the
people" in mind - nah, they have their *wallets* in mind. THey make lots of
money for themselves and for their radio stations by feeding and exacerbating
distrust, lack of knowlege, lack of understanding, and blamesmanship.
Someone who actually cares about the people is, quite frankly, usually th
elast person anyone wants to listen to - by not making money off of
blivetting, that person has no influence and no "bling"; by not kissing up to
the power elite, that persojn has no stings to pull, no favors to grant.
So such a person is not going to get hour after hour of air-time. And, being
thus relgated to the status of "just a nobody", is shouted over by the
irrational, the illogical, and the cynically machiavellian. none of whom
really gives a crap about "the People".
Kris Krieger
news:urOdnRTy5t3XH0zV...@comcast.com:
>
>
> "Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Sl...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:PFUzk.458$be...@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> I'm been a firm believer for many years that the US is headed for major
>> economic disaster mainly because of the blatent greed and ignorance
>> that has taken over corporate America. Although I believe that
>> fundamentally America is just as strong as ever I think that there is a
>> huge disconnect with what is happening on the market and in the lifes
>> of every day Americans.
>
> Agreed as to the greed and ignorance; but have to add that it is
> endemic. Average investors seeking unrealistic profits, young couples
> seeking life styles that were ordinarly achieved only after decades of
> hard work, etc.; a totality of unrealistic expectations that was
> destined to crash and burn.
THat is part of the philosophy of "I'm entitled but not responsible". IIRC
it used to be called "being a Peter Pan" - someone who refused to grow up,
since growing up means becoming an adult, and being an adult means having
responsibilities (including responsibility for one's own screw-ups).
But we live in an age where it's beelived that correcting a child's
spelling ro grammatical errors "damages the child's creativity" =:-p ANd
we're ssing the result of that.
>
>> What I mean is that the infrastructure is somewhat solid(well, for the
>> most part... not that it couldn't be better) but that there is extreme
>> volatility in the markets. The markets are no longer what the were
>> created for.
>
> The markets are now controlled by quick turn-around statistical players
> who act as vampires and feed on the greedy.
Yup, but nobody wants to admit that. I saw a program about scams - one
couple, both of whom were older tahn I, snapped up a slick promotional
offering **200% return** on their investment. Only an idiot falls for that
- or at least, someone whose greed is so overwhelming that it renders the
person an idiot. Hell, I'd be suspicious iof someone "guaranteed" me a 25%
return...
If you close your eyes and just stick you head down in the trough in hopes
of sucking up huge amounts of feed, you're not likely to see the farmer
coming at you carrying a big axe.
But people prefer to blame everyopne else for their mistakes. "But I was
*forced* to stick my head into the trough like a hog because I *ha* to live
like the people on my telDUHvision setso I could impress the neighbors*.
> The infrastructure is
> hurting but is basically healthy enough to move past this. Given
> natural resources and great universities and lots of smart people and
> our freedom to illuminate and criticize what is going on, I'll predict
> that we will survive and come out of this wiser and basically stronger.
> And with lumps, bruises and scars.
I think we, as a nation, *can* come out of it stronger - but it's by no
means a certainty. If we allow fearmongers, blamegamers, and hate-slingers
to rule teh day, I do not think your prediction will come to pass.
>
>> There reason is, is that the markets serve almost no purpose except to
>> make people rich who know how to play the game... and many of those
>> people do not contribute any tangable product or service. In some sense
>> they are like actors and actresses. Their is no purpose but they seem
>> to be a sink for huge amounts of money. (sure they enterain but at a
>> disproportionate amount)
>
> Manipulators have never added wealth to our planet and they never will.
> They move it around as they prey on our greed. They understand greed
> better than any other group. No way to get rid of them, BTW. We need
> them but must learn to ignore their siren songs.
Or at least put them to good use. It does take a peculiar sort ogf talent
to do some of these things - what's needed is a better outlet for that
ability.
>
>> I curious as to what others are thinking about the what is going on
>> with the recent events? To me it is a predictor that america will most
>> likely go into a huge depression where many of the top companies will
>> drop like a chain of dominos. I do not know exactly why it is going on,
>> if it's ignorance at the top or greed but I imagine it is a
>> combination.
>
> Leverage is over. We are entering a new era where assets talk and
> bullshit walks. Just a timely adjustment. Many of the folks who are
> now going to be devastated by this or have already been wiped out
> actually deserve it. However, many are indeed innocent and my quandry is
> how to sort them and help those who deserve assistance.
THat si a very complex matter, too much so for a moderately-sized (I won't
say "brief" as I will never claim that I have a talent for brevity <L!>)
newsgroup post. But a lot of folks gut hurt,a nd will get hurt, who really
didn't deserve it.
>
>> In any case I'd like to here a few of the moronic ideas that will no
>> doubt come out of a discussion... I figure it will be entertaining.
>
> If you were looking for moronic ideas, you posted in the correct forum.
> Engineers are typically dumber than snot when out of their narrow
> comfort zones ... but that never stops them from holding forth.
>
> We have the tax and spend democrats and the spend and blame republicans
> ... lovely; just simply lovely.
>
*ALL* of them are tax-and-spend - that's how the national debt got to the
levels it's at. It's jsut that soem politicians are sneakier at hiding the
tax - such as the removal of gas and housing from teh inflation
calcualtions, which are used to set Social Security and Disability payments
- that is an example of a form of "hidden tax". At least if someone is
open about taxes, you know what to expect. The ones to be wary of are
those who are not open about it, the "ambush taxers".
Kris Krieger
8a5962...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
> On Sep 17, 9:29 am, Tim Williams <tmoran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ah, but realize that, back in the day, the economy would crash about
>> every 30 years. The Great Depression? Hardly. Try 1870. Try 1
> 840.
>> I guess the most recent would be 1970, which wasn't nearly so bad
>> (what was the big '70s thing, stagflation and OPEC?) as the earlier
>> ones. And we're in one now that's just getting started, but it's not
>> looking too bad either. This is proof that modern economic thought
>> and regulations are stabilizing the economy.
>
> What color is state flavored kool-aid?
Purple Drazi... Green Drazi...
Oh wait, wrong channel...
>
>> Like Windows Vista, the government is way too big for its own good,
>> but nonetheless, we cope with it, and on the average end up better for
>> its benefits, despite its numerous faults.
>
> No.
>
Kris Krieger
675b5b...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
> On Sep 17, 11:00 am, Kris Krieger <m...@dowmuff.in> wrote:
>> "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <p...@hovnanian.com> wrote innews:48D06031.1EA8881E
> @hovnanian.com:
>>
>> > Jon Slaughter wrote:
>>
>> > [snip]
>>
>> >> There reason is, is that the markets serve almost no purpose except to
>> >> make people rich who know how to play the game... and many of those
>> >> people do not contribute any tangable product or service. In some sens
> e
>> >> they are like actors and actresses. Their is no purpose but they seem
>> >> to be a sink for huge amounts of money. (sure they enterain but at a
>> >> disproportionate amount)
>>
>> > Now would be the time to ask the candidates about their stands on
>> > privatizing Social Security.
>>
>> True. Also, tho', now would be the time to do as much as one can to pr
> epare
>> for the disappearance of social security. "Hope for the best but plan
> for
>> the worst."
>
> The "best" is to abolish it immediately. However, I'm reasonable and
> would accept a phaseout.
>
Phasing would be necessary so as to avoid social chaos. I personally think
that a compassionate society is possible, but right now, it seems to me that
we have a "sucker society" which is less about compassion than it is about
who can lay the biggest guilt-trip. There are some things that do benefit
citizens as a whole, but I think things have gone *way* overboard. But
again, a ssudden stoppage would create chaos - so I think that phaseouts are
the least-disruptive way to rebalance things.
Simon S Aysdie
Simon S Aysdie
> have value, there must be a system of trade, and that system assigns
> those assets an artificial value. Thus paper money, diamonds, subway
> tokens, and stones with holes in them can have as much value as gold
> _within that system_.
"The system" doesn't "assign" anything, as the "system" doesn't have a
"brain." Cut the silly animistic language. The prices observed in
trade aren't "artificial."
So what if different things are all liquid and have trading value in
some locus of trading. That changes nothing regarding "imaginary
value," and only says they are all being used as "money." And sure,
fiat currencies are created and "bad money drives out the
good" (Gresham's Law). None of this is unexpected or supports the
crank idea that the "value is imaginary." If you really believe that,
send your money and gold to me.
Where do you come up with this strange lingo?
Richard Henry
Richard Henry
Does thinking hard make your brain hurt?
mpm
> "The system" doesn't "assign" anything, as the "system" doesn't have a
> "brain." �Cut the silly animistic language. �
Speaking of silly language....
Your use of the word "animistic" might not be the best word - as it
implies a soul.(?)
I think "anthropomorphic" is a much better word choice.
But we get your point. (Some of us, anyway.) :)
-mpm
Kris Krieger
>
> "Kris Krieger" <m...@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
> news:Xns9B1C9401841...@216.168.3.70...
>> "Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Sl...@Hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:3_1Ak.452$W06...@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com:
[snip]
>>>
>>> What happened to make people pay more is that they were lured in a a
>>> false sense of financial security and don't have enough brains to
>>> prepare for the future.
>>
>> Not "we" but a lot of people. And in a great many cases, not "lured
>> into" as much as "were eager to be lured into". Some peopel did get
>> rooked, but a great many went into it intending to rook someone else by
>> flipping the place.
>>
>
> Of course... Obviously it's not everyone. I just use that for short
> hand.
Yeah, but I have a compulsion to elaborate ;)
>
> Eager? That might be true but you don't go up to a drug addict and
> offer him drugs... that is unless you want him to do them.
Hmmm, well you do have a point there.
And some folks are nice enough, work hard, and try their best, but, God bless
'em, just are not all that bright, and they do get victimized, which I don't
think is at all right, ethical, or just.
>
> Not everyone has common sense, self control, or emotional aptitude.
> Those banks were taking advantage of the ignorant people without regard
> to the risk.
Treu enough - I was thinking of people who knew enough to know better, and
tried to get "something for nothing" so to speak.
>
> It's not an ignorant persons fault for being ignorant. (not that you
> can't but blame on them and punish them)
I beleive that all people, regrdless of their intelelctual level, deserve
fair ttreatment - I just want to be clear on that ;) But again, there were
also people who knew enough to know better, i.e. had teh capacity to llok at
things and make a decision, but thought they could get away with playing the
game.
Which also BTW includes poeple who are otherwise quite smart - one has to be
dispassionate when it comes to financial decisions, but it seems to me, from
observing others, that greed is the opposite, greed *is* passion, and by its
very nature, passion of any sort intereferes with rational decision-making.
So even smart peole can, if not careful, do sumb things. But still, that is
part of the decision-making process, and a person who is capable of decision-
making also needs to take responsibility for those decisions.
>
>>>
>>> Money was cheap and people were stupid and greedy. You have buyers who
>>> want the biggest and baddest to feed their ego, you have sellers who
>>> want as much money as they can get, and you have creditors who will
>>> loan to anyone(and usually try to swindle in the process).
>>
>> Yup. "Impressing others." Being a misanthrope, my view has always
>> been, "Why should I care whether I impress some dooflolly I don't like,
>> don't resepct, and don't ven know from Adam?", but I'm in a tiny little
>> minority there.
>>
>
> less than 1/1000th of a percent probably. I'm not a misanthrope but just
> value self-worth(essentially what exists in my brain... my knowledge and
> experiences) over any materialistic thing. This is not to say that I
> don't need materials because they can help me expand my self worth but
> that they are far less valuable to me. I guess this might steam from
> knowing that I won't take materialistic things with me when I die but
> their might be a chance I will take my thoughts.
Yup. Essentially, being primarily a creative type, I see beauty in all sorts
of things, so my sense of what is or is not valuable is not influenced by
price. Financial security is important to me, because it's a lto easier to
do the "pursuit of happiness" thing if one has a decent place to live and
decent food to eat. Beyond that, it gets a buit weird becasue in most ways,
I'm incredibly cheap, and will scrimp on all sorts of things as tho' I'm
still living in a one-room roach-infested basement apartment. I even make
stuff for the house because i'm too cheap to buy it premade (esp for the
lousy quality, but that's another story.) But if something "strikes" me in a
fundamental way, well, that's what all of the saving is for :) But the
value is not associated with the price - the price is simply what was needed
to obtain the valued item. Usually, in my case, a piece of artwork, books, a
hand-made musical instrument, and the like.
I also agree with you about the essence of one's life, and the possibility of
that essence enduring. I prefer that my "essence" be love of life, rather
than a nagging dissatisfaction because someone else owns more stuff.
I guess I have something of an Oriental philosophy in that way. If you can
appreciate life and see beauty anywhere, then you always carry your happiness
with you, whether you're sitting on a gilded chair and eating Chateaubriand
made of Kobe beef before attending the symphony, or sitting on your back
stoop eating a hot dog and listening to the tree frogs and crickets.
Not that I'm *against* money, Hell No <LOL!!> It's just that money, in and
of itself, enhances happiness but can't purchase it; strengthens peace of
mind but can't create it; alleviates misery but can't vanquish it.
A lot of people think that is "stupid" and "not cool" and who knows what else
- and that's their choice, and their right. Everyone has to live his own
life.
>
>> Most people care about the *appearance* of wealth, and especially,
>> *having*
>> that appearance. You could be as rich as Croesus, but if you're
>> wearing a t-shirt and jeans like any poor/average schlepp, the vast
>> majority of people wouldn't bother giving you the time of day - and
>> that includes the overdressed poor schlepps =:-o ((The benefit of
>> looking like a poor schlepp, of course, is not having poeple constantly
>> coming up to you begging for money <LOL!>))
>>
>
> Yes. As you know, image is everything.
Yeah =>:-p
>
>>>
>>> Should be rules in place and mandatory that all follow:
>>>
>>> #1. Never buy above your means.
>>> #2. 25% of your income goes towards personal savings. Not 100% towards
>>> blowing it on junk that you don't need or things you want.
>>> #3. Don't expect your creditor to give you a good deal.. expect the
>>> opposite.
>>> #4. Creditors should not loan more than people can afford for any
>>> reason... no excuses. This would have never happaned 50 years ago.
>>
>> Hmmm, are you a fellow resident of Cramerica? ;)
>>
>
> Well, they were just things I thought were logical for economic
> stability... but if that's Cramerica then I'd like to move there ;)
I started watching Jim Cramer a couple months ago. I never understood squat
about "financial stuff", but as I started watching, and reading, I've been
learning. The really *frightening* thing is that I'm suddenly finding it
*interesting* =8-O <LOL!>
Anyhoo, he refers to his "students" as "Cramerica" - people who are learning
how to understand the market and make their own informed financial decisions
- *and* avoiding being financially victimized.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> --------
>>>
>>> We are now in a society where people think money grows on tree's and
>>> the government will always be their for them. I guess the socialist
>>> have won!
>>
>>
>> I don't mind paying to help folks who try their best but just aren't
>> talented or intellectually-gifted enough to have a good job that pays
>> enough to let them save. I don't mind Social Security when it keeps
>> seniors who've worked a lifetime housed and fed; I don't mind
>> disability payment to people who have real disabilities; I don't mind
>> housing and feeding people who,through genetics or injury, can't live
>> independently and
>> need assistance. I do mind when it goes to people making more than the
>> national average income, and is used for increasing numbers of programs
>> that have nothing whatsoever to do with retirement or diability. Some
>> things do benefit teh overall good - decent roads, education (which BTW
>> does *not* include $multi-million sports stadiums for high schools,
>> esp. when the kids are tehn sent into the streets to beg for
>> school-book money),
>> helping those who really need some assistance, and the like.
>>
>
> Sure I agree, but do you mind when it is done extremely inefficient...
> and most likely the guise of helping?
Oh, that's a very different matter ;)
To be honest, I would almsot prefer just directly supporting a family,
becausue I know that the same money, in the hands of the bureaucracy,
*might*, after the "handling fees" are extracted, feed the family's dog...
I have a very practical mindset - which I suppose is, in a way, very "Early
American" - and I see no dichotomy between compassion, and efficiency. More
than that, efficiency allows increased funding for both practical rthings
(roads, ports, etc.) and compassionate things (disability payments, social
security for people who really need it, etc.).
>
> Similarly to the commericals about helping the africans in rowanda, for
> example. They've had the same comercials by the same people for decades
> yet nothing ever gets better there. Only 6 cents a day? These
> "non-profits" are definitely profiting and at the guise of helping ;/
Well, there, I htink it's the thing of "give a man a fish" versus "teach a
man to fish". There are fundamental problems in many of these places, and I
mean fundamental in the sense of soil depletion, chronic drought, and minimal
resources. If an organization supports people but doesn't do anything to
teach them how to do things like improve the soil and otherwise mitigate
their environemnt so as to be able to sustain themselves within it, then what
that organization is doing is compounding the problem.
I sometimes think that's the weak link in the Christian charities - they feed
children, who grow up to have more children - and often, the girls have those
children because they don't know how to not have them, but it's verboten to
teach anything abuot birthcontrol...so, the result is even more children to
feed, more people to support. I think that there is a difference between
valuing life in a way that enhances the quality of life, and valuing birth
rates with far less regard as to the quality of life that those individuals
will have. And by "quality", I don't mean that they all have to have a
mercedes-benz, I mean simply having a decent shelter that will protect them
from the elements, and enough food (and more importantly, ability to produce
that food even after the charities move on) so as to not constantly worry
about the next famine.
>
>>> 100 years ago people were doing fine with any of this crap we have
>>> today. Their were no morgages, credit cards, social security, etc...
>>> Of course their wasn't 300 M people living in a shoebox either.
>>
>> Well, there's the rub. It used to be that you coudl literally go into
>> the wilderness, claim some land, build a place, and have a small farm.
>> It was hard as all hell, of course, but it was doable.
>>
>> Can't really do that now. Land is all owned bysoemone, so mortgages
>> necessary. But even given the things you mention, it *is* entirely
>> possible
>> to be responsible, and it *is* a plain fact that a lot of people refuse
>> to take any responsibility.
>>
>
> Yes. I wonder if it was intentially setup that way or just happenstance.
> After all, with a bunch ignorant people it is sure easy to take their
> money.
No, to at elast some extent, it's a matter of population dynamics, and the
fact that the old "carve a life out of the wilderness" is a friggin' *hard*
way to live. It's easy to speak of the miseries of city life, but pioneer
life - well, I don't know how *any* of them even survived. I owuld have dies
at teh age of 2 due to immune insufficiency, so I wouldn't have had to worry
- and therein is another factor: people generally do whatever they can to
have their children survive. And that's easier to do if one is not living at
a subsistence level.
Even the "old timey" horse'n'buggy towns were economies which involved, at
teh very least, a system of barter. That sort of interdependence both makes
life easier/better, *and* means that some degree of independence is
inevitably given up and social responsibilities are taken on.
In a way, money is just an extension of barter. If A pays B with a chicken,
and B needs somethign likek a bolt of cloth or a tanned hide forn C, but C
already has chickens or instead needs a bale of hay for the horse, it's
simply a lot easier to assign some sort of system of equivalent values.
THat's IIRC the theory why money was created, and it makes sense. If someone
jus twanted to steal the chicken, so to speak, they wouldn't bothe with any
sort of system of equivalent vlaue - they'd just steal the chicken.
I realize that's completely simplified but I don't want to be *completely*
tedious <L!>
>
>>
>>>
>>> I don't know who's fault it is and I most likely it's all of our
>>> fault... it's at least all of our problem(I mean as a collective cause
>>> it's definitely not my fault ;).
>>
>> I think there is a 'famous quote' (whcih I've of course forgotten...)
>> to the effect that "when everyone is at fault, nobody is at fault".
>>
>
> hehe..
>
>> IMO, each individual has to bear a tleast some responsibility for his
>> or her own life. Yeah, sometimes catastrophes happen, but there is a
>> vast difference between that, and simply not taking any responsibility
>> whatsoever for one's life. Too many people want all the benefits of
>> good times, but then demand "everyone else" bail out their butts when
>> they make stupid decisions that land them in tough financial straits.
>> They want what they want, and they believe they are *entitled* to what
>> they want even if everyone else has to bail their a$$ out of hock,
>> *entitled* to go straight from mommie's teat to the gov.t teat.
>>
>
> I believe, more strongly now, that it is the democrats that have
> supported such things. By telling the people that they will be taken
> care of they have lowered the bar for responsiblity. What the people
> hear is that they will be taken care of! The democrats love this because
> it then locks those people into the democratic party. I do not know if
> it was intential with the democrats but I do believe that is what
> happened.
Well, yes and no. In a way, that's putting the proverbial cart in front of
the horse. Dependence is a *result* of certain policies that are primarily
linked with what is currently the Democratic party, but the policies were not
originally formed with the intent of making people dependent. THe origins
are things like the outlawing of child labor, the idea of a living wage, and
so on - things that opened opportunity to more people.
What gets lost in all of the current hooplah is that many "socialist"
policies are well-intentioned, and really, based in very American ideals
regarding equal rights. Just as many Republican policies are based in very
American ideals about personal independence. Lack of regulation, and lack of
enfrocement of existing laws, basically led to the current financial mess,
*however*, the mess was not the *intent* of those who supported deregulation
because they though it'd reduce gov.t interference.
Looking at it dispassionately, what you have is two basic philosophies *that
seek to do what is good for the nation*. Yes, there crooked-ass people in
both parties, and worse yet, there are "pundits" who preach divisiveness and
*discourage* the sort of communication and comprimise required to solve
problems. But there are also many good, well-meaning, and intelligent people
who simply have differnt views regarding the best way to solve problems.
People who merely sling insults are not interested in solving problems, only
in garnering a few moments of attention. The problem is that when
increasing numbers of people reduce political debate to nothing more that
sreaming insults back and forth, they drown out attempts at rational
discussion.
>
>> There is a difference between being a compassionate society, and being
>> a society consisting of weary nursing sows and greedy unsatisfiable
>> piglets. And a big problem is that, when many people start feeling like
>> nothing more
>> than walking teats, backlash tends to occur, with compassion discarded
>> as well.
>
> and unfortunately we are either too big or too selfish(not willing to
> sacrfice) to change. It's a sad state and I don't see any light at the
> end of the tunnel... but hell, maybe that's a good thing.
There is yet another "famous quote" I can't remember about the light in the
tunnel turning out to be a train... =:-o
Seriously, tho', lack of leadership is nly half the problem - the other half
is that too amny people have forgotten about being Americans. What does that
mean? In part, it means rejecting thegood little couch-potato consumer bit,
and having the gumption to get up, go out, and work to shape one's own life.
If current attitudes had pervailed in the past, there never would have been
an America - peopel would have just done whatever the Monarch told them to,
wanted exactly what the Monarch told them to want, and so on. We've become
focused upon "cocooning", and too many people have become so ficused upon
trying to force everyone to think/want/feel exactly what they do, that
they've become myopic, self-righteous, self-obsessed, and blind to the
Promise that inspired the foundation of this nation.
We're not to big - no, sadly, we've actually become too small, too petty.
And therein lies the pity of it.
MooseFET
> Simon S Aysdie <gwh...@ti.com> wrote in news:eb1591e7-7547-4d41-9544-
Social Security was created to reduce the degree to which the elderly
add to the number of people living in poverty. It has been a success
at this. We hear stories about the elderly living on cat food etc but
it is far less common than most people imagine. It also serves to
move the elderly out of the work force and lower the unemployment
numbers. When we remove the program, we will have to deal with both
of these effects.
The effort to "privatize" social security is the most frightening
thing being proposed. People will not be free to invest the money as
they choose. They will only be allowed to put the money into some
"safe" investments and not allowed to put it into others. This will
be introduced as preventing people from losing the money by putting it
all into things like rare stamps. It will however be giving a new and
very dangerous power to the regulators. If a company doesn't do what
the regulators want, they can be taken off the list of "safe"
investments. This will give that small body of people a huge power
over the economy.
Rich Grise
Huh? What's "imaginary" about "able to be traded for food"?
Thanks,
Rich
Richard Henry
Imagine you are one of the last two people on earth. Your neighbor
has a loaf of bread. You have a gold coin. Who's eating dinner
tonight?
Simon S Aysdie
See definition #1; "animistic" in context just means ascribing a
conciousness to "some thing" that has no conciousness. I do not
equate conciousness with "soul."
an·i·mism
an·i·mism (?n??-m?z´?m) noun
1. The attribution of conscious life to natural objects or to nature
itself.
2. The belief in the existence of spiritual beings that are separable
or separate from bodies.
3. The hypothesis holding that an immaterial force animates the
universe.
Excerpted from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English
Language, Third Edition Copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Electronic version licensed from Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products
N.V., further reproduction and distribution restricted in accordance
with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.
Spehro Pefhany
The guy who also has a gun?
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
sp...@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
If I was one of the last two people on earth, it wouldn't matter much,
would it?
See, since I'm right, and you're wrong, you throw up a strawman to deflect
the facts from trashing your hypothesis.
Thanks for yet another example of brain-lock.
Cheers!
Rich
Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 10:06:58 -0700 (PDT), Richard Henry
>>> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:42:57 -0700, Richard Henry wrote:
>>> > On Sep 18, 10:13 am, Rich Grise <r...@example.net> wrote:
>>> >> If people will accept bits of gold in exchange for wheat, meat, etc,
>>> >> then it has value.
>>>
>>> > Imaginary value.
>>>
>>> Huh? What's "imaginary" about "able to be traded for food"?
>>
>>Imagine you are one of the last two people on earth. Your neighbor has a
>>loaf of bread. You have a gold coin. Who's eating dinner tonight?
>
> The guy who also has a gun?
Hear, Hear!!!!
Thanks!
Rich