HUGE redistribution of wealth happened

[RGacky3]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/01/federal-reserve-documents_1_n_790433.html

And I mean directly, CASH payments made directly to corporations like McDonalds, GE, many many other corporations and of coarse the Mega Banks, the people that are hurting.

All I can say is .... nothing .... theres nothing I Can say, there is no way they should gey away with this. All I can say is if any one sees this guy
http://www.blic.rs/_customfiles/Image/slike/2009/08_avgust/21/ekonomija/bernanke-vr.jpg

In a restaurant, go and punch him in the face and don't stop untill they hall you away, and we'll start a fund to bail you out and give you a medal.

[RGacky3]

Maybe this is just out of frusturation, but how the hell is it that 3.3 trillion dollars just got handed out from the fed to different banks and corporations, money that is essencially taking from the poor and middle class, and yet people would rather talk about some crazy cambodian dictator that was around 50 years ago!!! This is why Leninist will never be a force in the left again, or in the world, because they are too busy debating elections in 1918 and the merits of half a century old dictators.

[Robert]

From your link:


UPDATE: A previous version of this post incorrectly stated that McDonald's was one of the recipients of Federal Reserve aid. A McDonald's representative said that the Federal Reserve erroneously listed the restaurant chain on its aid recipients list. The actual aid recipient was Golden Funding Corporation.
The Federal Reserve’s Commercial Paper Funding Facility (CPFF) presents a particularly stark portrait of the depth of the crisis in the fall of 2008. Commercial paper refers to short-term loans that businesses and some governments use to fund day-to-day operation. The market for such paper was quickly freezing up, as money market and mutual funds backed away, worried about the solvency of the corporations. The Fed jumped in to start buying the paper, sending cash to more than a thousand companies and foreign governments, including Mitsubishi, Harley-Davidson, Amstel Funding Corp., GE, to the Bank or Korea. Bank of America was on the receiving end of several billion in such loans made over several days. The Fed says that all these loans were repaid. -- Ryan Grim




You may have principled objections to the program, but you might familiarize yourself with what it really was before you make them.

[Bud Struggle]

Well overall you are right Gack--it was a huge redistribution of wealth. The banks and the insurance companies that got money were just handed huge sums to cover what is in effect were gambling debts.

Now you and I have to cover those debts. But the issue is--if these banks failed it a lot more problems could have happened. (And I'm not saying I totally go along with this line of thinking) but if the banks failed there would be now way for capital to move from places that had huge stores of it to people who need it and use it to make their busiiness work.

The smaller less well financed businesses and people would be at the TOTAL mercy of the rich people and businesses. Literally the fear was that maybe a couple of thousand people and businesses could have owned the entire country.

As i said, I'm not completely sanguine with that line of thinking--but IF it WAS TRUE that might have caused your Revolution.

[RGacky3]

Robert, that was just one small part of the bailout. A lot of it was stright up bail outs, some of it was the Fed buying securities that both it and the banks new were worthless at inflated prices (thats a bailout), and some of it was loans at almost no interest (thats also a bailout). But nice cherry picking.


But the issue is--if these banks failed it a lot more problems could have happened. (And I'm not saying I totally go along with this line of thinking) but if the banks failed there would be now way for capital to move from places that had huge stores of it to people who need it and use it to make their busiiness work.


I agree, to a point (not totally I think there were many other options, let the banks fail and give the bailout to the bottom), but if your gonna bail them out, then socialize them, put them under public control, otherwise they'll just repeat themselves. Which is what they are doing, they were bailed out, and they are not sending the money down, they are pocketing it, why would'nt they? Its not working.


The smaller less well financed businesses and people would be at the TOTAL mercy of the rich people and businesses. Literally the fear was that maybe a couple of thousand people and businesses could have owned the entire country.


Except thats exactly what happened, the banks got bailed out and they held on to it, they hold the country by the balls. The money is not trickeling down, and Capitalism is collapsing.

If Obama wanted to save Capitalism it would have made damn sure the money trickled down, that would mean heavy heavy regulations, and probably some socialization.

[Robert]

This particular series of measures (for which Gacky calls for physical violence) began when ordinary investors began withdrawing money from mutual funds and money markets that had invested in short term commercial paper. You have to know what commercial paper and mutual funds and money markets are (do you?) before you can understand what Gacky condemns.

People (ordinary as well as rich people) had gotten justifiably scared in the wake of the subprime mortgage crisis, a wholly separate problem that started when banks were pressured by bleeding hearts to lend money to people they knew full well weren't credit worthy so they could buy big houses they didn't even need (hence the name "subprime").

As these ordinary people went and got their money out of mutual funds to buy treasuries, more ordinary people lined up to get their money too. Just like if every depositor at First Federal of DesMoines decide to simultaneously withdraw their savings deposits at once.

These fund managers did not "screw the little people." They honored the demands of the little people and started selling whatever they had to to honor the demands.

They could not continue to honor those commitments indefinitely without intervention from the central bank. You have to know what commercial paper is to understand the problem.

To hear Gacky and the Huff Post tell it, a bunch of corrupt politicians just decided to just give trillions of dollars to their already rich friends for the fun of it.

Obviously, if you don't approve of capitalism in the first place, then you could never approve of any remedy to any commercial problem.

And no doubt, every time money changes hands, there is potential for corruption. The rescue plan itself was not corrupt based on anything you have posted.

[RGacky3]

This particular series of measures (for which Gacky calls for physical violence)

THe US calls for physical violence when a guy robs a bank ... But the other way around? But I was'nt calling for violence, I'm much more reasonable than the US state.


People (ordinary as well as rich people) had gotten justifiably scared in the wake of the subprime mortgage crisis, a wholly separate problem that started when banks were pressured by bleeding hearts to lend money to people they knew full well weren't credit worthy so they could buy big houses they didn't even need (hence the name "subprime").


Pressured by huge huge huge profits when they collapsed because those morgages were hedged against, this was the market working.

Your completely misreading what happened, it was'nt bleeding hearts, it was cut throat capitalists, wanting to take peoples houses while making money by shorting the morgages.

They took their money out pretty much for good reason, the mortgate crisis caused to the collapse of banks, which means trouble for corporations that trade with banks. Banks have huge amounts of investments and if they have to liquidate those investments its a HUGE problem for the market, not only that but the banks can't issue credit to corporations either.


As these ordinary people went and got their money out of mutual funds to buy treasuries, more ordinary people lined up to get their money too. Just like if every depositor at First Federal of DesMoines decide to simultaneously withdraw their savings deposits at once.


Do you have any statistics on that??? Also why were people getting out of mutual funds? Because the whole market was inflated.


These fund managers did not "screw the little people." They honored the demands of the little people and started selling whatever they had to to honor the demands.


They created a fake market and tried to sell it to people by essencially lying to them.


They could not continue to honor those commitments indefinitely without intervention from the central bank. You have to know what commercial paper is to understand the problem.


I know waht commercial paper is, but these were not things given out to little guys. The "little guy" did'nt make money off of this incase you hav'nt noticed.


To hear Gacky and the Huff Post tell it, a bunch of corrupt politicians just decided to just give trillions of dollars to their already rich friends for the fun of it.


IT was to save capitalism, i.e. save the corporate power structure and the banking structure. When corporations and banks make wildly irrational desicions, they collapse, then the government saves them.

I'm not saying don't bail out the economy, I'm saying do it in a way that fixes the problem.


And no doubt, every time money changes hands, there is potential for corruption. The rescue plan itself was not corrupt based on anything you have posted.

It was ... legal .... if thats whay you mean, but anyone looking at this objectively would realize that this is essencially legal corruption and redistribution of wealth.

Turn off Fox news man.

[Robert]

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

I highly recommend you take a course in basic finance before you pretend further expertise in this area.

[RGacky3]

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

I highly recommend you take a course in basic finance before you pretend further expertise in this area.


Where am I wrong? I suggest you take a course in economics (other than fox news).

[Jimmie Higgins]

People (ordinary as well as rich people) had gotten justifiably scared in the wake of the subprime mortgage crisis, a wholly separate problem that started when banks were pressured by bleeding hearts to lend money to people they knew full well weren't credit worthy so they could buy big houses they didn't even need (hence the name "subprime"). :laugh: What bullshit! 200 years ago you'd be arguing in the tavern: "No, you don't understand, the King was chosen by God to protect us! No, you don't know theology like I do, the papal rooster sat on the crib of the baby King and so we know that Louie is blessed to rule us. A hunch-backed nun told me an angel appeared to her in a rye field and told her so!"

[RGacky3]

What Robert is really saying is that the poor and middle class should really blame themselves for being so greedy and they they were the ones that crashed the economy to the detriment of the poor powerless banks and corporations who needed to be saved by the state, because they had nothing to do with this, they were just trying to keep their obligations and were getting pressured to do things which ended up making them giant profits and bonuses short term.

Its essencially the Fox News argument which is not at all based on reality.

[Revolution starts with U]

The housing programs were going just fine, even made it through the dot.com bubble. It was only when the banks gambled all their money away and they jacked up rates sky high that people weren't able to pay their mortgages anymore. My uncle's mortgage doubled in like 2 years.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The housing programs were going just fine, even made it through the dot.com bubble. It was only when the banks gambled all their money away and they jacked up rates sky high that people weren't able to pay their mortgages anymore. My uncle's mortgage doubled in like 2 years.That's because your uncle got doubly greedy and slackery in those 2 years with all his entitlements.



People (ordinary as well as rich people) had gotten justifiably scared in the wake of the subprime mortgage crisis, a wholly separate problem that started when banks were pressured by bleeding hearts to lend money to people they knew full well weren't credit worthy so they could buy big houses they didn't even need (hence the name "subprime").

Ok, here's my more serious answer to this statement:
How Ruthless Banks Gutted the Black Middle Class and Got Away With It (http://www.alternet.org/story/148068/)


One former Wells Fargo loan officer testifying in a lawsuit filed by the city of Baltimore against the bank says fellow employers routinely referred to subprime loans as “ghetto loans” and black people as “mud people.” He says he was reprimanded for not pushing higher priced loans to black borrowers who qualified for prime or cheaper loans. Another loan officer, Beth Jacobson, says the black community was seen “as fertile ground for subprime mortgages, as working-class blacks were hungry to be a part of the nation’s home-owning mania.”



“We just went right after them,” Jacobson said, according to the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/us/07baltimore.html), adding that the black church was frequently targeted as the bank believed church leaders could convince their congregations to take out loans. There are numerous reports throughout the nation of black church leaders being paid incentives for drumming up business.


The broken mortgage promise (http://socialistworker.org/2010/10/13/the-broken-mortgage-promise)


Bank Accused of Pushing Mortgage Deals on Blacks (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/us/07baltimore.html?_r=1)

[#FF0000]

The housing programs were going just fine, even made it through the dot.com bubble. It was only when the banks gambled all their money away and they jacked up rates sky high that people weren't able to pay their mortgages anymore. My uncle's mortgage doubled in like 2 years.

lol I remember Bank of America did this to us when my dad lost his job. I called them up and said "Yeah we can't pay can we refinance or whatever it is we do" and they said "Alright" and now suddenly we're paying twice what we were paying before.

[#FF0000]

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

I highly recommend you take a course in basic finance before you pretend further expertise in this area.

I am taking one this very semester and according to my professor you are wrong.

[Robert]

It was only when the banks gambled all their money away and they jacked up rates sky high that people weren't able to pay their mortgages anymore. My uncle's mortgage doubled in like 2 years.I'm sorry, I suppose, for your uncle's woes. But taking out an ARM is a huge gamble, the risks are fuly disclosed at the outset, and many people took one out on the assumption they'd be able to flip their house. And many people (those who sold in 2006) really did flip their houses and paid off their ARMS. I would never have trusted the markets or the banks or the indices they use to keep my ARM rate low.

Jimmie, I recommend valium.:)

p.s. <Louis>

p.s.s. George III

[RGacky3]

That was not the cause of the crash, nor does it justify the redistribution of wealth that just happened.

[Robert]

RGacky3, if you want an ARM, go get yourself one. Then cry about it when the rates go up.

I DON"T CARE.

[Bud Struggle]

RGacky3, if you want an ARM, go get yourself one. Then cry about it when the rates go up.

I DON"T CARE.

Rober's right. The ONLY reason to get an ARM is if you wanted to gamble that the housing prices would go up and the market would remain hot and you could either refinance or flip.

You also got a LOT bigger house than you could normally afford and live there for a couple of years. It's a gamble that few Americans could actually pull off correctly. As Robert noted some did, but that was because they probably were lucky not because they were smart.)

[Revolution starts with U]

Yes, but most people are not economists. When your bank you've trusted for a decade tells you you can lower your payments by taking on a new loan, you want to trust them.

I have a friend, total deadbeat. Imo, when I borrow him money, it's kind of my fault I don't get paid back... because I know he's a deadbeat.

[RGacky3]

RGacky3, if you want an ARM, go get yourself one. Then cry about it when the rates go up.

I DON"T CARE.


The last scream of a defeated man.

[Robert]

I had to read the narrow complaints about ARM's (adjustable rate mortgages) in this very thread before I realized what is really bothering the so-called leftists on the board. I now suspect that you aren't really leftist at all.

No one would be complaining if their ARMS's stayed low or even went down. Nor would they be complaining if they had sold their houses in 2006, paid off the ARM before rates rose and reaped a windfall from the then-rising house prices.

But if you or a family member bets wrong, snapping up currently "cheap" rates at the heigh of a bubble to get a bigger house than needed (check the average house sizes over the last 50 years) to flip it quick at the expense of a neighbor/fellow comrade, all of a sudden it's "the system" and "the capitalists" who are to blame for your bad market timing. Your own greed, lack of acumen and financial recklessness for some reason figure nowhere on the blame chart.

Funny it took me this long to notice, but you have brought it into very clear focus.

[RGacky3]

I never got an ARM and never would get one, because I think its a bad idea, but thats not the point.

This was'nt an idea of people betting their houses going up in value, the people speculating on housing were not your average jow, what they were betting on is their morgage rate being reasonable, working class people were not flipping houses, house flipping is a tiny tiny market in the long run.

This was about an INCENTIVE for banks to make the mortgages fail, because those mortgages were mostly people living in thier homes, those were hedged against which means the banks make a shitload of money if they fail.

But I don't know how many people here on Revleft own their house, I'm betting most people here rent, so making it personal is pretty rediculous.

And blaming house flippers has absolutely no basis in reality, maybe they are responsible for their own loosing money, but for the crash? Are you insane? It was entirely the Capitalist system and the incentive structure of finance.

[Revolution starts with U]

That's completely off the point. The point is the banks come in with ARMs like snake oil salesmen, telling you this thing you have and will work the rest of your life for can become a source of income for you, and then it fails. No avg joe is "flipping" houses.
Don't get me wrong, people are to blame for buying into this failure as well, but I you don't look at the shenanigans behind it (and as far as giving loans to people w/o jobs, well... like I said, if I give a loan to a deadbeat, I shouldn't expect it back; my fault).

[Bud Struggle]

I never got an ARM and never would get one, because I think its a bad idea, but thats not the point. Good.


This was'nt an idea of people betting their houses going up in value, the people speculating on housing were not your average jow, what they were betting on is their morgage rate being reasonable, working class people were not flipping houses, house flipping is a tiny tiny market in the long run. They were betting. They were betting that if they took on more house than they could afford (and that was the crux of the matter) they BET that in five years the mortage rates would drop, the housing prices would go up and they could sell or they would make more money. They were betting.


This was about an INCENTIVE for banks to make the mortgages fail, because those mortgages were mostly people living in thier homes, those were hedged against which means the banks make a shitload of money if they fail. The banks were the ones that got hurt when the mortages failed. Thats why they needed the bailout. A couple of VERY high rollers make money in this failure--but it wasn't the banks, they were the ones caught with all the securitized mortages that weren't performing.


But I don't know how many people here on Revleft own their house, I'm betting most people here rent, so making it personal is pretty rediculous. It got personal when people started in with their "my uncle," "my friend" friend stories.


And blaming house flippers has absolutely no basis in reality, maybe they are responsible for their own loosing money, but for the crash? Are you insane? It was entirely the Capitalist system and the incentive structure of finance. People were betting and they lost--a few were house flippers, most weren't--but all were greedy. People that did the reasonable thing and took out a standard 30 year--didn't get hurt at all.

[RGacky3]

They were betting. They were betting that if they took on more house than they could afford (and that was the crux of the matter) they BET that in five years the mortage rates would drop, the housing prices would go up and they could sell or they would make more money. They were betting.



They wern't taking more than they could afford, the banks made sure that it became more than they could afford because the banks would make a rediculous amount of money from it, which they did.

Now of caorse some of them did take more than they could afford, but that is far from the major reason for the crash.


The banks were the ones that got hurt when the mortages failed. Thats why they needed the bailout. A couple of VERY high rollers make money in this failure--but it wasn't the banks, they were the ones caught with all the securitized mortages that weren't performing.


It was the hedgefunds that made all of that money, so the institutions of the banks yeah, because they were the ones taking the loans, but the hedgefunds that were directly associated with the banks made a killing (as was intended).


It got personal when people started in with their "my uncle," "my friend" friend stories.


I see, but blaiming the little guy for something like this is extremely rediculous. Its like when ciggarette companies know that it caused cancer, they hid that information, and then kept selling and selling and selling and advertising and advertising, and creating an "image" then some people bought on to it, the companies made a killing and people died, then you blame the people for being naive.

It just shows the attitude difference between the left and the right, the left, attacks power and defends the power less, the right ALWAYS defends power and blames the powerless (dispite the fact that they are in fact, powerless in the big scheme of things).


People were betting and they lost--a few were house flippers, most weren't--but all were greedy. People that did the reasonable thing and took out a standard 30 year--didn't get hurt at all.

Actually they did because their houses value plumeted, many lost their jobs and so on and so forth.

Anytime anyone does anything in the market they are betting, but blaiming the crash on them makes absolutely no sense at all. Saying all were greedy is disingenous, at best, your calling people who wanted to own a home or people that were told they had value in their house and believed it greedy and thus responsible for what happend? But NOT the Hedge funders that made millions upon millions of dollard wrecking the economy and destroying millions of peoples lives? Or the Bankers that literally lied to people to turn a profit, and give themselves millions upon millions in Bonus money?

Again just the difference in attitude, the peasent is greedy for wanting a family plot of land, the King wanting to control everything and more is just looking out for his kingdom, thats the right wing attitude, and its not based in fact or reality, its based in the mindset of power is to be defended and power is just and the powerless are to be trampled on and should not want anything more than whats allowed for them.

[Robert]

Saying all were greedy is disingenous, at best, your calling people who wanted to own a home or people that were told they had value in their house and believed it greedySo there was NO OTHER WAY to get shelter in the 00's than to speculate with a variable rate mortgage, is that the complaint du jour?

News flash: there have always been fixed rate mortgages, and there have always been small inexpensive houses to buy, ~1200 sq. feet like the ones I grew up in.

Some buyers were greedy, some were too lazy to read the contract, and some were just plain dumb. Yes, I think "greedy" does apply to those who chose an ARM over the fixed rate offer sitting on the counter right in front of them, or at the bank down the street. No different than throwing dice on a table.

What you leftists want is a world that protects you from bad business decisions. Heads you win, tails I lose, right? I'm a little disappointed in you, to tell you the truth.

[Bud Struggle]

News flash: there have always been fixed rate mortgages, and there have always been small inexpensive houses to buy, ~1200 sq. feet like the ones I grew up in.

Me too! Stately Struggle Manor of my youth!
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y43/MercutioTomK/home20001a-1.jpg

[RGacky3]

So there was NO OTHER WAY to get shelter in the 00's than to speculate with a variable rate mortgage, is that the complaint du jour?

News flash: there have always been fixed rate mortgages, and there have always been small inexpensive houses to buy, ~1200 sq. feet like the ones I grew up in.



News Flash, incentive systems make a difference, what is possible or not is'nt relevent when it comes to systemic problems.

News flash: People live in an area, and work there and not everyone can move to a Nebrasken small town.


Some buyers were greedy, some were too lazy to read the contract, and some were just plain dumb. Yes, I think "greedy" does apply to those who chose an ARM over the fixed rate offer sitting on the counter right in front of them, or at the bank down the street. No different than throwing dice on a table.

What you leftists want is a world that protects you from bad business decisions. Heads you win, tails I lose, right? I'm a little disappointed in you, to tell you the truth.

Are you saying some of these people whome you call greedy (I could care less whether or not they were greedy because its irrelivent) Caused the entire crash?

The world your describing is EXACTLY the world we live in, except its only for the rich.

[Revolution starts with U]

They were betting. They were betting that if they took on more house than they could afford (and that was the crux of the matter) they BET that in five years the mortage rates would drop, the housing prices would go up and they could sell or they would make more money. They were betting.
See, here's my problem... We (or at least I) are perfectly willing to place blame on people for buying into what was clearly a scam. But you bourgie haters aren't willing to place blame where it belongs the most; at the top.
Once again, if I loan a known deadbeat some money, he's an asshole, but it's really my fault; I knew he was a deadbeat.


The banks were the ones that got hurt when the mortages failed. Thats why they needed the bailout. A couple of VERY high rollers make money in this failure--but it wasn't the banks, they were the ones caught with all the securitized mortages that weren't performing
Were they? Were they really?! Have you really shut your brain off so much you don't remember the giant bonuses and spending bailout money on trips to cancun and shit?!
The banks made a ton of money. Chase alone was posting 300% profits afterward.
What a joke. You're barely worth discussing with anymore..


It got personal when people started in with their "my uncle," "my friend" friend stories.
It's called anectdotal, but whatever. You can make it personal because you have a grudge against Gacky. :rolleyes::lol:


People were betting and they lost--a few were house flippers, most weren't--but all were greedy. People that did the reasonable thing and took out a standard 30 year--didn't get hurt at all.
Nope that's false. ARM's may have been the lion's share of the foreclosures, but many others lost there house too. You know, what with everybody losing their high paying jobs for service sector shit holes.

[Revolution starts with U]

You got the mirror in your photo Bud (also we all know that was never your house).

[Bud Struggle]

You got the mirror in your photo Bud (also we all know that was never your house).

It was. I took that pic a couple of years ago driving by. I went by my old HS too. My dad built it after work for three years. He dug out the basement with a shovel by hand with my mom and two older sisters. My brother and I lived in the attic bedroom.

He never had a mortage on the place.

[Revolution starts with U]

I find it hard to believe you. But Ill take your word for it...
(tho I still really don't believe you)

[Bud Struggle]

See, here's my problem... We (or at least I) are perfectly willing to place blame on people for buying into what was clearly a scam. But you bourgie haters aren't willing to place blame where it belongs the most; at the top.
Once again, if I loan a known deadbeat some money, he's an asshole, but it's really my fault; I knew he was a deadbeat. I'll agree there--both the banks and the people were to blame.


Were they? Were they really?! Have you really shut your brain off so much you don't remember the giant bonuses and spending bailout money on trips to cancun and shit?!
The banks made a ton of money. Chase alone was posting 300% profits afterward.
What a joke. You're barely worth discussing with anymore.. Some banks made money--some failed. Yea banker's made out--but that didn't help the people that owned the banks--the stockholders.


It's called anectdotal, but whatever. You can make it personal because you have a grudge against Gacky. :rolleyes::lol: I have nothing against Gacky, I think I could safely safely say he has nothing against me--we just disagree.


Nope that's false. ARM's may have been the lion's share of the foreclosures, but many others lost there house too. You know, what with everybody losing their high paying jobs for service sector shit holes. I agree there, too. The economy at this present time sucks if you don't have money to invest. If you do--it's paradise.

[Revolution starts with U]

I cant believe you can write that post and still believe in capitalism....

[Bud Struggle]

I find it hard to believe you. But Ill take your word for it...
(tho I still really don't believe you)

My parents came from Poland in the 30s. My father got a job making sneekers in a major rubber company. He went deaf.

We were poor, Catholic and happy--I couldn't wish for a better childhood.

[Ele'ill]

Me too! Stately Struggle Manor of my youth!
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y43/MercutioTomK/home20001a-1.jpg


That's a pretty nice place.

[Bud Struggle]

That pic was taken YEARS after we mover out. When we lived ther it was much bigger. ;) :D

[Ele'ill]

Bud, what state?

[Bud Struggle]

Bud, what state?

CT

[Robert]

Here's a photo of my old house:

No, it appears it didn't even make google maps.

[Ele'ill]

I use google maps' street view to visit family and friends

[Robert]

I use google maps' street view to visit family and friends

Um ... what? I thought all you could do was look at the buildings.

[Ele'ill]

Um ... what? I thought all you could do was look at the buildings.

There are places I have not been to and people I have not seen for years and it's painfully sweet to be able to leave a residence that was once my own and travel on a sunny day through the cities I used to live and work in to a friends house. Their car is even out on the street.

[Jimmie Higgins]

But if you or a family member bets wrong, snapping up currently "cheap" rates at the heigh of a bubble to get a bigger house than needed (check the average house sizes over the last 50 years) to flip it quick at the expense of a neighbor/fellow comrade, all of a sudden it's "the system" and "the capitalists" who are to blame for your bad market timing. Your own greed, lack of acumen and financial recklessness for some reason figure nowhere on the blame chart.

Funny it took me this long to notice, but you have brought it into very clear focus.

Yeah it was simply that regular people got "greedy" not that wages have been stagnating and standards of living declining and the capitalists have been directly telling us the way to make up for that stagnation is by turning our retirement funds into stocks and refinance our homes:


Mr. Greenspan mentioned that "Many homeowners might have saved tens of thousands of dollars had they held adjustable-rate mortgages rather than fixed-rate mortgages."

[Revolution starts with U]

^ owned :thumbup:

[Robert]

Buy whatever you want, whenever you want, as much as you want.

Charge it. :thumbup1:

[Revolution starts with U]

Cuz that's exactly what happened :rolleyes:
You're very easily propagandized...

[Robert]

Neither a borrower nor a lender be,
For loan oft loses both itself and friend,
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry.
Hamlet Act 1, scene 3, 75–77 (http://www.enotes.com/hamlet-text/act-i-scene-iii#ham-1-3-79)

I coulda written that.

Probably.

Not.

But it's true.

[Revolution starts with U]

Ya, cuz Shakespear is a bastion of morals and ethics :rolleyes:

[RGacky3]

Buy whatever you want, whenever you want, as much as you want.

Charge it. :thumbup1:


No one is saying that numbnuts, what we are saying is that personal irresponsibility did not cause the economic collapse.

You can't prove that it did, you can't prove that this was cased by somehow everyone in America being stupid, because your wrong, it was systemic problems and wrong incentive systems, so just stop embarrasing yourself further.

[ComradeMan]

Ya, cuz Shakespear is a bastion of morals and ethics :rolleyes:

Shakespeare was a great bastion of morals and ethics, if you read his plays you find the characters struggling with moral dilemmas that are still relevant today.

The banking and finance system that created the situation in which people were foolishly encouraged to borrow money they could not pay back is deplorable, but people themselves also dig their own holes at times. If people were not so selfish and materialistic in didn't play the game then the game would collapse.

If you play with wasps then you are going to get stung.

[Revolution starts with U]

Yes, I said that Comrade. People have responsiblity for believing the hype, but the real problem lies in the system. That's been my stance all along.
But Shakespear for morals? Seriously, what morals did you learn in Romeo and Juliet? Midnight Summer's Dream? Hamlet?
THey're good entertainment and all, but I don't look at Romeo or Hamlet as any kind of role model.

[Bud Struggle]

Yes, I said that Comrade. People have responsiblity for believing the hype, but the real problem lies in the system. That's been my stance all along. The system could always be tweeked to work better but for the most part 90% of Americans have a job and are doing OK.



But Shakespear for morals? Seriously, wha t morals did you learn in Romeo and Juliet? Midnight Summer's Dream? Hamlet?
THey're good entertainment and all, but I don't look at Romeo or Hamlet as any kind of role model. With all due respect Rev, you are WAY out of your depth here. :cool:

[RGacky3]

The system could always be tweeked to work better but for the most part 90% of Americans have a job and are doing OK.


Nope, it could'nt the problems of the economy go right down to the fundementals of capitalism.

10% unemployment means those actually applying, meaning theres probably a lot more that are not in the system, also those that do have jobs have to work harder for less along with rising prices, they also have terrible job security, and purpetual poverty.

BTW, 10% is a HUGE number.

[Bud Struggle]

Nope, it could'nt the problems of the economy go right down to the fundementals of capitalism.

10% unemployment means those actually applying, meaning theres probably a lot more that are not in the system, also those that do have jobs have to work harder for less along with rising prices, they also have terrible job security, and purpetual poverty.

BTW, 10% is a HUGE number.

It is a huge number but those kinds of things happen now and then and they eventually get straightened out. Capitalism isn't centrally planned so there are glitches--but things eventually get better and then there is some sort of bubble and the cycle goes on and on. There is nothing terriblly bad about it.

[RGacky3]

Capitalism isn't centrally planned so there are glitches--but things eventually get better and then there is some sort of bubble and the cycle goes on and on. There is nothing terriblly bad about it.

Yes it is, hell this whole crash was planned by banksers and hedgefunders. The only time things get better is when politicians put some time of public controls on the economy, but its only a matter of time before it crashes again.

As for nothing terrible about it, this is'nt just another bubble and bust, this is a worldwide depression, and its not getting better. This is'nt something that Capitalism fixes.

[ComradeMan]

Yes, I said that Comrade. People have responsiblity for believing the hype, but the real problem lies in the system. That's been my stance all along.
But Shakespear for morals? Seriously, what morals did you learn in Romeo and Juliet? Midnight Summer's Dream? Hamlet?
THey're good entertainment and all, but I don't look at Romeo or Hamlet as any kind of role model.

Okay on the first part I agree, but still- no one forced anyone to borrow money they couldn't pay back- at the same time the system is bad and it encourages foolish spending in order to gain "material wealth", I suppose it's a vicious circle but you can't have the one without the other.

As for Shakespeare- well the characters are not meant to be role models, they are meant to be people with ambiguous natures who struggle with their demons, not entirely good, not entirely bad. Take the Merchant of Venice for example. None of the characters are fundamentally good or bad, even Shylock has his redeeming features and he is technically in the right yet at the same wrong in his lack of humanity- Shakespeare highlights the anti-Semitism of the times and paints a portrait of Shylock as someone victimised and embittered by a hostile society.

[Bud Struggle]

Yes it is, hell this whole crash was planned by banksers and hedgefunders.

No, no, no! Really. The banks were just as much--actually more (they should have known better)--the dupes of the hedge funds. The banks were the actual targets of the funds. Over all the house buyers were greedy, but the banks were VERY greedy. They were desperate for income and they had watered down any money making was buy charging fees to do the transactions--so they churned at every opportunity. The hedge funds picked up on this and went after them with some tragically placed insurance bets.

And they fucked them big time. The mortgage buyers were just collateral (no pun intended) damage.

Actually, this is kind of my business--so I probably own everybody a very long detailed explanation of what actually happened--but that's the just of it.

[RGacky3]

No, no, no! Really. The banks were just as much--actually more (they should have known better)--the dupes of the hedge funds. The banks were the actual targets of the funds. Over all the house buyers were greedy, but the banks were VERY greedy. They were desperate for income and they had watered down any money making was buy charging fees to do the transactions--so they churned at every opportunity. The hedge funds picked up on this and went after them with some tragically placed insurance bets.


Most of the Hedge Funds were RUN by the banks, the same people in the banks, the CEOs and executives of these banks made like bandits, they made the investments, sold them off and then hedged against them.


And they fucked them big time. The mortgage buyers were just collateral (no pun intended) damage.


The banks as institutions got fucked (not really though because they were all federally insured and they were bailed out), but the executives of the banks made off like bandits.

Institutions don't matter, they are just tools, what matters is the people that run them.


Actually, this is kind of my business--so I probably own everybody a very long detailed explanation of what actually happened--but that's the just of it.

YOu don't really know waht happend :P

[Bud Struggle]

Most of the Hedge Funds were RUN by the banks, the same people in the banks, the CEOs and executives of these banks made like bandits, they made the investments, sold them off and then hedged against them. No not at all.


The banks as institutions got fucked (not really though because they were all federally insured and they were bailed out), but the executives of the banks made off like bandits. the banks faild and were bailed out.


Institutions don't matter, they are just tools, what matters is the people that run them. Platitudes.


YOu don't really know waht happend :P Brother Gacky--you are getting close to being part of the tinfoil hat set. REALLY CLOSE.

[RGacky3]

Brother Gacky--you are getting close to being part of the tinfoil hat set. REALLY CLOSE.

If thats the case then so are almost all major economists.


the banks faild and were bailed out.


AS INSTITUTIONS, but the executives were fine, the CEOs were fine, because they hedged against it.


No not at all.


Actually yes.

[ComradeMan]

I'm hedging my bets who's going to win this argument... I think the cappie might actually understand more of evil cappie ways... for some reason.:lol:

[RGacky3]

He's not a real cappy (i.e. the ones that run the contry) and he does'nt do his research.

[Bud Struggle]

AS INSTITUTIONS, but the executives were fine, the CEOs were fine, because they hedged against it.
.

Prove it. Show me where any of them hedged.

It would have been illegal as all get out if they did.

[Robert]

Rev, I'm genuinely confused about your rolling eyes; what part of "neither a borrower nor a lender be" do you disagree with? I would have thought communists would agree that the working class would be better off without giant home loans to repay at high interest. Unless you mean "they have no choice!" I kind of agree you can't always pay for everything in cash, but lordy the houses people have been buying in the last 20 years have been WAY bigger and more expensive than necessary.

Of course I don't know that Shakespeare personally ascribed to this philosophy anyway. It came from the mouth of Ophelia's "prattling" father, Polonius. Shakey just wrote the play.

[Robert]

I think all these people who sold their houses at the height of the boom in 2006 should have to pay back the profits they made on the sale!

Pay it all back. To ... The People!

I will serve as escrow agent. For a small fee, naturellement. :sleep:

[RGacky3]

Prove it. Show me where any of them hedged.

It would have been illegal as all get out if they did.

Well, your right, a lot of it was illegal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704243904575630693960704872.html), but also a lot of it was'nt because no one could figure out where the mortgages went because they bundled them all together.

BTW, we are ignoring the fact that they raised the mortgages so high that the people could'nt pay and they cashed out the houses.

But Bud, I want to ask you, where are the bankers and hedgefunders in the poor house? How many of them are less rich now? Somehow, even though the institutions faield (which does'nt really matter to the individual since executives are not tied to the institution), the executives made off like bandits, thats what matters.


I think all these people who sold their houses at the height of the boom in 2006 should have to pay back the profits they made on the sale!

Pay it all back. To ... The People!

I will serve as escrow agent. For a small fee, naturellement.

Who are you arguing against? What ghost poster is making these arguments that your responding too? Or are you just a troll??