This is not looking good folks. As a investor and analyst of some of this stuff, I think we are in for a world of hurt for the next 18-24 months.
Mortgages being foreclosed on at an unprecedented rate.
New mortgages becoming increasingly difficult to get funded.
Credit lines vanishing.
The dollar losing value daily.
China threatening to worsen the dollar collapse by sellings its reserves.
The US Fed asleep at the wheel.
MAJOR financial institutions (Goldman Sachs, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch) all in danger because of bad mortgages.
We could be seeing the start of the next great depression IMO. If the US economy goes in the tank, the rest of the world may not be far behind.
Reminds me I'm low on ammo.
fargin' right.
Hillary will save us, and if not her, we always have the Jesus guy to fall back on. Christ loves America more than the other countries.
I'm planning 100% to rely on me, my brain, my stunning good looks and my pump action shotgun to survive the fall. And any zombie attacks that may ensue.
(http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y133/Bobberton/incaseofzombies.jpg)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eaMj1DPI6U&mode=related&search=
Quote from: ice grillin you on August 09, 2007, 07:14:08 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eaMj1DPI6U&mode=related&search=
I love Cramer. I have a Mad Money Bull on my desk at work. He's a rabid eagles fan and season ticket holder.
I hope some of those idiots do lose their houses.
Who takes out an interest-only mortgage? The first two years of the term the borrowers of those mortgages were only making interest payments and now all of the sudden they realize that they have to pay the principal as well so most are just facing foreclosure. Classic problem of some Americans thinking that they can live above their means for an indefinite period of time.
I don't think the housing market is in that bad of a condition. Cramer always over-reacts, but he is fun to watch. China is talking about liquidating its Treasury holdings and infusing the market with U.S. greenbacks to spur inflation but they would lose out on their interest income as well. Plus they know that the U.S. is a virtual non-existent default risk. The only reason they are talking about it through some of their official outlets was because of all the trade protectionist talk coming from some senators in Congress, which would just precipitate and exacerbate any economic slow down (trade protectionism that is). The U.S. is still one of China's biggest markets. They would not jeopardized that relationship.
Real wages are growing for non-supervisory positions, U.S. unemployment has been stable at around 4.5%, inflation low, and the greenback losing some value actually increases exports since foreign currency would buy more American goods (one of the reasons why China doesn't want to re-value their currency -- although having a perpetual weak currency should never be a goal in the long run). I think we'll see somewhat of a slowdown, but a cataclysmic collapse tantamount to the Great Depression is highly unlikely because the policies that generated the Great Depression (protectionist trade policies, the Federal Reserve failing to expand the money supply, and extraordinarily high marginal tax rates which stifled investment) aren't in place.
Should the Fed maybe buy some Treasury holdings and target a lower interest rate? Maybe. But I don't know about the implications it would have on inflation. I just think there is a lot of hysteria that will balance out over the next few weeks/months.
I do agree that America's obsession with credit with no asset backing has to stop though. It is getting silly (see the current housing market).
Quote from: ice grillin you on August 09, 2007, 07:14:08 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eaMj1DPI6U&mode=related&search=
Sadly he's right. I work in the bond market and "Armageddon" is not an exaggeration.
Quote from: Butchers Bill on August 09, 2007, 08:03:45 PM
Quote from: ice grillin you on August 09, 2007, 07:14:08 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eaMj1DPI6U&mode=related&search=
Sadly he's right. I work in the bond market and "Armageddon" is not an exaggeration.
So what's the inside scoop, Bill? What is everyone, in particular, truly worried about?
Quote from: Eaglez on August 09, 2007, 08:17:37 PM
Quote from: Butchers Bill on August 09, 2007, 08:03:45 PM
Quote from: ice grillin you on August 09, 2007, 07:14:08 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eaMj1DPI6U&mode=related&search=
Sadly he's right. I work in the bond market and "Armageddon" is not an exaggeration.
So what's the inside scoop, Bill? What is everyone, in particular, truly worried about?
Some big players (I mentioned a few above) may actually become insolvent, some hedge funds who invest heavily in those companies will have nothing to back their derivative trades with, which would unravel billions possibly trillions of dollars in hedged trades.
In laymans terms, hundreds of billions of dollars (possibly trillions) would simply vanish from investors and these huge financials. If that happens, no one is safe...the stalwarts of the American economy would have proven vulnerable, and if they are, is the US gov't just as vulnerable? What if China stopped buying treasuries because of a perceived weakness in the Us's ability to pay its debt? I can tell you our government would have to shut down...80% of the bond trades I place are with the Chinese.
The scary part is the hedge fund industry in completely unregulated and there are trillions of "paper assets" that are at stake here. What happens if the US wakes up one morning to see trillions gone? I don't even want to think about it.
with all due respect this sounds like some y2k ish to me
Quote from: ice grillin you on August 09, 2007, 08:42:47 PM
with all due respect this sounds like some y2k ish to me
I admit it does. I wish I didn't know what I know...I could sleep at night. There are trillions of dollars in hedge funds comprised of nothing but MS Excel and creative accounting based on debt and derivatives. If the debt blows up, so do the derivatives and the hedge funds will effectively cease to exist...along with trillions of dollars.
EU injecting billions to try to head off crisis (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/a8c5829a-466e-11dc-a3be-0000779fd2ac.html)
The US should follow suit soon.
I did seven foreclosure appraisals for FNMA last week. I'll say that again. . . SEVEN.
Horrendous is too generous a word for what the real estate market is going to look like in 6-12 months.
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on August 09, 2007, 09:15:11 PM
I did seven foreclosure appraisals for FNMA last week. I'll say that again. . . SEVEN.
Horrendous is too generous a word for what the real estate market is going to look like in 6-12 months.
Tip of the iceberg man...my firm cannot sell IO's (interest only's) for anything right now. I tried to dump some this morning and got laughed at.
I have a couple friends in the mortgage biz, and they told me that people with bad or even on the low end of decent credit cannot get a mortgage right now. No one will fund sub prime now. So if your plan was to go interest only and re-fi a couple years later you had better have awesome credit or you could be in trouble.
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on August 09, 2007, 09:15:11 PM
I did seven foreclosure appraisals for FNMA last week. I'll say that again. . . SEVEN.
Horrendous is too generous a word for what the real estate market is going to look like in 6-12 months.
Saw something on the news that Florida was leading the nation in foreclosures.
Damn glad I stayed in my hovel.
when the market hits rock bottom and if you have top notch credit would that be the ultimate time to buy a house (like romey said in like six months)
I can buy whatever I want right now. There are 7,000 active residential listings in just the tiny Daytona Beach market alone at the moment and a lot of people are choking to death on debt.
BTW: All seven foreclosure appraisals were in Palm Coast, IGY. Houses that were selling in the mid 250's 18 months ago are in the 175-190K range and falling and those prices are for brand spanking new houses that have never even been lived in.
Quote from: ice grillin you on August 09, 2007, 09:24:05 PM
when the market hits rock bottom and if you have top notch credit would that be the ultimate time to buy a house (like romey said in like six months)
Assuming you know when rock bottom is, yes. Many a person have lost fortunes guessing the wrong rock bottom.
I think the bottom in real estate won't come for another 24-36 months though. This whole thing has to play itself out first. I personally feel there will have to be a homeowner bail-out at some point (similar to the S&L's of the 1980's). Bush actually mentioned the word bail-out today for the first time, saying he wouldn't support one, but he'll be gone when one becomes necessary.
im not trying to move but im always looking for good deals and if i can find one id buy...im actually going this weekend to look at a place that looks great for the money
of course i currently own a house so even if i find a great buy at the most rock bottom time my house is going to be an equally bad sell for me
Bill, so you're saying that the Fed needs to buy some Treasury bonds and inject some liquidity into the market?
If you think the problem is that bad, hopefully the Fed will act. I just hope it doesn't set in motion inflationary pressures.
Quote from: Eaglez on August 09, 2007, 09:30:51 PM
Bill, so you're saying that the Fed needs to buy some Treasury bonds and inject some liquidity into the market?
If you think the problem is that bad, hopefully the Fed will act. I just hope it doesn't set in motion inflationary pressures.
A buy back at this point would be OK, but I would prefer a rate cut of 25 bps. You can't reverse a buy back and it can cause (as you mentioned) inflationary pressure, so the prudent thing to do would be a rate cut. They had a chance to do it at a regualar time just a few days ago (which is why I said they are asleep at the wheel in my first post) and to do one now may cause more harm than good (panic).
I think the Fed will let this ride for a couple more weeks unless things get drastically worse (Countrywide going under may do it). Bernake seems like a hands off Fed chair so we'll have to wait and see.
Countrywide can swim in its own feces for all I care. They're the worst of a bad bunch in terms of applying pressure to appraisers to get us to inflate appraisal values. I've told more than a few of their reps to go farg themselves over the years because of their lousy business practices.
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on August 09, 2007, 10:01:56 PM
Countrywide can swim in its own feces for all I care. They're the worst of a bad bunch in terms of applying pressure to appraisers to get us to inflate appraisal values. I've told more than a few of their reps to go farg themselves over the years because of their lousy business practices.
Countrywide is one of the worst in a scummy industry, but they are critical to the real estate market, especially with American Home going under last Friday.
More credit news:
So you think you have a low fixed rate credit card? (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20201030/site/newsweek/site/newsweek/)
Yeah Bernanke seems more like his predecessor as a guy that is worried primarily about inflation and won't do much unless he feels there might be impending inflation well above his targets.
24-36 months huh? I'll be in the market for a house then once I'm out of law school so it might work out for me. I hope it doesn't have to come to a "bail-out" because mortgagors will continue to have the mentality that the Federal Government will just continue to be there if they make horrible financial decisions that are well within their means to avoid (how anyone would think an interest-only mortgage is a sound financial decision is beyond me).
It's that "I'll have it now and worry about it later" mindset that frustrates the hell out of me.
Quote from: Eaglez on August 09, 2007, 08:03:06 PMWho takes out an interest-only mortgage?
More to the point, what idiotic bank extends credit to the kind of idiot who would take such a loan? It takes two to tango. If you want to get the personal responsibilty umbrage cranking, make sure to direct at least half your energy against avaricious, short sighted idiotic banks.
Quote from: Diomedes on August 09, 2007, 10:38:35 PM
Quote from: Eaglez on August 09, 2007, 08:03:06 PMWho takes out an interest-only mortgage?
More to the point, what idiotic bank extends credit to the kind of idiot who would take such a loan? It takes two to tango. If you want to get the personal responsibilty umbrage cranking, make sure to direct at least half your energy against avaricious, short sighted idiotic banks.
Ha. You guys should visit the D.C. burbs one day. The boom was so big here, people were making money hand over fist. Banks were falling all over themselves to give people credit they didn't deserve, because homes down here were appreciating 30% in a year. It was farging rediculous. People were making offers in a line at open houses with phrases like: "Home inspections for information purposes only!".
I remember sitting in a doctor's office waiting room listening to the guy across from me convince his wife that taking a second mortgage out to buy a $750,000 townhome to rent and then resell in a year or two was absolutely farging foolproof. "The market in D.C. will never flop..." I think it was about three months later, all the markets went to shtein. I wish I could see that dude now.
People had ARM's and interest only mortgages, and were farging horrified when the banks began adjusting there rates, or the rent market flopped and their rent incomes began to dry up. It was great because the boot was on the other foot, and it was time for me to buy. The house we bought was vacant, and the ass that lived here prior had pulled out all the equity he had in the place, used that to go buy a new 700+k custom home, moved out, then put it on the market. When we came to look it had been sitting on the market for over 60 days. Assclown was drowning in debt, and practically begged us to take it.
So easy credit isn't out there for people who shouldn't be buying a home anyway? That's fine by me. I lose no sleep over these idiotic loans coming home to roost. And the stupid hedge funds need to go under too. These magic black boxes need to be shown what Bill says they are....some excel spread sheets with no assets. Live by the derivative, die by the derivative.
As for the real economy, you know the guys that actually make stuff, inflation is tame and interest rates are low. Employment looks good and China is sabre rattling. I love it when the market overreacts. Good time to buy.
Well,
what is happening now is unregulated capitalism run rampant (with hedge funds as the prime examples).
And for those saying that people who never should have had a mortgage/loan in the first place are getting what they deserve, well that IS a bit one sided. There was (is) a whole market to entrap people with loans and mortgages. It is a complete marketing industry. What do YOU think all the credit card commercials and commercials with buying on credit are all about?
Many people succumb to the lure. A whole lot of people do not even have the intelligence to fully comprehend all the fine print and legal matter involved in such loans. They trust/believe what they are told. Hell, most financial experts are unable to come up with the financial wizardry on which hedge funds thrive...
Another angle is that the Majority (the middle to lower classes) traditionally cannot qualify for credit under traditional requirements i.e., minimum of a middle FICO score of 720 or more....have 5 to 10% down, money for closing costs and 6 months reserves. I think only a small percentage of the population has that.
It's economic segragation.
These loans opened the doors for many families that otherwise had no chance to achieve the 'American Dream' of owning property.
Most people, especially the masses are uneducated. Many of the uneducated are ignorant about credit. One of the most important things in life they don't teach in school...yet....it can keep you below the line forever. Credit. People don't know how to establish, maintain, protect, extend and build their credit. It's just something they know is probably zesty...and that's sad.
Interest only loans are/were loans typically for investors who were flipping a home or were looking to hold on to the property short term (3 to 5 years). It just so happened that the market blew up...and the banks needed business so they opened up these loans. Stated income, 100% financing with little to no document verification, low FICO scores, etc. ....it opened up the flood gates for those who couldn't otherwise. I'm happy it did. I'm happy for the people that had a chance.
Living expenses, gasoline, food prices, job losses, rate hikes.....all of this contributed to the downfall. Some understand that it is a cycle...and it will eventually come back up. It may take 5-10 years for the cycle to be going towards the peak again...but all in all, the economy caught up with those people. Hopefully they can regroup and try again.
I'm in IGY's boat. Mrs Biscuit and I are currently in a townhome and looking to upgrade. The problem is the market. Our townhouses are going for 10k-20k less than they were a year ago. I'm not sure if we should hold out to sell or just sell, live with my parents and wait for the market to go to shtein then buy dirt cheap.
Quote from: Diomedes on August 09, 2007, 10:38:35 PM
Quote from: Eaglez on August 09, 2007, 08:03:06 PMWho takes out an interest-only mortgage?
More to the point, what idiotic bank extends credit to the kind of idiot who would take such a loan? It takes two to tango. If you want to get the personal responsibilty umbrage cranking, make sure to direct at least half your energy against avaricious, short sighted idiotic banks.
Sure, a lot of financial institutions over-valued the ability for those borrowers to pay back their loans. I don't know what they were thinking marketing such instruments. They shoulder some blame for extending this type of payment structure to people who shouldn't even entertain it.
However, like I said before, Americans think they should be able to live above their means without any repercussions. I'm sure many of those interest-only mortgages were taken out on newer properties by people who were already over-extended in terms of income. They saw "interest-only" and thought that they could worry about it later instead of now. Many of those individuals probably had a few car loans, revolving debt, etc.
And I absolutely believe that financing agreements need to be clearly written and the legalese eliminated. All the terms that the average person has no idea what it means just hamper economic growth and vitality by reducing efficiency and impeding the attainment of complete information. There needs to be more transparency so that borrowers know exactly what they are getting into. My fear is that those same individuals will know what they are getting into, and still choose that path anyways expecting a bail-out subsequently if they bottom-up.
And homeownership should be encouraged and loans readily available to homeowners -- but only if they are financially able to take on that ownership without over-extending themselves. A lot of people saw those interest-only loans and instead of getting the affordable 200-250K home they went out and got the 350-400K home. Just plain idiotic.
The mentality has to change now. The instant gratification of having now and worrying about it later is toxic.
Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on August 10, 2007, 07:56:23 AM
I'm in IGY's boat. Mrs Biscuit and I are currently in a townhome and looking to upgrade. The problem is the market. Our townhouses are going for 10k-20k less than they were a year ago. I'm not sure if we should hold out to sell or just sell, live with my parents and wait for the market to go to shtein then buy dirt cheap.
If you can afford two mortgages at a time...i would consider renting it out until the value climbs back up.
The rental market is just as horrendous as the purchase market. Nevermind the interest and principle payments. People can usually afford those. What's killing this market is the taxes and insurance every homeowner has to pay.
For instance, in this market you have hurricane issues, right? Okay, first of all insurance companies are refusing to insure homes in hurricane prone zones. Therefore you have to get state-funded windstorm insurance. Instead of paying say 500 bucks per year for that insurance the state is charging like 2,500 dollars.
Then you have the tax problem. We have a homestead program in this state that permits you to deduct $25,000 from your assessed value which lowers your tax bill about 500 bucks. However, investment properties aren't subject to that deduction. Also - there's a constitutional amendment that states that your taxes can only be raised 3% per year (SAVE OUR HOMES) if it's your homestead. Who then pays extra to cover the tax shortfall? Yep - investors.
As a result of owning the house I live in for eight years my tax bill is roughly $1,900 per year. I've benefited from the homestead and tax relief for years but if I sold my home the new owner would lose my deductions and be forced to pay at the market value rate. In short, his taxes would zoom to over $5,000 per year instead of the $1,900 I pay.
If you're an investor there's no way you can afford that. He'd have $1,500 per month in principle & interest, another $300 per month in insurance and another $400 per month in taxes. That's a nut of $2,200 per month on a property that would rent for $1,500 per month tops!
All that equals death in the investment market. You can't be upside down unless you're recouping your money via appreciation on the house and that's just not happening anymore. When homes were appreciating in value 10-20% per year, investors were happy to absorb the month-to-month loss in cash flow. Now they're not and that's why the real estate market is in total free-fall.
Ok, so help me out here - People take out interest-only loans on the assumption that housing prices will continue to grow are stupid. Makes sense to me.
So, if this is the case, why is the fed operating at a deficit and continuing to borrow on the assumption that inflation and growth of the GDP will keep the relative debt constant considered good financial policy?
BTW, in the last couple of weeks I've seen prices in Canada drop to be more consistent with the current exchange rate. This is the first time I've seen this happen in the last 2 years, in spite of the fact that the exchange rate has fluctuated more than 10%. Apparently, the folks up here don't think that the USD is going to recover any time soon. The irony is that this will probably kill the Canadian economy, which has relied on being the cheap NA manufacturing center. If the dollar continues to drop you may see unemployment go down in the US since it won't be so attractive to move those auto plants north.
The problem in the US was these ARM rates and no interest loans were being pimped by new Mortgage companies that were popping up over night. I had my mortgage company try to sell me on one of those loans, the guy was really trying to pimp it, and i had to put him in his place. But you can easily see how people/customers with no financial background would hear a lower monthy mortgage amount and take that, not thinking that the rate would increase and their monthly bill could triple.
For me, its a good thing since assloads of houses which would normally be out of my ranger should be hitting the market in the next year.
Marketing and sales guys can be total scum of the earth. When Mom and Pop go looking for a house and get a slick marketing pitch from guido the salesmen... and fall for it... that sucks.
Then there are buyers that live for today and let tomorrow take care of itself. I know a few of those and they get what they deserve in the end normally anyway.
In the end though. You can't fire the buyer.
Quote from: Cerevant on August 10, 2007, 08:53:59 AM
Ok, so help me out here - People take out interest-only loans on the assumption that housing prices will continue to grow are stupid. Makes sense to me.
So, if this is the case, why is the fed operating at a deficit and continuing to borrow on the assumption that inflation and growth of the GDP will keep the relative debt constant considered good financial policy?
Because individual home owners have grossly incomplete information while sophisticated economists and financial professions can make better educated predictions of how markets will react and how growth and inflation will pan out. It's an information gap. I think it would be dubious to suggest that someone who makes a living analyzing data and other market indicators is no better off than someone who is buying a house for the first time, is unsophisticated in finances and economics, sees that he is approved for a home loan, and wants as much as he can for as little as he can pay for it and worry about the long-term implications later -- if at all. Like I said, it is indicative of the instant gratification, want-it-now mentality that has to stop.
And I think the people who do take those interest only mortgages banking on an increasing housing market are usually doing it in a whim, and not thinking of the long term implications or really having any slightest clue as to what they are doing. It sounds cynical, but I chalk it up to stupidity. If I had to apportion fault, I would put most of it in the home owners for not educating themselves and some of the bank for approving some of these nitwits and offering such a financing structure to begin with.
In terms of the sub-prime market, the whole crisis surrounding that seems to be pretty mild. The sub-prime market only makes up approximately 14% of the mortgage market. Of that 14%, only 13% are late on payments. And only approximately 0.6% of all U.S. mortgages are in foreclosure, which is up only a tenth of a percentage point from last year.
Also, since sub-prime mortgages are taken out on less expensive property, there are estimates that the foreclosures on the sub-prime market only account for approximately a 7 billion dollar loss in net worth to those mortgagors. With household net worth in the U.S. estimated at $53 trillion, the sub-prime foreclosures account for .01 % of net U.S. household wealth.
So I don't think it is anything to be too concerned about. I'm more concerned about what Bill was talking about with the hedge funds and also with a lot of the other financing instruments like interest-only mortgages giving people the false notion that they can live outside their means for an indefinite period of time.
So, where's the best place to stash my retirement savings? Pork bellies? Cattle?
Cash in your mattress homeboy.
Quote from: FastFreddie on August 10, 2007, 03:01:37 PM
So, where's the best place to stash my retirement savings? Pork bellies? Cattle?
From the sounds of it, the mattress.
Gold and Jewelz.
Ask the Og's.
This article is saying it will take 16 more months for the mortgage mess to play out:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20216643/
I am sticking with 24-36 months personally.
Quote from: Butchers Bill on August 13, 2007, 11:46:03 PM
This article is saying it will take 16 more months for the mortgage mess to play out:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20216643/
I am sticking with 24-36 months personally.
Seriously, should I move some retirement money into protected bonds or some shtein?
Yeah, if you're 60 and all your retirement is based on the market. But since you're a youngin', you've got plenty of time to let that shtein ride. Between this "crisis" and the time you'll need the money it will come back just fine.
Or it won't and the whole U.S. empire will fall. But if that happens your bonds won't be worth shtein either, so just relax moneylover.
Ha. Well said, and on point. C-.
i'm going to cash out my 401K and buy a car, that's a good investment, right?
Gas guzzler of some sort - good investment
Economic / Family car - bad investment
I still have my retirement (401k, IRAs) in equity funds...but before I left for vacation, I liquidated all my non-retirement stocks. I figured I'd enjoy vacation more knowing that my position was all cash.
That said, I'm sitting on a short-term loss because of the last few months. Hopefully I can do some wheeling and dealing to mitigate it a bit.
Quote from: FastFreddie on August 14, 2007, 11:05:34 AM
Quote from: Butchers Bill on August 13, 2007, 11:46:03 PM
This article is saying it will take 16 more months for the mortgage mess to play out:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20216643/
I am sticking with 24-36 months personally.
Seriously, should I move some retirement money into protected bonds or some shtein?
As Dio mentioned it depends on your age. It also depends on whether or not you make regular contributions. If you have a 401(k) where "X" amount of dollars are buying the same funds month after month you will be able to buy more shares at a lower price in the event of a "down" market.
My advice is buy commodities...food, water, energy. Alll are recession proof.
I buy food every week. I'm golden.
Anything is better than equities right now. Well, almost anything. :paranoid
(Happy I jumped out after seeing the trend the last couple of days.)
i prefer to invest my money in the craps and blackjack tables.
either way i feel secure in my decisions.
Quote from: phattymatty on August 16, 2007, 09:33:43 AM
i prefer to invest my money in the craps and blackjack tables.
The irony is that you might be doing better with this decision.
But I understand. Since I also partake in some of that, I know that I can at least get my Borgata room (and food) comped.
.5 rate cut
Opinions on Bush's mortgage bail out plan?
Seems to me, borrowers took loans they couldn't afford, and lendors (who really should know better) gave loans to unworthy borrowers, and in the end, Bush is forced to shore up the whole thing by Federal fiat (how conservative of him, right?) or risk the damage spreading throughout the whole economy.
so a bunch of irresponsible people and companies basically hold the rest of us ransom.
What will happen to new borrowers now? Will this make credit harder to come by? What will happen to real estate values?
Yep, new borrowers are going to find it very hard to get loans, the fargups who took out ridiculous mortgages might get bailed out of they meet specific criteria.
I'm for it and against it. For it since i work in the financial industry and this shtein really has us scared. The worst of it is supposed to be around January thru March of 2008, but the ramifications would be immense had they not done anything.
Against it because someone who's making 50k a year, and gets a mortgage for a 400k house deserves to lose their house. I've seen so many people take these loans, who obviously had no idea what they were getting themselves into. It's people living out of their means that pisses me off. I bought a new townhouse because i knew what we could afford, and would make some equity, meanwhile someone gets to live in a ridiculous neighborhood, and now gets Uncle Sam bailing them out.
It doesn't piss you off that Uncle Sam is also bailing out the financial institution that should never have given that loan in the first place? Christ, they've got all the Harvard educated economist running numbers for them..they should know that you can't make a 400k mortgage on 50k yearly income.
There are a lot of related financial markets that are hinged on the mortgage industry. It's bigger than the immediate players in the mortgage fray, so providing some backing could be a good thing.
It seems like the federal government had to get involved or it would just spiral out of control. I get that. It's an essentially liberal function and one I support..if we don't have a strong federal government/reserve to step in when the shtein hits the fan, to soften the awful blows that attend a truly free market, then we'd have a much harder time mainting a ciliized society. Fine.
But I'm very unhappy that it was allowed to happen, and that the people who are responsible--both lendors and borrowers--are getting propped up by, essentially, me.
farg them.
In a couple years I'll finally have enough money saved to try to buy a house for the first time and from the looks of things, it's going to be harder because of these farg offs. So I prop them up with my tax dollars, and I have less chance of buying a house. farging great.
The problem Dio is people are stupid, and dont read the fine print. Meanwhile there was new mortgage companies popping up every day, who had only one goal in mind, sell mortgages, make money, and did not fully disclose everything that a reputable larger company would have.
For you Dio, your right, it might be tougher. Just have steady work, a good amount to pay down, and decent salary between you and the wifey. You'll be fine.
Quote from: Diomedes on December 06, 2007, 08:43:34 PM
In a couple years I'll finally have enough money saved to try to buy a house for the first time and from the looks of things, it's going to be harder because of these farg offs. So I prop them up with my tax dollars, and I have less chance of buying a house. farging great.
This sums things up nicely. Bad enough that I supported the ladyfriend while she went to school without being able to save shtein, let alone buy a house, now that we're mostly on our feet and can actually save a decent amount of money it's going to be harder to buy a house? farg everyone.
Quote from: rjs246 on December 06, 2007, 08:56:07 PMBad enough that I supported the ladyfriend while she went to school without being able to save shtein, let alone buy a house, now that we're mostly on our feet and can actually save a decent amount of money it's going to be harder to buy a house? farg everyone.
farging exactly my situation, only it was my bright idea to walk away from corporate America, to actually walk the talk and not hate the people I work with, make an honest living, etc. An honest living=barely a living at all. So between the two of us, it's gonna be a couple years to get the money together. I'm alright with that part..I chose it. But I really hate that all these greedy irresponsible bastiches are farging me over twice on my way to a modest american dream.
From what I gather the feds are acting as intermediaries between the lending industry and borrowers who without a rate freeze would lose their asses.
Trust me, predatory lenders are at fault here, not the dopes who got the mortgages. They were sold a bill of goods by scheming and unethical mortgage whores who did anything to get deals closed. Most of those fargers are out of business now.
As for the effect this will have on real estate values, it will depend on the market. Fewer foreclosures means fewer properties on the market. Less supply usually means less depreciation in values but there are already so many active listings in a lot of markets that a few more really wouldn't have made things much worse.
I've been an appraiser for 21 years and have NEVER seen a market this bad. As of yesterday there were 7,121 active single family residential listings in Daytona MLS. That means over 7,000 houses in a marketplace with less than 100,000 people living here are for sale. Just in MLS alone. That's not counting vacant land, duplexes, triplexes, and commercial properties either. All totaled there's over 10,000 properties for sale in this area.
That's what you call a market in free fall.
farg that, Rome. People go and buy a 3000 sq ft house, while working at Wal-Mart, are farging stupid. Or they refinance because the initial rate is lower, but balloons? Morons. Read the fine print. You're signing a document saying you owe 100s of thousands of dollars, and the fact that it sounds too good to be true doesn't ring an alarm? farging idiots.
How about some personal culpability. The mortgage companies were fools to play this game, but the ultimate responsibility is on the borrower who agrees to this shtein.
To summarize:
People are idiots.
Quote from: MadMarchHare on December 06, 2007, 10:47:30 PMHow about some personal culpability. The mortgage companies were fools to play this game, but the ultimate responsibility is on the borrower who agrees to this shtein.
I disagree. Who has the power in this borrower/lendor system? The lendor. Who has the money? The lendor. Who has the greatest amount of knowledge and expertise? The lendor.
I hear comments like yours all the time and I don't get it. The most possible blame I could attribute to idiotic borrowers is half. But since they don't have wiz kid number crunchers on their side, and since they are the supplicant in this relationship, I have a hard time giving them even half. When a credit card company gives a credit card to trailer trash no job Stan and he maxes it out and defaults, the credit card company cries foul and would like us not to notice that trailer trash no job Stan was obviously a high credit risk. Same shtein with these mortgages. These companies make very stupid loans--knowingly, for a quick buck, in many cases--and then sit back smugly as people like you to scream personal responsibility at the poor sap borrowers.
I hate how easily the financial corporations are getting off here. Not only did they make off with the money, but they've got the average Joe defending their predatory practices.
Dio, its not the big guys who did this, it was the Mortgage brokers that popped up overnight that were predatory lending to ridiculous levels
Dio, come on. Even the dimmest bulb should know up front A) the price of the home and B) the monthly payment. If you're taking out a loan for 200,000 or more, you should at least ask if the rate is fixed or variable. My first mortgage was a 3-year arm, which was a 4% rate for the first 3 years, but then floated with certain caps to prevent it from getting berserk. But there was a sheet of estimated monthly payments for the entire 30 years, and it showed that as the mortgage matured, the payments increased. With a balloon mortgage, or some of this other bullshtein these assclowns were selling, it would be even worse.
I agree the lendors have more knowledge, and have been irresponsible. But if you're taking a loan out for many multiples of your yearly income, and you just assume that the first payment will never change without reading the paperwork, especially when you get a cold call from some bank you never heard of from the do-not-call list, you're an idiot. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
BTW, I'm not defending the sleazeball lendors here. But you can't give the borrowers a free pass. They farged up, and I really don't feel like paying for their mistakes, or the icehole lenders.
Do you see me giving anyone a free pass here? I'm just saying..the people with the advantage in this game are the lendors, yet more often than not, I hear self righteous people bitching about irresponsible borrowers. No one gets a pass, and the people with the advantage deserve a lot more of the hate than they're getting.
Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on December 07, 2007, 08:02:52 AM
Dio, its not the big guys who did this, it was the Mortgage brokers that popped up overnight that were predatory lending to ridiculous levels
Fair enough..but who in turn is buying those mortages? The big boys. They don't get off the hook simply by being one step removed; without their patronage, the whole thing collapses. The are accomplices to the crime as much as the getaway driver.
I'd kinda like to see them all eat their shorts on this, but then everyone suffers even worse. It's a real bitch of a system.
Quote from: Diomedes on December 06, 2007, 05:05:13 PM
so a bunch of irresponsible people and companies basically hold the rest of us ransom.
Doesn't your whole theory of government revolve around the majority of tax-paying citizens paying expenses for the people that can't foot the bill themselves, whether by fault of their own or not?
if a scam artist rips someone off we dont blame the victim so why blame the buyers here...these brokers and shady mortgage companies often seek out and look for vulnerable people to get money from...do people need to be more vigilant and educate themselves better sure but in the end the responsible party is the lender
Quote from: FastFreddie on December 07, 2007, 12:40:53 PM
Quote from: Diomedes on December 06, 2007, 05:05:13 PM
so a bunch of irresponsible people and companies basically hold the rest of us ransom.
Doesn't your whole theory of government revolve around the majority of tax-paying citizens paying expenses for the people that can't foot the bill themselves, whether by fault of their own or not?
Yeah, and as I said, if you'd farging read you moron, I suppose it's good that the government is stepping in. But I'm unfargingpleased with the whole thing.
Quote from: Diomedes on December 07, 2007, 12:18:56 PM
Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on December 07, 2007, 08:02:52 AM
Dio, its not the big guys who did this, it was the Mortgage brokers that popped up overnight that were predatory lending to ridiculous levels
Fair enough..but who in turn is buying those mortages? The big boys. They don't get off the hook simply by being one step removed; without their patronage, the whole thing collapses. The are accomplices to the crime as much as the getaway driver.
I'd kinda like to see them all eat their shorts on this, but then everyone suffers even worse. It's a real bitch of a system.
It definitely was. The big boys werent too smart in looking at account level details of accounts they were purchasing, just what the overall cost was to them and what the bottom line would look like.
Countrywide was the worst of the big boys. Heck my company and a few other large banks tried to help them out and its not going so well. Screw everyone
if you'd farging read you moron
lol
What i don't understand is when i obtained my first mortgage, i was a first time buyer and had to take a course on mortgages just to get approval. I did take advantage of the FHA process as a first time buyer, if thats teh only case where thats offered, then it needs to be extended to everyone taking out loans.
For RJS/Dio, you guys should definitely go with a first time buyer program, or at least review which deal would be best for your situation. It worked out great for me, i got an extra 8k mortgage with zero interest, the only stipulation is paying a fee if i sell before 5 years in this house. The fee is around 3k but with equity its no sweat.
Quote from: Diomedes on December 07, 2007, 12:49:31 PM
Quote from: FastFreddie on December 07, 2007, 12:40:53 PM
Quote from: Diomedes on December 06, 2007, 05:05:13 PM
so a bunch of irresponsible people and companies basically hold the rest of us ransom.
Doesn't your whole theory of government revolve around the majority of tax-paying citizens paying expenses for the people that can't foot the bill themselves, whether by fault of their own or not?
Yeah, and as I said, if you'd farging read you moron, I suppose it's good that the government is stepping in. But I'm unfargingpleased with the whole thing.
Now you know how I feel about people suckling off welfare. I have absolutely no issue with certain programs being in place, but it sure would be damn nice if they could be run more efficiently.
I know you don't much mind corporations suckling off public welfare. On that point we differ strongly.
The only problem with declaring "corporations" as evil and blaming them for all the ills of society is that they're the foundation of what's left of the American economy. If you stick it to the "man" too much, guess who loses?
Not all corporations are created equal, just like poor people.
We just bought a forclosure near my new job and it was an absolute steal. I understand that the rates on arms and what not were a great deal but what moron could not see that the market moves up and down. A two year arm is not much assurance that you are safe at that rate. the family that bought this place paid over 50k more then we got the house for and it appraised out at 40k more then what we paid, which enabled us to get a really good rate. I just am stunned that corproations did not see this coming, our lender 5 years ago wanted us to go with the 30 rate at 5.2% instead of the arm, it worked out. I am also stunned at the way the people left the house, nothing major structual wrong, but dirty as hell, it took me over three days to clean it and have it good for the family to move in. It's like they lived like animals, fargin shame. I do not know if I am too happy with uncle sam stepping in, hell when we got in some credit card debt years ago nobody helped us out, we had to budget and work hard to pay it down for a couple of years. It kind of pisses me off that irresponsible people (and yes cmpanies too) get a break cause they made a bad decision, and cry out for uncle sam, but then bag on the system and take advantage of it. I guess I'll just keep on working hard casue million of people are depending on people like me. fargin bastiches
Why do the borrowers buy this shtein? Because everyone wants to believe that they are getting a deal too good to be true. Listen to Sirius NFL radio sometime: every 3rd ad is for a get rich quick scheme. Don't believe me?
QuoteThe fee is around 3k but with equity its no sweat.
Well, Seabiscuit, that is what the lenders told those idiots buying on baloon mortgages: "Look how fast property values are going up! Buy now, get a few years of equity, sell for a huge profit, and you will have enough for a down payment on a mortgage you can afford! Move fast! Time is running out!"
So, what happens in 5 years when your house is worth 20% less than what you paid for it because the bubble burst?
The government didn't bail out the dot coms, and a lot of people had their pensions and 401k's tank when the bubble burst. Yes, this is worse, but it is driven by the same get rich quick mentality. Property values are being driven up because the sellers *need* the property values to go up, not because they are worth more. If this isn't fixed, and fixed quick, you will be buying your lunches with Euros.
Quote from: phillymic2000 on December 07, 2007, 07:47:06 PM
We just bought a forclosure near my new job and it was an absolute steal. I understand that the rates on arms and what not were a great deal but what moron could not see that the market moves up and down. A two year arm is not much assurance that you are safe at that rate. the family that bought this place paid over 50k more then we got the house for and it appraised out at 40k more then what we paid, which enabled us to get a really good rate. I just am stunned that corproations did not see this coming, our lender 5 years ago wanted us to go with the 30 rate at 5.2% instead of the arm, it worked out. I am also stunned at the way the people left the house, nothing major structual wrong, but dirty as hell, it took me over three days to clean it and have it good for the family to move in. It's like they lived like animals, fargin shame. I do not know if I am too happy with uncle sam stepping in, hell when we got in some credit card debt years ago nobody helped us out, we had to budget and work hard to pay it down for a couple of years. It kind of pisses me off that irresponsible people (and yes cmpanies too) get a break cause they made a bad decision, and cry out for uncle sam, but then bag on the system and take advantage of it. I guess I'll just keep on working hard casue million of people are depending on people like me. fargin bastiches
They didn't make a mistake. They knew full well that, if houses stayed high, they could always sell the foreclosures for a profit, and if not, well, the gov't would be forced to bail them all out. Either way they get rich. Scumbags.
Well maybe, but not in our case the outstanding balance due on the house was 35k more then our first offer, which they took with the quickness. I know we could have lowballed even more and they might of took it, but what are you gonna do.
If you haven't already, start stuffing cash in a mattress or something. Keep an eye on the news over the next few weeks...this is just the beginning.
Homes...bad (http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/08/news/economy/home_sales/index.htm?cnn=yes)
Stocks...bad (http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/08/markets/markets_0500/index.htm)
Countrywide about to go under...not good even though they suck (http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/08/news/companies/countrywide.ap/index.htm)
Also look for Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch, two stalwarts of American finance to be bought out by foreign entities sometime in 2008.
PS...the dollar will continue its slide. Instead of Dollars, try some Euro or Brazilian Reals in your mattress instead.
What boggles my mind is coming back to the states and finding the place being overrun with Canadian Banks!
TD? Toronto Dominion. I'm seeing those all over the Philly area.
RBC Centura? Royal Bank of Canada. Big in the south, the Hurricanes play in the RBC Centura center (centre?)
If the economy up here wasn't so dependent upon exports, the loonie might be a good investment. The USD would be even lower against the CAD if they didn't keep mucking with things to keep the dollar at parity.
Quote from: Butchers Bill on January 09, 2008, 02:06:36 AM
Countrywide about to go under...not good even though they suck (http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/08/news/companies/countrywide.ap/index.htm)
Just out of curiosity, what happens to home owners who mortgage their homes through Countrywide if the company goes under? Do the people lose their homes? Do they find a new mortgage company? Do they get their balance paid off as a result of some sort of bankruptcy law? They were my mortgage company for the house I owned in NC so seeing their name raised an eyebrow.
If a mortgage company goes bankrupt, the mortgages they own are sold to another mortgage company. Nothing else changes. The terms, rates and conditions of the mortgage stay the same. The only difference for a homeowner is they will be contacted by, and begin sending their payment to, whichever lender purchased their loan.
Quote from: reese125 on January 09, 2008, 05:11:30 PM
If a mortgage company goes bankrupt, the mortgages they own are sold to another mortgage company. Nothing else changes. The terms, rates and conditions of the mortgage stay the same. The only difference for a homeowner is they will be contacted by, and begin sending their payment to, whichever lender purchased their loan.
This might be a stupid question, but what happens if no one wants to buy some of the risky mortgages?
They're sold in bundles, safe ones and risky ones mixed together, to "minimize" risk to the buyer.
Quote from: PPinDC on January 09, 2008, 09:42:24 PM
Quote from: reese125 on January 09, 2008, 05:11:30 PM
If a mortgage company goes bankrupt, the mortgages they own are sold to another mortgage company. Nothing else changes. The terms, rates and conditions of the mortgage stay the same. The only difference for a homeowner is they will be contacted by, and begin sending their payment to, whichever lender purchased their loan.
This might be a stupid question, but what happens if no one wants to buy some of the risky mortgages?
Thats part of the current problem. Companies like Countrywide can't sell the stuff they have, which means they cannot loan more money, which means consumer credit shrinks, which means people buy less, which means recession.
So how does this effect the average bumbling Joe?
Quote from: Phanatic on January 10, 2008, 12:27:35 PM
So how does this effect the average bumbling Joe?
Less consumer credit = less spending.
Less spending = less services, goods sold, etc.
Less services, goods sold, etc = layoffs.
Layoffs eventually will = recession.
Recession = more foreclosures, even less consumer credit...
This one has the potential to spiral out of control. Not trying to be an alarmist, just looking at the facts in front of me.
Yes, it would be horrible if people were actually forced to live within their means and buy only what they could afford, instead of driving themselves further into debt to satisfy the media driven materialist lust.
reason number 478 to get a govt job
we just got the biggest cost of living raise this year since 1998
Quote from: Butchers Bill on January 10, 2008, 12:33:44 PMLess consumer credit = less spending.
This always bothered me. Ideally, spending should be done with free cash (disposable income). Building an economy on credit is a disaster waiting to happen.
Yet everyone is shocked when it does happen.
Quote from: ice grillin you on January 10, 2008, 01:01:28 PM
reason number 478 to get a govt job
we just got the biggest cost of living raise this year since 1998
(http://www.boomspeed.com/superpsn/werd.jpg)
Countrywide up 50% today with rumors of BAC buying out Countrywide
More good news:
US AAA Credit rating under threat for the first time (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/fcc631cc-bfe6-11dc-8052-0000779fd2ac,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2Ffcc631cc-bfe6-11dc-8052-0000779fd2ac.html%3Fnclick_check%3D1&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drudgereport.com%2F&nclick_check=1)
Merrill Lynch in trouble (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/11/business/11wall.html?ei=5090&en=7ed5049664cce2c4&ex=1357707600&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print)
Quote from: Butchers Bill on January 11, 2008, 08:26:37 AM
US AAA Credit rating under threat for the first time (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/fcc631cc-bfe6-11dc-8052-0000779fd2ac,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2Ffcc631cc-bfe6-11dc-8052-0000779fd2ac.html%3Fnclick_check%3D1&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drudgereport.com%2F&nclick_check=1)
At first glance of the link, I thought that I was going to lose my AAA auto coverage. Duh.
So basically, what this all boils down to is that now that there's a legitimate chance that we elect a black president,
all of a sudden the US has poor credit. Typical.
Quote from: Butchers Bill on January 10, 2008, 12:33:44 PM
Quote from: Phanatic on January 10, 2008, 12:27:35 PM
So how does this effect the average bumbling Joe?
Less consumer credit = less spending.
Less spending = less services, goods sold, etc.
Less services, goods sold, etc = layoffs.
Layoffs eventually will = recession.
Recession = more foreclosures, even less consumer credit...
This one has the potential to spiral out of control. Not trying to be an alarmist, just looking at the facts in front of me.
I tell you I can't wait to get out of credit card debt hell. It's gonna take a while but we're going to live within our means and I think we'll be better for it. Yeah we went down the wrong path for a while like the average American I suppose. My problem now is the harassment we get from the Credit Card companies regularly. They've changed our due dates and tried to charge us for being late. Tacked on strange fees for services we didn't ask for. Fighting with these credit card fargers is like a full time job when they have your debt. I can't wait to cut up these cards and mail them back to them in tiny pieces. Here we are never missed a payment and it seems like they're trying to nickel and dime us just because they can. Yeah spending will be down for sure because I can't be the only poor sap in this situation. We have good credit through all of this because we've kept the fight going. fargers. I can tell you we won't be adding much to the economy for quite a few years. I guess I'm worried with all of this that the Credit companies get more aggressive before I get out from under them.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22606833/
Bank of America to buy Countrywide
Deal for country's largest mortgage lender valued at $4 billion
CHARLOTTE, N.C. - Bank of America said Friday it will buy Countrywide Financial for $4.1 billion in stock, a deal that rescues the country's biggest mortgage lender and expands the financial services empire of the nation's largest consumer bank.
The acquisition will make Charlotte-based Bank of America Corp. the nation's biggest mortgage lender and loan servicer.
Bank of America said it initially plans to operate Countrywide separately under the Countrywide brand, with integration occurring no sooner than 2009.
Quote from: Phanatic on January 11, 2008, 10:44:28 AM
I tell you I can't wait to get out of credit card debt hell.
Go to your bank or CU and get a debt consolidation loan. Now. You'll be paying less interest. You will also have a lower minimum payment that will help you through the tough months, and make it easier to make extra principle payments to get the thing paid off sooner.
Of course, as soon as you pay off those cards (consolidation or no) make sure you cut them up.
I have two cards both for emergencies and for rewards/points. Credit cards aren't a bad thing if you pay them off every month.
Quote from: FastFreddie on January 11, 2008, 03:43:33 PM
I have two cards both for emergencies and for rewards/points. Credit cards aren't a bad thing if you pay them off every month.
True. I use my Amex Delta Skymiles card for all my monthly expenses, and I have been able to fly first class for free at least once a year the past 4 years.
QuoteI have two cards both for emergencies
why 2?
Quote from: FastFreddie on January 11, 2008, 03:43:33 PM
Credit cards aren't a bad thing if you pay them off every month.
Agreed, but I was talking to someone who has admitted that he did not do that. Sure, a recovering alcoholic might be able to drink socially, but do they really want to risk it?
Yeah your not supposed to admit when your screwed up but we are. Got the loan for what we could already. The cards will be paid soon.
Quote from: reese125 on January 11, 2008, 04:05:38 PM
QuoteI have two cards both for emergencies
why 2?
Emergency trip to Vegas dillhole.
Quote from: reese125 on January 11, 2008, 04:05:38 PM
QuoteI have two cards both for emergencies
why 2?
One is an Amex. The other is accepted everywhere.
eagles extra points cc > _________________
Did you get your Garrett Reid commemorative syringe yet?
I have two Visa credit cards, both of which are still active. All the other credit cards I had, I canceled.
I also have department store cards, a gap card, Best Buy, and a gas card... stuff like that but I rarely use them. Why bother? If I have the cash in my debit card, I'll use that. If I don't I won't buy junk I don't need.
Quote from: FastFreddie on January 11, 2008, 04:53:16 PM
Did you get your Garrett Reid commemorative syringe yet?
yep...i think its in my sons play room
Quote from: FastFreddie on January 11, 2008, 03:43:33 PM
I have two cards both for emergencies and for rewards/points. Credit cards aren't a bad thing if you pay them off every month.
Or sooner. The great thing about being able to manage CC accounts online is that you can pay things off almost as fast as you charge them. And the rewards points are cool.
IGY, I also have an Eagles one, and I need to figure out what I'm going to do with my points. I did the sideline pass thing last year, and it was a bit of a disappointment. I also have a Juniper Itunes rewards card, which gets me Itunes cards with my points. Somehow that seems a little more interesting to me lately.
i was gonna do the sideline thing but it seemed to be priced to low if you know what i mean...like a hat was worth more points than it...that made me feel like something wasnt quite right with it so i didnt do it
what exactly made it a disappointment
Quote from: ice grillin you on January 11, 2008, 05:07:41 PM
i was gonna do the sideline thing but it seemed to be priced to low if you know what i mean...like a hat was worth more points than it...that made me feel like something wasnt quite right with it so i didnt do it
what exactly made it a disappointment
(http://pigskinny.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/spadaro.jpg)
truth be told i didnt get it because theres no way im giving up five minutes of drinking time at a tailgate much less two hours
What bugged me was that of the 4 corners they could have put us, we ended up over where the visiting team (the Titans, in this case) were warming up. The only Eagle within sight was Akers, and that was pretty limited. Al in all, it was rather unexciting.
what time did you have to go in
I think it was something like an hour before kickoff, and we had to depart the area 20 minutes before.
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on January 11, 2008, 04:54:46 PM
I have two Visa credit cards, both of which are still active. All the other credit cards I had, I canceled.
I also have department store cards, a gap card, Best Buy, and a gas card... stuff like that but I rarely use them. Why bother? If I have the cash in my debit card, I'll use that. If I don't I won't buy junk I don't need.
Rome, why keep the store cards and other stuff if you don't use them? It actually dorks up your credit report even if you have a 0 balance on the cards because when you attempt to get a loan or finance a car or something they'll look at those cards as "potential" debt. If you don't use them, which you shouldn't anyway because store cards have rediculous interest rates, just cancel them. Especially in todays computer era where hackers could get your info and start running up charges on those accounts.
This discussion has been had on this board before, but you're actually wrong.
It's much better for your credit score to have a long-term account in good standing than less potential revolving debt.
I guess it depends on whether or not the potential debt you could incur with multiple credit cards exceeds your income to be able to pay it off. In other words, when looking at a person's income/debt ratio, if that person could only afford to pay say $500/month towards credit card bills but they've got a bunch of credit cards that if maxed out would give them $1500/month in payments, then that's bad. And credit companies do look at that and take it into consideration. Of course, if you make plenty of scratch and can afford to make the payments then I guess it would look good.
If you sign up with a credit monitoring service, you can see how convoluted it is. Too many cards, bad. Too few cards bad. If you use more than 50% of the credit on half your cards it is bad. So, if you have two cards and you a 50% balance on one of them it hurts your credit. If you have one card and you carry a balance, it hurts your credit. If your credit limit is too low, it is bad. If your credit limit is too high it is bad.
The only sure-fire way to have good credit is make your payments on secured debt (mortgage, auto), and carry as little revolving debt (credit cards, heloc's) as possible.
credit monitoring services are zesty and a waste of money. my bank now owns the us yay usa
I use myfico.com and found it to be pretty beneficial. I always swore off those monitoring sites, but this one I like.
Sorry, that wasn't meant to be an endorsement of credit monitoring, although I do recommend it for the recently divorced. Way to easy to get revenge before the paperwork is done.
Quote from: Cerevant on January 13, 2008, 06:44:58 AM
Sorry, that wasn't meant to be an endorsement of credit monitoring, although I do recommend it for the recently divorced. Way to easy to get revenge before the paperwork is done.
This information would have been useful a few YEARS AGO!!
Citigroup to write down 24 billion and layoff 20,000 workers (http://www.cnbc.com/id/22639976)
Gloom... (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hale-stewart/the-great-debt-crisis-beg_b_81264.html)
(http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b84/bonddad/charts/effectivefedfundsrate.png)
QuoteThe issue is too much debt supported by too little value and income generation. As a result, time preferences are retreating, risk aversion is growing, and access to credit is diminishing.
Quote from: Cerevant on January 12, 2008, 04:31:07 PM
If you sign up with a credit monitoring service, you can see how convoluted it is. Too many cards, bad. Too few cards bad. If you use more than 50% of the credit on half your cards it is bad. So, if you have two cards and you a 50% balance on one of them it hurts your credit. If you have one card and you carry a balance, it hurts your credit. If your credit limit is too low, it is bad. If your credit limit is too high it is bad.
The only sure-fire way to have good credit is make your payments on secured debt (mortgage, auto), and carry as little revolving debt (credit cards, heloc's) as possible.
To add:
The new FICO 2008 will put a larger percentage on types of credit and debt to credit ratios but no one knows what those percentages are yet.. Currently the largest impact on scores are payment history of 35%, time in bureau is 15% and debt to ratio is 30%
For the best credit score and profile (as noted above) you will need 3 credit card accounts (revolving) with balances below 30% of your credit limit and 2 cars, homes, boats, furniture or personal accounts (installment) all with good long pay history's.
What the hell is up with Pat Buchanan? His bigotry for immigrants aside, this article (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/staticarticles/article59693.html) is actually dead-on-balls correct.
QuoteSince it began to give credit ratings to nations in 1917, Moody's has rated the United States triple-A. U.S. Treasury bonds have been seen as the most secure investment on earth. When crises erupt, nervous money seeks out the world's great safe harbor, the United States. That reputation is now in peril.
Last week, Moody's warned that if the United States fails to rein in the soaring cost of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the nation's credit rating will be down-graded within a decade.
Our political parties seem oblivious. Republicans, save Ron Paul, are all promising to expand the U.S. military and maintain all of our worldwide commitments to defend and subsidize scores of nations.
Democrats, with entitlement costs drowning the federal budget in red ink, are proposing a new entitlement – universal health coverage for the near 50 million who do not have it – another magnet for illegal aliens. Moody's is telling America it needs a time of austerity, while the U.S. government is behaving like the governments we used to bail out.
largest Nasdaq drop in 9 months..wow
stocks are cheap..god time to grab a hold but be dont try and be a hero. Good areas are resources (gold, agriculture), healthcare, and technology
nm fargit
Quote from: reese125 on January 15, 2008, 04:12:59 PM
largest Nasdaq drop in 9 months..wow
stocks are cheap..god time to grab a hold but be dont try and be a hero. Good areas are resources (gold, agriculture), healthcare, and technology
You like catching falling knives?
haha..very nice. I like catching "gold" though. Get on it
Gold just hit an all-time high, no? What kind of idiot seriously thinks that it's a good long-term investment?
Long-term..yes your right its scary, but do you know how long the gold bull market has been going on now? Whenever the market is down, you can always look to gold
My accountant is seeing a big jump in 2008 and I agree
(http://www.alanjohns.fsnet.co.uk/goldmember/goldmember.jpg)
I have a whole bunker full of gold bullion.
Quote from: FastFreddie on January 16, 2008, 01:54:59 PM
I have a whole bunker full of gold bullion.
hook it up then you greedy bitch
Quote from: FastFreddie on January 16, 2008, 01:54:59 PM
I have a whole bunker full of gold bullion.
It's fast, it's easy and the gold kit is free!! (http://www.cash4gold.com/index.html?uid=G_OTHERTR_Gold%7CKit)
'Financial Experts' tell us stuff that a bunch of football message board nerds were already able to figure out on our own. (http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/21/news/economy/stimulus_retailsales/index.htm?postversion=2008012114)
Hysterical...2 weeks ago Bush is lolly-gagging around the country stating that our economy was on a strong foundation, now wakes up in a cold sweat and calls for a tax stimulus. The biggest band-aid wont help the real problem, but Ill take the refund check anyhow
Appreciate it.
Quote from: reese125 on January 21, 2008, 04:17:38 PM
The biggest band-aid wont help the real problem, but Ill take the refund check anyhow
Bingo.
Me too. And if Monkeyman Bush thinks I'm going to blow it at Wal Mart he's out of his AIDS soaked mind. It goes to debt or savings.
Quote from: Diomedes on January 21, 2008, 06:04:48 PM
Me too. And if Monkeyman Bush thinks I'm going to blow it at Wal Mart he's out of his AIDS soaked mind. It goes to debt or savings.
Damn right
What's debt?
feds drop interest 3/4 of a point, and the futures opened down -523. ARMEGEDDON
The Fed move was to stave off distaster. Hang in there...things will improve today. Hell, things might even finish in the green.
Cutting interest rates was (part of) what led the country into this mortgage/debt nonsense problem in the first place. Not poo-pooing the cut, just pointing out that we want to make sure we've actually learned from our mistakes. Also, maybe a new solution to the problem, rather than recycled ideas to 'stave off' distaster would be refreshing.
Yep. Lowering interest rates stimulates the economy by encouraging more debt. That sucking sound you hear is the US dollar circling the drain.
Quote from: Cerevant on January 22, 2008, 12:36:27 PM
Yep. Lowering interest rates stimulates the economy by encouraging more debt. That sucking sound you hear is the US dollar circling the drain.
Are we still equal with the loonie?
Yep. The loonie would have pulled ahead and kept going, but that would kill the economy up here...
Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aEgwdDHD5Fbs&refer=home)
QuoteThe Bank of Canada, in a scheduled meeting, lowered its main interest rate by a quarter point today to 4 percent and signaled it will act again to shield Canada from the U.S. slowdown. The Bank of England said it has no plans to change the date of its next rate decision. The bank's policy makers are due to begin a two-day meeting in London on Feb. 7.
"Stimulus Package" (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UCAOTO0&show_article=1)
Sounds hot.
I won't get a dime, and shouldn't, so it must be fair.
Here's how the deal works out, according to the AP via NYTimes:
QuoteHow the Rebate Works
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 8:41 p.m. ET
How Americans in different financial situations would fare under the rebate plan proposed by House leaders and the White House.
--An individual with $2,500 in earned income in 2007: Disqualified because income fell below the $3,000 threshold. No rebate.
--A married couple with no children, with adjusted gross income of $100,000 in 2007: Would qualify for the full $1,200 couples. A $1,200 rebate.
--A worker with one child, who earned $9,000 and owed no taxes in 2007: Would qualify for the $300 rebate available to individuals who pay no taxes but earned at least $3,000, plus an additional $300 for the child. A $600 rebate.
--A couple with income of $145,000 in 2007, with three children: Would qualify for the full $1,200 for couples, plus $300 for each child. A $2,100 rebate.
--A couple with income of $160,000 in 2007 with two children: Would qualify for a partial rebate, reduced by 5 percent for every $1,000 in income above the $150,000 threshold. An $1,800 rebate -- $1,200 for the couple plus $300 per child -- would go down by 50 percent for this family. A $900 rebate.
--A couple with income of $200,000 and four children: Disqualified because their income exceeded $174,000, the phase-out limit. No rebate.
--An individual with adjusted gross income of $23,000 and no dependents would get a rebate of $600.
--A couple with adjusted gross income of $160,000 and two children would get a rebate of $1,300.
--A couple with adjusted gross income of $184,000 and two children would get a $100 rebate.
thanks Dio
i dont know why but im getting $600...kind of embarrassing really...i will be donating mine...this really is what it says it is a stimulus package for bushs pathetic economy not really to help people out
whatever I get, is going half to debt and half to savings
let the people who live in McMansions spend this welfare check on teevees and ottomans
thats a good thing for you and anyone else that it can make a difference to
i have no debt and i have enough savings...so i will give it to someone who needs it a lot more than me
in that case, consider making your 600 donation to me...I need it a lot more than you..I'll use it to pay off my wife's smallest college loan so we have one less bill each month
thats right you sold out to the system and got married...which means you are getting a 1200 household check...spend it wisely
anyway ill definitely consider it
IGY: Donate it to John Edwards' campaign!
But seriously, what the hell is this anyway? To the people that really need it, it's a slap in the face and not enough, and too many people that don't need it are getting something back.
I guess I might nab $100 or so, and I'll do my American duty by blowing it on alcohol or drugs, the legal kind.
Quote from: FastFreddie on January 25, 2008, 07:57:08 AM
But seriously, what the hell is this anyway? To the people that really need it, it's a slap in the face and not enough, and too many people that don't need it are getting something back.
on the surface i agree....but like i said above its not for the people its for the economy...i mean its not a secret its in the name..."economic stimulus" rebate...tho if it works and imporves the economy thats what will really help people
that said id still like to see it changed and maybe have under $50,000 get 1200 and 50 to 75 get 300 or something along those lines
It would nice if someone could come up with a way to stimulate the economy without also encouraging debt (interest rate drops) or actually costing the government billions of dollars (tax refund).
It is an economic stimulus because most people who get big tax refunds think they just won the lottery, and go spend it on something stupid. With the lowered interest rates, the government is hoping you spend it on something stupid like a car, so they can get more "bang" (ie: debt) for your buck.
Quote from: Cerevant on January 25, 2008, 09:00:03 AM
With the lowered interest rates, the government is hoping you spend it on something stupid like a car
faint hope...people spend this kind of rebate on non durbale goods like utlilites clothing food gas ect...bush gave a similar rebate in 2000 i think and thats what the spending was on...they are ignorant if they think 300-600 bucks is going to help people purchase a car
Couples are getting $1000-$2000. No, that isn't going to buy a car outright, but it would be a nice down payment on a lease. Or maybe they'll just drop the cash on a fancy new flat screen TV. They could really stimulate the economy if they planned tax refunds to arrive just before the super bowl.
the most a couple can get is 1200 (plus 300 for each seedling)
my boy sun gonna be cakin OFF!!
$1,500 would just about pay for my Eagles season tickets.
Get it done, Chimp.
Quote from: ice grillin you on January 25, 2008, 09:29:11 AM
the most a couple can get is 1200 (plus 300 for each seedling)
my boy sun gonna be cakin OFF!!
Wow, damn straight he is.
Quote from: Cerevant on January 25, 2008, 09:24:10 AM
Couples Families are getting $1000-$2000. No, that isn't going to buy a car outright, but it would be a nice down payment on a lease. Or maybe they'll just drop the cash on a fancy new flat screen TV. They could really stimulate the economy if they planned tax refunds to arrive just before the super bowl.
Fixed
Help me get the facts straight:
This is merely a "rebate" on this years' taxes - so any tax refund next year is going to be that much less or the tax bill is going to be that much more, right?
If I remember right, the last "rebate" ended up screwing us pretty good come the next spring...
bills be gettin paid
Any of you accountant / finance types out there know about the one-year Roth exemption in 2010 (http://www.articlealley.com/article_77706_19.html)?
Would I have to put money into a traditional IRA in 2008 and 2009 to do this? Is there a maximum amount that can be put into a Roth in 2010?
Instead of a tax rebate, they should have used the money to help our crumbling infrastructure. It would have guaranteed a stimulus but isn't nearly as popular as these checks.
Quote from: Philly Crew on January 28, 2008, 09:36:56 AM
Instead of a tax rebate, they should have used the money to help our crumbling infrastructure. It would have guaranteed a stimulus but isn't nearly as popular as these checks.
How many lanes would you add to I-95? I think the consensus is 17.
Quote from: Philly Crew on January 28, 2008, 09:36:56 AM
Instead of a tax rebate, they should have used the money to help our crumbling infrastructure. It would have guaranteed a stimulus but isn't nearly as popular as these checks.
The public is too stupid to comprehend that type of it-takes-time-but-really-will-help plan. Oh, and the government is too inept and dependent on union labor to make it happen in any sort of reasonable time-frame.
someone correct me if im wrong but the way i read the 2010 roth rule is this...there is normally an income limit for roth iras...so you can only participate in them if you make less than $100k (i think)
however...the income limit is not going to be in place in 2010 so you can convert your traditional ira into a roth and all the converted money will grow tax free....but i think you will need to pay taxes on any of the contributions to your traditional ira since when you first made them they were tax deductible....
in other words you will pay ordinary income taxes on the amount transferred....and you will pay at the rate of your income plus the amount transferred
Quote from: ice grillin you on January 28, 2008, 09:53:54 AM
someone correct me if im wrong but the way i read the 2010 roth rule is this...there is normally an income limit for roth iras...so you can only participate in them if you make less than $100k (i think)
however...the income limit is not going to be in place in 2010 so you can convert your traditional ira into a roth and all the converted money will grow tax free....but i think you will need to pay taxes on any of the contributions to your traditional ira since when you first made them they were tax deductible....
in other words you will pay ordinary income taxes on the amount transferred....and you will pay at the rate of your income plus the amount transferred
That's pretty much what I heard. The other part I heard is that you can claim the extra "income" split up over 2011 and 2012. The part I don't know is if there is any maximum to the amount you can convert and if it has to be sitting in a traditional IRA prior to 2010.
Quote from: FastFreddie on January 28, 2008, 09:41:51 AM
Quote from: Philly Crew on January 28, 2008, 09:36:56 AM
Instead of a tax rebate, they should have used the money to help our crumbling infrastructure. It would have guaranteed a stimulus but isn't nearly as popular as these checks.
How many lanes would you add to I-95? I think the consensus is 17.
in delaware, they need to add 20. There is a 5 mile stretch from 141 to the MD line that makes you want to eat bullets
Quote from: FastFreddie on January 28, 2008, 09:56:39 AM
The part I don't know is if there is any maximum to the amount you can convert and if it has to be sitting in a traditional IRA prior to 2010.
i dont think there is any maximum....i mean ira contributions are limited to 4K/year (i think)....and it was as little as 2K not very long ago so most accounts cannot be very large
where else would the money be sitting other than a ira?
to Marlo
Quote from: ice grillin you on January 28, 2008, 10:43:29 AM
where else would the money be sitting other than a ira?
I was thinking along the lines of a savings or money-market account. Basically, instead of deferring the tax until 2010-2012, why not pay tax and invest in a non-retirement account, then just transfer without additional tax liability (except on interest, of course)?
Anyway, I'm assuming it has to be in a traditional IRA. But still, those are further limited by income levels AND access to 401k plans, so a surprisingly small number of full-time workers are eligible for a traditional IRA, or at least one that provides the income tax shelter for the amount deposited.
It's things like this that infuriate me, though. It's really not as much about the tax rate as the confusing tax code. It inherently is beneficial to people with the means to circumvent it.
ING Direct has great rates
im pretty sure the waiver only applies to ira ----> roth transfers
Quote from: ice grillin you on January 28, 2008, 10:58:58 AM
im pretty sure the waiver only applies to ira ----> roth transfers
Good to know. I'll be delighted to continue paying a small fraction of your salary.
WalMart trying to outdo Bush in its plans to stimulate the economy. Couldn't hurt. (http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/29/news/companies/walmart_pricecuts/index.htm?postversion=2008012908)
Also, WalMart is satan. Or Hitler, if you prefer.
I thought their prices were always "falling" regardless. Haven't you seen the commercial with the smiley face axing down prices throughout the store?
I'm confused. Please advise.
You've fallen prey to clever advertising. Lemming.
Dee dee dee dee dee... I'm lovin' it!
(http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/images/dilbert20024447980130.gif)
Fed drops rates again. Inflation, here we come.
Hooray for encouraging debt in a country already drowning in it!
Quote from: FastFreddie on January 30, 2008, 03:13:49 PM
Fed drops rates again. Inflation, here we come.
home refinance here I come
conventional mortgage rates are really tied to the 10-year rate
so this doesnt have a direct impact on that long term rates....there may be some reduction in mortgage rates...they are already pretty low...but its not tied directly to the overnight rate...
Quote from: ice grillin you on January 30, 2008, 03:34:21 PM
conventional mortgage rates are really tied to the 10-year rate
so this doesn't have a direct impact on that long-term rates....there may be some reduction in mortgage rates...they are already pretty low...but its not tied directly to the overnight rate...
You're not as dumb as you'd like us to believe.
i think you mean reese is dumber than you thought...even people from red states know what the mortgage rates are based on
Quote from: ice grillin you on January 30, 2008, 03:46:08 PM
even people from red states know what the mortgage rates are based on
Ha! So, where's reese from?
ork
please dont try to educate me or anyone else on finances and what to do son....your in social services for christs sake. You are clueless and far less experienced. I could show you a smart way to do it now as the rate cuts, but unfortunately your too dumb to realize that everyones situation is different, not black and white
Just because you have a quick google trigger and can look up mortgage rates... doesnt make you an expert, it makes you sound more uneducated. So, like I said Bernacke...when you get of your moms cellar and stop putting your name on the orange juice... than you can bring some knowledge to the table.
Quote from: reese125 on January 30, 2008, 03:58:41 PM
please dont try to educate me or anyone else on finances and what to do son....your in social services for christs sake. You are clueless and far less experienced son. I could show you a smart way to do it now as the rate cuts, but unfortunately your too dumb to realize that everyones situation is different, not black and white
Just because you have a quick google trigger and can look up mortgage rates... doesnt make you an expert, it makes you sound more uneducated. So, like I said Bernacke...when you get of your moms cellar and stop putting your name on the orange juice... than you can bring some knowledge to the table.
(http://www.philaflava.com/forum/images/smiles/owens.gif)
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51EA4PJNWTL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg)
read it
Holy shtein.
Microsoft bids $45 billion to buy Yahoo (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080201/microsoft_yahoo.html?.v=14)
more record profits for ExxonMobil (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080201/earns_exxon_mobil.html?.v=6)
Mission accomplished for George W.
Quote from: FastFreddie on February 01, 2008, 08:39:31 AM
Holy shtein.
Microsoft bids $45 billion to buy Yahoo (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080201/microsoft_yahoo.html?.v=14)
That news shocked the hell out of me.
Mostly, because I sold all my Yahoo stock last week.
Whoops.
Quote from: FastFreddie on February 01, 2008, 08:39:31 AM
Holy shtein.
Microsoft bids $45 billion to buy Yahoo (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080201/microsoft_yahoo.html?.v=14)
Does anyone even use Yahoo anymore? Its on the verge of becoming an interesting footnote in the history of teh internets, not a hot investment.
I think Gates has lost it...$45 billion for Yahoo is insane.
Quote from: Butchers Bill on February 01, 2008, 12:17:07 PM
Quote from: FastFreddie on February 01, 2008, 08:39:31 AM
Holy shtein.
Microsoft bids $45 billion to buy Yahoo (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080201/microsoft_yahoo.html?.v=14)
Does anyone even use Yahoo anymore? Its on the verge of becoming an interesting footnote in the history of teh internets, not a hot investment.
I think Gates has lost it...$45 billion for Yahoo is insane.
If you owned it yesterday, it was.
Quote from: Butchers Bill on February 01, 2008, 12:17:07 PM
Quote from: FastFreddie on February 01, 2008, 08:39:31 AM
Holy shtein.
Microsoft bids $45 billion to buy Yahoo (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080201/microsoft_yahoo.html?.v=14)
Does anyone even use Yahoo anymore? Its on the verge of becoming an interesting footnote in the history of teh internets, not a hot investment.
I think Gates has lost it...$45 billion for Yahoo is insane.
I have MyYahoo as my homepage. I like it better than Google's version (which takes forever to load). I don't use Yahoo's search engine though, I have the Google toolbar installed. I can still check my gmail through MyYahoo so the 2 Google functions I use the most (search and mail) are easily available to me.
Quote from: Wingspan on February 01, 2008, 12:23:47 PM
Quote from: Butchers Bill on February 01, 2008, 12:17:07 PM
Quote from: FastFreddie on February 01, 2008, 08:39:31 AM
Holy shtein.
Microsoft bids $45 billion to buy Yahoo (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080201/microsoft_yahoo.html?.v=14)
Does anyone even use Yahoo anymore? Its on the verge of becoming an interesting footnote in the history of teh internets, not a hot investment.
I think Gates has lost it...$45 billion for Yahoo is insane.
If you owned it yesterday, it was.
True, but overall...meh.
Its trading close to 60X earnings and has a 36 billion market cap. I may actually sell it short after today.
yahoo fantasy leagues alone are worth 45 billion
Quote from: Sgt PSN on February 01, 2008, 12:27:38 PM
Quote from: Butchers Bill on February 01, 2008, 12:17:07 PM
Quote from: FastFreddie on February 01, 2008, 08:39:31 AM
Holy shtein.
Microsoft bids $45 billion to buy Yahoo (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080201/microsoft_yahoo.html?.v=14)
Does anyone even use Yahoo anymore? Its on the verge of becoming an interesting footnote in the history of teh internets, not a hot investment.
I think Gates has lost it...$45 billion for Yahoo is insane.
I have MyYahoo as my homepage. I like it better than Google's version (which takes forever to load). I don't use Yahoo's search engine though, I have the Google toolbar installed. I can still check my gmail through MyYahoo so the 2 Google functions I use the most (search and mail) are easily available to me.
That's exactly my situation.
I'm not sure what Yahoo's ad revenue is versus paid content, but I think if Mr. Bill wants to compete with Google (which may or may not be a lost cause), he needs to shore up as much portal space as possible. The MSN portal sucks, MyYahoo kicks ass, and thsubscriber base of those two combined will be ginormous.
With Yahoo's spike and MSFT's drop (which I still own), this was a $3500 downturn for me today. Now I just have to hope the long term benefit to MSFT is worth it.
Also worth pointing out that this was simply an offer - not an actual deal.
I read that Yahoo turned it down. As someone stated earlier the fantasy sports alone make it worth it...
Quote from: rjs246 on February 01, 2008, 02:51:24 PM
Quote from: ice grillin you on February 01, 2008, 12:30:09 PM
yahoo fantasy leagues alone are worth 45 billion
Truth.
Is that why you charged us all an extra $10 for the "privilege" of using Sportsline, jackass?
Worst. Commish. Ever.
Let it go.
Quote from: FastFreddie on January 30, 2008, 03:13:49 PM
Fed drops rates again. Inflation, here we come.
And shock - the USD falls below the CAD again.
I'm glad I hold a few thousand in a Canadian mutual fund.
flush, swirl (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ahdFXrBzJKes&refer=home)
Quote from: reese125 on January 30, 2008, 03:26:19 PM
Quote from: FastFreddie on January 30, 2008, 03:13:49 PM
Fed drops rates again. Inflation, here we come.
home refinance here I come
Quote from: ice grillin you on January 30, 2008, 03:34:21 PM
conventional mortgage rates are really tied to the 10-year rate
so this doesnt have a direct impact on that long term rates....there may be some reduction in mortgage rates...they are already pretty low...but its not tied directly to the overnight rate...
IGY wins again.
30-year rates since end of January:
Jan 24 - 5.48%
Jan 31 - 5.68%
Feb 7 - 5.67%
Feb 14 - 5.72%
Feb 21 - 6.04%
for your Fatal Combat mind Bernacke, I just saved $600 on my refi with Charles Schwab
but of course your molding into IGY and believing everyones home financing is exactly the same. You want to know how I did it...PM me..even then I probably still wont tell you.
I know of several ways I could reduce my mortgage payment by $600. I wouldn't recommend any of them to anyone I cared about, though.
So, enjoy that.
then get off IGY's nuts and put the pom poms down like he proved me wrong by digging up posts
and if you "did know" how to reduce your mortgage, you would of already..but you love dishing out an extra 6 beans a month because your good like that right?
Quote from: reese125 on February 27, 2008, 02:57:38 PM
and if you "did know" how to reduce your mortgage, you would of already..but you love dishing out an extra 6 beans a month because your good like that right?
Guess you only make minimum payments on your credit cards too then?
Oh, and genius:
"could have" not "could of"
"your" is possessive, "your're = you are"
Quote from: reese125 on February 27, 2008, 02:57:38 PM
then get off IGY's nuts and put the pom poms down like he proved me wrong by digging up posts
and if you "did know" how to reduce your mortgage, you would of already..but you love dishing out an extra 6 beans a month because your good like that right?
proving you wrong has actually gotten quite difficult lately with all your copy and pasting...it used to be almost an hourly thing when your own thoughts were involved...
regardless its certainly nothing to wave pom poms about...pretty sure even munson could take you to school
Quote from: Cerevant on February 27, 2008, 03:01:29 PM
Quote from: reese125 on February 27, 2008, 02:57:38 PM
and if you "did know" how to reduce your mortgage, you would of already..but you love dishing out an extra 6 beans a month because your good like that right?
Guess you only make minimum payments on your credit cards too then?
0 down, 0 payments, 0%, same as cash!
Quote from: ice grillin you on February 27, 2008, 03:02:42 PM
regardless its certainly nothing to wave pom poms about...pretty sure even munson could take you to school
True.
Quote from: ice grillin you on February 27, 2008, 03:02:42 PM
Quote from: reese125 on February 27, 2008, 02:57:38 PM
then get off IGY's nuts and put the pom poms down like he proved me wrong by digging up posts
and if you "did know" how to reduce your mortgage, you would of already..but you love dishing out an extra 6 beans a month because your good like that right?
proving you wrong has actually gotten quite difficult lately with all your copy and pasting...it used to be almost an hourly thing when your own thoughts were involved...
regardless its certainly nothing to wave pom poms about...pretty sure even munson could take you to school
This whole forum is copy and pastes every day. Everyone does it. BigED is the king of it, but its nerds like you that feel the need to follow mine up-- so you can get a response from the peanut gallery to get attention. Probably the gayest thing Ive ever seen.
In your twisted lonely mind, you think everyone whats to hear your opinion on every post every day. Its not only funny, its quite sad actually that you need that much attention. Christ, you made RJS throw up about it, he had to leave. Get it yet?
I miss rjs.
Quote from: reese125 on February 27, 2008, 03:19:55 PM
Quote from: ice grillin you on February 27, 2008, 03:02:42 PM
Quote from: reese125 on February 27, 2008, 02:57:38 PM
then get off IGY's nuts and put the pom poms down like he proved me wrong by digging up posts
and if you "did know" how to reduce your mortgage, you would of already..but you love dishing out an extra 6 beans a month because your good like that right?
proving you wrong has actually gotten quite difficult lately with all your copy and pasting...it used to be almost an hourly thing when your own thoughts were involved...
regardless its certainly nothing to wave pom poms about...pretty sure even munson could take you to school
This whole forum is copy and pastes every day. Everyone does it. BigED is the king of it, but its nerds like you that feel the need to follow mine up-- so you can get a response from the peanut gallery to get attention. Probably the gayest thing Ive ever seen.
In your twisted lonely mind, you think everyone whats to hear your opinion on every post every day. Its not only funny, its quite sad actually that you need that much attention. Christ, you made RJS throw up about it, he had to leave. Get it yet?
thats who easy is...dont bring him into this...he knows stuff...you are a two bit easy wannabe biter
Quote from: Father Demon on February 27, 2008, 03:29:34 PM
I miss rjs.
you can find him on the message board that is funny and full of fresh schticks
I wanna be your friend
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080227/ap_on_go_co/energy_taxes
raise taxes and they raise prices, how about we cut spending.
His miserable attitude was refreshing
Bear Stearns bailed out by Fed, JPMorgan (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080314/ap_on_bi_ge/bear_stearns_8)
Quote from: Phanatic on March 14, 2008, 12:45:46 PM
Bear Stearns bailed out by Fed, JPMorgan (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080314/ap_on_bi_ge/bear_stearns_8)
Bear was 10 days away from becoming insolvent which would have been devastating. Its not over yet...don't let the press fool you. No one is willing to trade with Bear right now, and unless the Fed wants to buy them, they are likely going under.
I'll trade with them. They can take 100 bucks today and give me back 200 bucks tomorrow.
Seems fair, right?
Money lover.
Not nearly on the scale of these things, but apparently my school district is going to have massive budget cuts, caused by a couple of things;
1. The bad economy means less tourists in Florida - and that is the main source of revenue for the state government.
2. Big drops in the value of properties - less property tax.
3. Voters passed an exemption to the homestead law, which basically doubles the amount of value that is protected from property tax.
Down here, most counties are their own school districts. My district has something like 8 high schools, and various feeder middle and elementary schools. and employs about 5,000 teachers.
The district is going to try to take the cuts at the district office level first - see how much can be saved there. After that, they'll go to school staffs (assistant principals, secretaries, aides, custodians, etc. As a last resort, they'll begin to cut teaching positions. The total amount floating around (rumor mill) is about $16 million. My principal believes that our school will lose the equivalent of 3-5 teaching "units" (basically 3-5 times the average teaching salary - about $150K - $250K or so).
Being an academic teacher with quite a bit of seniority, my job is safe. Unfortunately, a lot of others - and some who don't make very much money - are looking at losing either hours, benefits, or positions.
Bear was worth $3.5 billion on Friday.
Today? $236 million.
JPM buys them for $2 a share. Wow (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120569598608739825.html?mod=djemalertNEWS)
Nearly three-quarters of all Americans think the economy is in a recession, according to a national poll released Monday. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/17/poll.national/index.html?eref=rss_topstories)
I hate news like this. 75% of the population can't balance their checkbooks, is $20K in debt, and think cars cost $499 a month instead of $30,000 - yet they think the US is in a recession.
The press could start repeatedly running stories that the earth will reverse polarization on Friday, and people will be up in arms because they won't get afternoon sun in their kitchens anymore.
recession? Even after the Bush kick-back? No way, there jumping the gun
Rumor is the Big banks might start consolidating.
Quote from: Father Demon on March 17, 2008, 01:41:48 PM
75% of the population can't balance their checkbooks, is $20K in debt, and think cars cost $499 a month instead of $30,000 - yet they think the US is in a recession.
It's almost disturbing to me that I feel I could have typed those exact words. Why is it any wonder that fiscal responsibility can't be found in government? It's not like most people practice it at home.
And why can't they practice it at home?
really, I'm asking.
It certainly wasn't taught in my schooling...what I know I taught myself and learned outside of school. I'm not trying to say it's the government/school system's fault...just stating a fact
75% is an awful high number for high horses and all that.
I have an Aunt and Uncle that are very simple folk. Great people I love them to death. He worked in a factory his whole life and has a meager pension and social security to live off of. Now in their 70's without social security they'd be nowhere. They did not plan their money well it all sure. They lived day to day. It's cool to rail against the stupid folk who couldn't figure it out and all but they're real people.
Quote from: Diomedes on March 17, 2008, 06:14:12 PM
And why can't they practice it at home?
really, I'm asking.
School systems couldn't even compete anyway. Advertising is always for buy now, pay later. And whether it be via mail or TV, people are just inundated with it. Plus, the whole "keeping up with the Joneses" mentality is very powerful, and since most people live outside their means, it's much like a spreading disease.
Quote from: Phanatic on March 17, 2008, 06:33:21 PM
75% is an awful high number for high horses and all that.
I have an Aunt and Uncle that are very simple folk. Great people I love them to death. He worked in a factory his whole life and has a meager pension and social security to live off of. Now in their 70's without social security they'd be nowhere. They did not plan their money well it all sure. They lived day to day. It's cool to rail against the stupid folk who couldn't figure it out and all but they're real people.
No doubt. And those are the types of people that should get Social Security. But most "real people" simply do not have the knowledge and discipline to adequately save on their own and live within their means.
My point wasn't to rail against people because they can't control their finances.
My point was the press has been going on and on about a recession, and suddenly people who can't balance a check book know enough about global finance to "think we are in a recession." 75% think we're in a recession? I bet 40% of our population couldn't name first and last name of the three presidential candidates right now, but all of the sudden they are smart enough to recognize a recession.
People don't THINK we are in a recession, they hear it on the news and regurgitate what the press wants them to say. Hence my ridiculous example about the re-polarization of the earth.
But, back to the more interesting point.
When I was in school, I was required to attend art class, metal shop, wood shop, sewing, and and an elective such as band or music. Not all at once, but over my high school years.
Not once was I taught anything about personal finance.
Most parents don't know enough about for themselves, let alone enough to try to teach it to their children. I disagree with FF, in that I think a semester at a minimum should be required for all jr. high kids, and again as high school students. At least a base of knowledge would be helpful against the "spend-now-pay-later" culture of the profit-first society we live in.
You could have a whole semester on taxes...
As for recession I don't even know what that means. I do know that as a family we can't spend as much as we used to because of gas and other rising costs. Milk seems to follow gas in per gallon prices somehow. That and a lack of finance experiance on our part early on that we'll pay for over the next 10 years or so. So am I running out and pouring money into the economy somehow right now? Most certainly not. I'm paying down debt the best I can.
Now I have neighbors who have brand new cars and boats and two or three refi's on their house. I think they gave up on living for tomorrow thinking it will never come and have their fun now while they can. I don't agree but once they got in trouble they saw quick out and said farg it. Somehow they manage to keep digging that whole deeper too.
Ever wonder why "Home Economics" class has nothing to do with economics?
I agree, people need to be educated. The problem is, that you forgot that the US is run by the corporations who want people to spend all their money, and some they don't have.
This article explains the credit/subprime crisis as well as anything I've seen (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/19/business/leonhardt.php).
Great read.
Funney (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laland/2008/03/report-bernanke.html).
Even the "regular" media is starting to get nervous...
US ponders: How deep is economic abyss? (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080323/ap_on_bi_ge/economy_on_the_edge_6)
Quote from: Geowhizzer on March 23, 2008, 04:09:17 PM
Even the "regular" media is starting to get nervous...
US ponders: How deep is economic abyss? (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080323/ap_on_bi_ge/economy_on_the_edge_6)
lol, CNBC Thursday had a headline that its believed the recession is over, and has been driven mostly by consumer fears. No one knows where this is going, the global economy is a mess daily. Oil is the biggest predictor of where the economy will go.
If oil is number one, housing is a very close, second-cousin almost, second.....
From a commercial report on the state of the economy:
QuoteThe economic reports are weak. Inflation remains persistent. Housing activity continues to fall and will likely fall further as builders need to reduce inventories. Industrial production fell during February and the regional survey points to continued weakness in March.
All four of the measures used by **** to determine business cycle peaks and troughs are in decline. This is consistent with a recession. In addition, the leading economic index declined for the fifth consecutive month, which is also consistent with past recessions. Our running tab of positive economic indicators slipped to eight ( 8 ) out of 20.
It ain't lookin good.
DO we really want this president messing with banking?
Paulson Proposes Financial Overhaul
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080331/fed_overhaul.html (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080331/fed_overhaul.html)
Robert Kiyosaki's ("Rich Dad") take on bailouts (http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/richricher/76669)
I can't tell if he's really for or against anything, but he makes a lot of good points with historical reference to devalued currency.
This will likely be more than just a financial crisis. For those that aren't already familiar...
http://books.google.com/books?id=zC2OMovDiC4C&dq=long+emergency&pg=PP1&ots=3ZTeBbw1iU&sig=AcJiqqso4jmWlia8rSxPEpH3TqI&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:*&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=long+emergency&spell=1&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPP1,M1
Great link, shteinhead.
Quote from: Phanatic on March 31, 2008, 11:47:12 AM
DO we really want this president messing with banking?
Paulson Proposes Financial Overhaul
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080331/fed_overhaul.html (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080331/fed_overhaul.html)
Paulson is actually a brilliant guy. Probably the best appointee Bush had made.
QuoteGreat link, shteinhead.
Is it not working, ass-face?
(http://www.haruth.com/r/hogettes2005s.jpg)
It could be worse.
Anyone know how to accurately calculate Alpha and Beta, net present value, and CAPM?
6
Quote from: SD_Eagle on April 22, 2008, 01:35:44 PM
Anyone know how to accurately calculate Alpha and Beta, net present value, and CAPM?
Who doesn't?
I have the formula its just some of the terminology is confusing for the alpha and beta. Wait...were you just farging around?
Quote from: SD_Eagle on April 22, 2008, 01:59:06 PM
I have the formula its just some of the terminology is confusing for the alpha and beta. Wait...were you just farging around?
6.
bump
oil jumps 11 dollars a barrel in one day
dow industrial drops 400 points
im - 20% in my 401k so far this year...yay
Can't wait until my Federal taxes jump 5%.
you need to see a therapist about your obsession with taxes
you whine complain as though you're the only motherfarger who ever had to pay taxes
enough already
can we delete 'coming' out of the thread title
Quoteyou whine complain as though you're the only motherfarger who ever had to pay taxes
enough already
But his tax dollars obviously means so much more to him than ours do. He's special.
Quote from: ATV on June 06, 2008, 09:58:08 PM
But his tax dollars obviously means so much more to him than ours do. He's special.
his everything means much to him than anyone elses anything
Unemployment rate sees largest monthly jump since 1986
http://www.kansascity.com/business/story/653239.html (http://www.kansascity.com/business/story/653239.html)
Quote from: ice grillin you on June 06, 2008, 10:05:25 PM
Quote from: ATV on June 06, 2008, 09:58:08 PM
But his tax dollars obviously means so much more to him than ours do. He's special.
his everything means much to him than anyone elses anything
Well, duh.
Where is Joel when you need him. That moneylover should be all over this thread by now...
Any long term investor would have taken the opportunity yesterday to put a little extra money in their investment accounts.
Hold on... let me go check the couch and my daughter's piggy bank for spare change.
Seriously, how many people have a big stack of cash just waiting to invest long-term?
Quote from: FastFreddie on June 07, 2008, 10:31:40 AM
Hold on... let me go check the couch and my daughter's piggy bank for spare change.
Seriously, how many people have a big stack of cash just waiting to invest long-term?
You don't have an extra $200-$300 you could have put into your daughters college fund while the market is low?
My extra 300 dollars just went to Marvin's Mufflers (great shop) for a new cat because the old one shat the bed last week.
So no, people don't have extra money, unless you wanna share some of yours Mr. Richie Smartpants.
Unless you've lost your job in the past 6 months...you're income is likely the same, if not better that it was a year ago.
When the economy turns sour, it's wise to cut down on the expendable spending, and save it or invest it with some rate of return.
People don't have extra money now because they were fiscally retarded a year ago...with a house thats too expensive...or 2 car payments...or $200 a month on phone/cable/internet/cell phone combinations...going out to eat 3 or 4 times a week.... Whatever, if they had just lived within their means a year ago..they would be in a comfortable spot now, with a little extra to invest for the long term.
I am not rich by any means. But I am smart when it comes to my wife and I's finances. I hold no shame in that.
What extravagant spending did I do in the last year? Oh yeah, the daughter...
Quote from: Wingspan on June 07, 2008, 11:57:35 AM
Unless you've lost your job in the past 6 months...you're income is likely the same, if not better that it was a year ago.
When the economy turns sour, it's wise to cut down on the expendable spending, and save it or invest it with some rate of return.
People don't have extra money now because they were fiscally retarded a year ago...with a house thats too expensive...or 2 car payments...or $200 a month on phone/cable/internet/cell phone combinations...going out to eat 3 or 4 times a week.... Whatever, if they had just lived within their means a year ago..they would be in a comfortable spot now, with a little extra to invest for the long term.
I am not rich by any means. But I am smart when it comes to my wife and I's finances. I hold no shame in that.
Some people have been devastated by this economy, me included. I've always been fairly conservative with my dough but even so it's been a really tough year for me and my family.
Making comments like "people were fiscally retarded" indicates to me that you have no clue about what's going on in certain sectors of this country. That's not surprising, though, because you routinely have no clue about much else either.
Clown.
I don't have extra money now because I don't make extra money beyond what I need to live and save a modest amount. Has nothing to do with being fiscally irresponsible last year. shtein, I haven't been fiscally retarded since I was like 25. My only debt is a college loan, has been that way for years. My wife's only debt is a couple college loans.
Wingnut, you don't know shtein about what people face. You are in good shape, so you assume anyone who isn't is dumb...that's some lousy reasoning. About par for the course from you.
I agree with Wingspan in that you are all idiots.
Quote from: Wingspan on June 07, 2008, 11:04:24 AM
Quote from: FastFreddie on June 07, 2008, 10:31:40 AM
Hold on... let me go check the couch and my daughter's piggy bank for spare change.
Seriously, how many people have a big stack of cash just waiting to invest long-term?
You don't have an extra $200-$300 you could have put into your daughters college fund while the market is low?
Right, because catching the market on a down day by dropping in an extra three bills is the secret to getting rich.
Now, if you dropped $200/month every month no matter what? Yeah, that could do you quite nicely.
300 bills laid down today won't be squat in 15-20 years. It would take tens of thousands. In twenty years, it will take 2-3 mil to retire comfortably without living extravagantly, even with the aid of s.s., which might not even be there.
Quote from: shorebird on June 08, 2008, 10:51:48 AM
300 bills laid down today won't be squat in 15-20 years. It would take tens of thousands. In twenty years, it will take 2-3 mil to retire comfortably without living extravagantly, even with the aid of s.s., which might not even be there.
You're right...and since I have no way to get stinking rich in about 6 months...we should save nothing and blow it all on hookers.
Nope, just find a happy medium. I refuse to let go of the NFL Sunday ticket.
Wing is right. Hookers are an investment in your future.
What really pisses me off is that I've been investing in retirement ever since I started working. It's called social security. I've watched my money get pissed away, and experts say there won't be enough left to live on without having a diet of catfood and water. Hell, people collecting it now have a hard enough time living on it without help.
Tell the farging irs to take my social security money and put it in mutual funds, that would be a hell of a lot more than 300 bills every year. shtein, I would be able to retire right now.
Stop whining, nancy.
Quote from: shorebird on June 08, 2008, 11:59:28 AM
Tell the farging irs to take my social security money and put it in mutual funds.
Shhhh. The Democrats would have you believe that privatizing social security is actually MORE risky than the current system.
QuoteI refuse to let go of the NFL Sunday ticket.
I did. If Gibbs didn't leave I probably wouldn't have but then again the NFL keeps raising the price. Just like their stadium tickets. They'll take what they can get.
Quote from: ATV on June 08, 2008, 02:00:17 PM
QuoteI refuse to let go of the NFL Sunday ticket.
I did. If Gibbs didn't leave I probably wouldn't have but then again the NFL keeps raising the price. Just like their stadium tickets. They'll take what they can get.
We have something in common. I also might not invest in the ticket this year. I still wish you were dead.
At the end of the day the difference between privatized social security and government social security isn't much because no matter which one fails, we'll all be left to pick up the pieces just the same. Just like we are doing now with the housing/energy/credit/Iraq disaster.
There are only 2 real questions regarding privitize vs. government control: a:should the extremely weathly get richer off managing social security as they run it into the ground, or should the inefficient governement waste those would-be profits on beaurocracy and redundant jobs for club fed workers as they run it into the ground? And b, a secondary question which might be made moot given the right laws (but which isn't likely): do you value transparency in the social security system...if so, you will side with government, if not, with the financial industry..
Was absolutely planning on getting NFL Ticket this season - and today I saw how much it is. $269. Assuming I spend $40 per visit to Buffalo Wild Wings (they have a new manager, and I've talked to him about the last icehole. He assured me he only talks shtein of shtein has been spoken to him - 100% fair), that's almost 7 visits to break even.. I'm going to 2 games in person (hopefully), and assume 3 are on national TV. That's 5, plus the 7 to break even. That leaves 4 game to decide if I want the Ticket, and to give up the bar atmosphere and delicious wings.
So I'm at a food co-op while visiting my moms last month, and I see a placard at the cash register that says:
Quote
Please Consider Cash or Check
Electronic Transaction Costs
Debit Card: .45 per transaction
Credit Card: 1.8% of sale
Rewards Card: 2.3% of sale
Corporate/Business Credit Card: 3.0% of sale
We paid x,xxx.xx in bank fees last year to process electronic payments. As your non profit co-op, we want to reduce that payment as much as possible to keep prices down and use our revenue for improved service to our community.
I don't remember how much they paid in bank fees of course, and it doesn't really matter. It's good co-op, offering all kinds of healthy shtein at reasonable prices (better than Fresh Fields/Whole Foods, etc.), sells a lot of locally grown foods and very little out of season stuff that has to be trucked, etc. But I digress. I don't mean to talk about that store.
That placard has stuck in my head. Holy shtein, the fees the credit card companies charge are outrageous. I've read about how gas stations are losing money selling gas because their margins are so slim, and the total value of sales have increased so much, that the percentage charge from the bank on credit card transactions actually consumes their profit and then some.
And bear with me a sec here...it's also true that credit card companies bear NO fraud risk. If you call and say, these charges aren't mine, they take them off your statement and it's all good. Except it's not all good...the bank then goes back to the vendor and says, we're taking this money back, it was fraudulent. Now the vendor/store is stiffed for the goods/services. They can call the cops of course, but fat chance they can/will do anything about it.
Credit cards are issued to anyone, with interest rates approaching 25%, and minimum payments explicitly designed to keep you from every repaying your balance.
So now that I've railed off a bunch of this, we get to my rather obvious and boring conclusion:
Use cash. It's good for you, it's good for America, it's good for everyone. Use cash especially at stores you really like, that have slim operating budgets, at the family owned gas station around the corner.
farg the credit card companies. It's not enough to pay off your balance every month, they need to be starved of transaction payments too.
Solid rant.
Use creditcards, give me bonuses
Actually, if Visa or Mastercard finds out about that placard, the co-op will lose their debit/credit machines.
Or...if it's so hard for a store or a business to accept other forms of payment...they should put up a sign that says cash only.
Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on June 24, 2008, 08:23:27 AMActually, if Visa or Mastercard finds out about that placard, the co-op will lose their debit/credit machines.
interesting...stores aren't allow to publicize the cost of electronic transactions?
Quote from: Wingspan on June 24, 2008, 09:04:18 AMOr...if it's so hard for a store or a business to accept other forms of payment...they should put up a sign that says cash only.
yeah, because it's that cut and dried.
everyone has been scared into thinking cash is dangerous, with no small input from the banks on that front, forever pushing how safe and risk free their cards are, not to mention the banks have done everything they possibly can to make credit cards more and more convenient and acces to cash less and less convenient/more expensive...to the point that if you do not accept credit cards, you can't stay in business.
"tough luck" you would say, I suppose. yay you
how am i supposed to get all my free eagles stuff if i dont use a credit card
It is "tough luck"
You don't care about the gas station owner having to raise their prices to make a profit. But when it's a food co-op that you patronize...then it's cry me a river? ha.
You, sir, are no different than the "me generation" you rail against time and time again.
I never carry any more than $20 in cash any more. And I dont intend to change that. If its so hard for a store to take credit or debit cards, then they should just invoke a minimum purchase, or stop taking them, we don't need a pity party at the register about how much things are costing the store. Especially when the people shopping there are stretching an unemployment check to pay for the gas to even get there.
btw i wanna murder people who still write checks at grocery stores
Quote from: Wingspan on June 24, 2008, 09:52:10 AM
And I dont intend to change that. If its so hard for a store to take credit or debit cards, then they should just invoke a minimum purchase, or stop taking them, we don't need a pity party at the register about how much things are costing the store.
Actually a Minimum Purchase policy is against Visa/MC/Amex/Discover regulations, and if stores are caught, will be fined and lose the ability to use credit cards.
When they go all cash, its clearly better for the business, but the problem lies with losing customers who do utilize credit all the time against carrying cash, businesses will ultimately lose customers over a small percentile. I had it out with the pakistani down the street over a minimum purchase policy, i wanted a pack of cigs, he said i had to spend 10 bucks, i basically explained the policy, he said he didnt care. Told him have fun with the phone call he gets. Next time i went in there the sign was down, and he gave me the death stare.
And Dio, they cant tell you in writing why they dont want you to use credit cards, it's in their contract.
I don't see this as a pity party at all. I see this as yet another in a long line of financial burdens imposed by a system that HEAVILY favors massive corporations over small, local businesses. Huge companies don't give a shtein about these fees and don't think twice about them, but they are prohibitive to traditional small shops. The corporatization of this country is scary and 'little' things like this represent a serious problem to any company isn't an enormous corporation.
Quote from: rjs246 on June 24, 2008, 10:00:47 AM
I don't see this as a pity party at all. I see this as yet another in a long line of financial burdens imposed by a system that HEAVILY favors massive corporations over small, local businesses. Huge companies don't give a shtein about these fees and don't think twice about them, but they are prohibitive to traditional small shops. The corporatization of this country is scary and 'little' things like this represent a serious problem to any company isn't an enormous corporation.
the problem is the people of the country....in many instances the corporations only exist if the people let them...and we have to many wings and ff's who only care about themselves and their families and farg everyone else...like george carlin said everyone is to worried about their cell phone that can make pizza than they are about actual human beings
Big Corporations own the Government.
Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on June 24, 2008, 10:15:37 AM
Big Corporations own the Government.
Yes. That is the point. They own the government, the government makes and enforces rules, and allows behavior that directly benefits big corporations making life difficult for the little guys. The whole process serves to take many steps toward snuffing out the entrepreneurial opportunities that the average person has in this country.
I normally like being right about everything, but Big Brother taking over this country is something that I wish I had been wrong about.
Quote from: ice grillin you on June 24, 2008, 10:12:48 AM
Quote from: rjs246 on June 24, 2008, 10:00:47 AM
I don't see this as a pity party at all. I see this as yet another in a long line of financial burdens imposed by a system that HEAVILY favors massive corporations over small, local businesses. Huge companies don't give a shtein about these fees and don't think twice about them, but they are prohibitive to traditional small shops. The corporatization of this country is scary and 'little' things like this represent a serious problem to any company isn't an enormous corporation.
the problem is the people of the country....in many instances the corporations only exist if the people let them...and we have to many wings and ff's who only care about themselves and their families and farg everyone else...like george carlin said everyone is to worried about their cell phone that can make pizza than they are about actual human beings
lol...yeah you have me pegged.
and carlin said nothing of the sorts...the actual quote is
"Everyone has a cell phone that will make pancakes for them so we're all fat and happy and satisfied and we don't question a lot of things."
it has nothing to do with caring about other humans...in fact Carlin was adament in not caring about other humans, that we were all just animals taking up space and that at some point the earth is going to shake us off like a bad case of fleas. And there is nothing we can do about it.
George Carlin aside, doesn't the bigger picture of stuff like this scare anyone other than the two resident uber-liberals?
I mean, I guess I can sort of see how you could argue that massive corporations are somehow good for our economy and therefore this isn't a big deal. But bigger the socio-political impact of shtein like this really scares the shtein out of me. Which is why I'm so thankful that I have beer to calm me down.
Big Money will own the government as long as the lobbyist / PAC machine continues to run. But hey, who cares about campaign finance reform...
I get hammered on 99 cent downloads. I lose 30% of every sale to the credit card companies. Then there's another 9% that goes to distribution. Good thing I'm not expecting to make money that way.... or at all...
Quote from: rjs246 on June 24, 2008, 11:26:28 AM
George Carlin aside, doesn't the bigger picture of stuff like this scare anyone other than the two resident uber-liberals?
I mean, I guess I can sort of see how you could argue that massive corporations are somehow good for our economy and therefore this isn't a big deal. But bigger the socio-political impact of shtein like this really scares the shtein out of me. Which is why I'm so thankful that I have beer to calm me down.
This is where the uber liberals talk out of both sides of their mouth. They go on and on about big business and the conservative goverment being bad and draging down the economy...but then they want the liberal arm to sweep in and save the day. And on top of that, they like to point out the people who are looking out for themselves and their families. like this...
Quote from: ice grillin you on June 24, 2008, 10:12:48 AM...and we have to many wings and ff's who only care about themselves and their families and farg everyone else...
Well I am not going to sit at my computer and endless bitch that someone else isn't helping me or my family. I am going to do what I can to protect my family and myself from any crisis set on by the same goverment and big business that the extreme liberals rally against. I am not excluding others...I am setting a priority. It's not my concern that a select few want someone else to come in and fix their problem.
...credit card companies charge to use their service?
...stores are raising their prices to protect themselves from rising fuel costs, correct?
I will take measures to ensure that I make sound financial decisions to protect myself and my family from the same detriments that the corporations face. And no crying from doi or icee will ever change that. It's a fairly simple concept. Sometimes life sucks...the world has always been a fight or flight survival, now is no different.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/06/24/lawrence.price.of.paradise.cnn
Hawaii is gonna suck for my brother
Wing: All of that is fine. Understandable. Admirable. Taking care of yourself and your family is not my concern here obviously. My concern is with the 'tough shtein' 'too bad' flippancy of people's responses to these things. This is serious and it is something that should be addressed or it will have serious ramifications on the country. Acknowledging the problem and doing something, even in small ways, can address the problem while still allowing you to provide for your own situation.
Whatever. Socio-political ramifications!
People are always going to have that response, until it directly effects them. Sometimes it has to get worse before it gets better. Once they are forced to change because of the conditions...it will force the government or big business to change because their cash cow (the american public) will dry up.
I apparently don't have to be included in the discussion to have an opinion anymore.
I agree with Dio's original rant explicitly for many reasons. Naturally and predictably, I don't think the corporations are as much to blame as are the idiots that use credit cards to leave beyond their means, but the whole credit industry is off its rocker, and the "subprime crisis" was just the beginning.
If people actually lived within their means and paid cash, inflation would be curbed, values and prices would better reflect the true market, and the country would be a better place to live. However, instead of letting some things return to reality, the government is bailing out the corporations and individuals that made awful decisions with credit.
America... farg YEAH!
Quote from: FastFreddie on June 24, 2008, 01:35:31 PM
I apparently don't have to be included in the discussion to have an opinion anymore.
I agree with Dio's original rant explicitly for many reasons. Naturally and predictably, I don't think the corporations are as much to blame as are the idiots that use credit cards to leave beyond their means, but the whole credit industry is off its rocker, and the "subprime crisis" was just the beginning.
If people actually lived within their means and paid cash, inflation would be curbed, values and prices would better reflect the true market, and the country would be a better place to live. However, instead of letting some things return to reality, the government is bailing out the corporations and individuals that made awful decisions with credit.
America... farg YEAH!
Well Said
Quote from: Wingspan on June 24, 2008, 09:52:10 AMYou don't care about the gas station owner having to raise their prices to make a profit. But when it's a food co-op that you patronize...then it's cry me a river? ha.
If you had bothered to read what I posted, you'd see that I cited the gas stations as an example of the same problem which the sign at the co-op made me think about, and if you had read, you'd also see that I'm not crying a river for the co-op either. I'm talking about a rigged system, and pointing out that using cash is pretty much the only way around it.
You're acting like a fleshpop, as usual.
The point is that giving it up the kazoo to the oil companies or the banks/creditors is only going to hurt the everyman if done under our current attitudes and consumption habits. Overuse of fossil fuels and "free" money is ruining people's lives, but the usage pattern doesn't even begin to pause until a severe problem is uncovered. People are stubbornly making really stupid decisions more and more, and it's costing all of us quality of life.
P.S. By the way, here comes the bailout (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080624/D91GKJ4G1.html)! Once again, we have more money we don't have going to people that don't deserve it. Hell, I'd rather they announced $300 billion in support for schools or health care in distressed areas. How about some love for the flood victims in Iowa? Congressional asses are all pandering with no long-term vision at all.
Our retail portion of the branch has stopped taking Amex because of the cost per transaction.
I am like Wing, I rarely carry cash with me and if I do its only about $20. I use my Continental/Chase debit card for everything so I can rack up air miles that I will likely never be able to use.
I do believe that the CC companies need to be reigned in somewhat though. You'd think they make enough off of the fees that they have for every thing plus interest.
use those miles up soon son. i just booked a flight to europe and another to cancun within the next half a year just to make sure i get to use them before the airlines decide to just make them go away.
http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid86195573/bclid212338097/bctid1612702175
Drew Carey on Nafta
Quote from: phattymatty on June 25, 2008, 12:04:39 AM
use those miles up soon son. i just booked a flight to europe and another to cancun within the next half a year just to make sure i get to use them before the airlines decide to just make them go away.
I am going to start spending them. But the restrictions they put on there piss me off.
BAC to axe 7,500 people after CFC acquisition (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080626/bank_of_america_countrywide.html)
Quote from: FastFreddie on June 26, 2008, 03:23:13 PM
BAC to axe 7,500 people after CFC acquisition (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080626/bank_of_america_countrywide.html)
Bought their mortgage contracts, no need for their lenders. Nice to read about it on CNBC before anything here. YAY. Im so farging happy i've lost my ass in stock over the past month, now i wonder if i should jump out at a 10dollar loss since im 100% in
Buy and hold. Buy and hold.
i figured 35 would be the worst, obviously you can see why i dont deal with stock.
June 30, 2008
Worse Than Grandma's Depression
This isn't so funny anymore. Intimations of a July banking collapse rumbled though the Internet this weekend while mainstream news orgs like The New York Times and CNN pulled their puds over swift boats and Amy Winehouse's performance technique. Something is happening, and you don't know what it is, do you Mr. Jones...? to quote the master.
What's happening is that American society is sliding into a greater depression than the one Grandma lived through. On the technical side, there has been unending controversy as to whether we're gripped by inflation or deflation. It's certainly deceptive. Food and gasoline prices are rising faster than the rivers of Iowa. But the prices of assets, like houses, stocks, jet-skis, GMC Yukons and pre-owned Hummel figurines are cratering as America turns into Yard Sale Nation.
We're a very different country than we were in 1932. In that earlier crisis of capital, few people had any money but our society still possessed fantastic resources. We had plenty of everything that our land could provide: a treasure trove of mineral ores and the equipment to refine it all, a wealth of oil and gas still in the ground, and all the rigs needed to get at it, manpower galore (and of a highly disciplined, regimented kind), with fine-tuned factories waiting for orders. We had a railroad system that was the envy of the world and millions of family farms (even despite the dust bowl) owned by people who retained age-old skills not yet degraded by agribusiness. We had fully-functional cities with operating waterfronts and ten thousand small towns with local economies, local newspapers, and local culture.
We had a crisis of capital in the 1930s for reasons that are still debated today. My own guess is a combination of a bad debt workout that sucked "money" into a black hole (since money is loaned into existence, but vanishes if the loans are not systematically paid back) plus a gross saturation of markets, meaning that every American who had wanted to buy a car or an electric toaster had done so and there was no one left to sell to. (The first round of globalism -- 1870 - 1914 -- had shut down after the fiasco of World War One.)
Our debt problems today are of a magnitude so extreme that astronomers would be hard pressed to calculate them. By any rational measure our society is comprehensively bankrupt. From the federal treasury down to the suburban cul-de-sacs so much loaned money is either not being paid back, or is at risk of never being paid back, that the suckage of presumed wealth has passed through an event horizon out of the known universe into some other realm of space-time, never to be seen again in this realm. This would seem to be the very essence of monetary deflation -- money defaulted out-of-existence.
This condition is partly disguised by both the loss of credibility of US currency and real-world scarcities of oil and food, but the upshot will be something at least twice as bad as the Great Depression of the 1930s: people with no money in a land with no resources (with manpower that has no discipline), hardly any family farms left, cities that are basket-cases of bottomless need, comatose small towns stripped of their assets and social capital, an aviation industry on the verge of death, and a railroad system that is the laughingstock of the world. Not to mention the mind-boggling liabilities of suburbia and the motoring infrastructure that services it.
The banks have been doing their death dance for an entire year now, pretending that their problems are those of mere "liquidity" (i.e. cash-on-hand) rather than insolvency (no cash either on hand or in the vault and nothing else to sell to raise cash except worthless "creative" securities that nobody would ever buy). But the destruction of money (resulting from loans not paid back) is now so intense that the game of pretend has reached its terminal point. The question for the moment is exactly who and what will be crushed as these institutions roll over and die.
Complicating matters is a global oil predicament that is really not hard to understand, but which the organs of news and opinion have obdurately failed to explicate for an anxious public. Call it Peak Oil. There are only a few elements of it you need to know. 1.) that demand has now permanently outstripped supply; 2.) that new discoveries are too meager to offset consumption; 3.) That under under the circumstances, the systems we rely on for daily life are crumbling. I've called this situation The Long Emergency.
Our chances of mitigating this, and of continuing our current way-of-life is about zero. I've tried to promote the idea that rather than waste remaining resources in the futile attempt to sustain the unsustainable (i.e. come up with "solutions" to keep suburbia running), that we should begin immediately making other arrangements for daily life -- mainly by downscaling and re-scaling everything from farming to commerce to the way we inhabit the landscape -- but my suggestions have proven unpopular even among the "environmental" elites, who are too busy being entranced by new-and-groovy ways to keep all the cars running.
So where we are at now is the equivalent of standing in the slop by the ocean shore under a gathering hundred-foot-high wave that is about to come crashing down on our heads. Since I sure don't know everything, I can't say how this will all play out in the months ahead, especially with the presidential election coming at the exact moment that voters will be turning on their furnaces for the cold and dark winter beyond. I would venture to say that so far our society as a whole has done a piss-poor job of comprehending the situation. But there is still the possibility, with four months of politicking left, that the nature of our predicament can be articulated in a way that few can fail to understand, the way Mr, Lincoln articulated the terms of the Civil War on the eve of its fateful outbreak.
http://www.kunstler.com/index.html
For those who considered fleeing the country...a new law (http://www.mainstreet.com/theres-law-takes-away-money-if-you-leave-us-citizenship) says that if you give up your citizenship, all of your US assets are taxed as capital gains.
Guess you guys are stuck with me.
That is some farged up shtein.
EDIT: Never mind, that law only takes effect if you actually get rid of your citizenship, not if you just pack up and leave. Who cares?
Because if you keep your citizenship, you have to pay fed taxes on any AGI > $82,400.
So what you're saying is that the only solution is to abolish the IRS? Fine.
(http://mail2.someecards.com/filestorage/ind_10.jpg)
I don't think this is the kind of stimulus (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/02/nation-buys-porn-with-sti_n_110457.html) Bush was hoping you would invest in...
QuoteAn independent market-research firm, AIMRCo (Adult Internet Market Research Company), has discovered that many websites focused on adult or erotic material have experienced an upswing in sales in the recent weeks since checks have appeared in millions of Americans' mailboxes across the country.
He's in no position to be picky about how people are spending their money. As long as it's getting spent he can claim success.
Actually, items of artificial scarcity (movies, music, software) have almost no resource demands and extremely limited employment impact.
It's still money being pumped into the economy. Look I'm on record for disliking the whole economic stimulus, my point is that as long as that money is getting put back into the economy in some way Bush can and will claim success.
The flaw with that reasoning is the assumption that the money will continue to circulate in the economy and not get "stagnant". Ways the money can stop:
1) Savings/Stock purchase
2) Paying debt
3) Foreign investment
If the money is spent on something that does not cost significant resources (physical or human) the money has to change hands again or fall into one of the above. Every time money changes hands, the likelihood of one of these outcomes increases.
There is no flaw in Rusty's reasoning. Bush's stated intent for the money is that people spend it. If people do that, he can claim success. It's a matter of fact, not opinion.
Regarding how sound the chimp's plan is, that's a different question, and one which our miserably refreshing friend is not talking about.
The Dow dipped below 11k for the first time in 2 years today. Good times.
And Boom Goes the Dynamite
Anyone else find it funny that Chuck Schumer single-handedly pushed IndyMac over the edge?
LINK (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laland/2008/07/feds-cite-schum.html)
His response is standard pass-the-buck bullshtein. There are many banks out there with liquidity problems, but he specifically mentioned this bank, and people understandably rushed to get their money out. Good times.
It's hilarious, Everyone who had over 100k should be smart enought to withdraw their funds, yet he goes out and singles IndyMac out, and Poof, Bank Failure.
Wachovia is in trouble too, that would be very interesting to see.
Why would anyone put in over $100k at an FDIC-insured bank? If you want to have that much in the bank, then spread it out over multiple banks to make sure it's all backed. Derrrr.
Wachovia going down? Yikes.
EDIT: Just found this article on which bank will be next to fail (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a4CojjiiioCw&refer=worldwide). Quote about Wachovia:
QuoteWachovia Corp., the fourth-largest U.S. bank, fell 11 percent to $10.26, a 17-year low, after being cut to ``neutral'' from ``buy'' at UBS AG, which predicted a dividend reduction to 1 cent and the sale of $5 billion of common shares.
Thats scary, though i know Uncle Ken will be dancing in the streets
The only positive in my eye would be a new name for the Wachovia Center
QuoteAnalyst warns on Wachovia amid more bank worries
2 hours ago
NEW YORK (AP) — The situation is increasingly bleak for Wachovia Corp. and the bank's mortgage portfolio will continue to lose value, "seriously jeopardizing" the company's ability to generate earnings, an influential analyst warned on Tuesday.
The latest note of caution came as the government moved to reassure people their money is safe in the nation's banks. Yet fears about the system persisted and financial shares were broadly lower Tuesday, signaling another tough day for the stock market.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is scheduled to brief Congress Tuesday on the economy, which has been walloped by high energy prices and fallout from the housing slump and credit crunch. The testimony also comes amid a backdrop of rising oil prices and a slumping dollar, and as stock markets overseas tumble amid worries about the U.S. financial system.
Bernanke will also specifically address a rescue plan crafted over the weekend for mortgage financiers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which hold or guarantee more than $5 trillion in mortgages — almost half of the nation's total.
On Monday, shares of U.S. banks and financial companies swooned on concern that the government plan to shore up Fannie and Freddie would not be enough to keep them from failing, which could undermine the U.S. and global financial system.
National City Corp. shares fell nearly 15 percent on rumors of financial trouble, even though it said it was experiencing no unusual activity. Washington Mutual Inc.'s shares fell 35 percent amid worries about whether it had enough cash to handle the mortgage market downturn. WaMu said that it did.
Depositors lined up outside IndyMac Bank branches on Monday to pull their cash out after the savings and loan's assets were seized by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on Friday. It was the largest bank failure since the collapse of Continental Illinois in 1984. It is estimated it could cost the FDIC between $4 billion and $8 billion out of the agency's $53 billion insurance fund.
In Asia and Europe, lack of confidence in U.S. regulators' ability to contain the problems sent shares
Does he actually believe the shtein he spews? (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080715/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush)
Quote from: PhillyGirl on July 15, 2008, 04:20:38 PM
Does he actually believe the shtein he spews? (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080715/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush)
he's saying the same thing every CEO is saying right now?
http://www.fool.com/investing/dividends-income/2008/07/15/whos-the-next-indymac.aspx
This isn't all too different from the S&L debacle a while back. Yeah, it sucks, and yeah, there will be some pain and gnashing of teeth...but that doesn't mean it's the end of the world, despite the media's shtein-stirring.
Quote from: PhillyGirl on July 15, 2008, 04:20:38 PM
Does he actually believe the shtein he spews? (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080715/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush)
I am no bush fan..
at all.
But what does he say in this article that is so outrageous?
(http://www.threesources.com/archives/kevin-bacon.jpg)
As long as Citizens Bank is OK, I'm good. I left Wachovia a long time ago when I found out my branch didn't shred papers containing account numbers and threw them out in the regular trash....
No one's trying to steal your identity Ed. Just settle down.
truly. his money on the other hand...
Quote from: Wingspan on July 15, 2008, 05:04:05 PM
Quote from: PhillyGirl on July 15, 2008, 04:20:38 PM
Does he actually believe the shtein he spews? (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080715/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush)
I am no bush fan..at all.
But what does he say in this article that is so outrageous?
Clearly, you're just another neo-con zealout shill. Stop pretending.
Quote from: Diomedes on July 15, 2008, 06:16:18 PM
truly. his money on the other hand...
Shut-ins have money?!?!
Quote from: Wingspan on July 15, 2008, 05:04:05 PM
Quote from: PhillyGirl on July 15, 2008, 04:20:38 PM
Does he actually believe the shtein he spews? (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080715/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush)
I am no bush fan..at all.
But what does he say in this article that is so outrageous?
Financial system basically sound
= housing market basically sound
= 1999 .com investments basically sound
Dot coms were basically millions of dollars being flooded into a group of guys in a refurbished warehouse with some ideas that might someday make actual money.
The housing market is still based on good, old-fashioned real estate. So while values are declining to much more reasonable levels, homes and land still have inherent value.
But yeah, I can see why you'd want to portray them as basically identical. I know all of you are just waiting for Obama to get elected so that he can get all the credit for the good economy, which will in reality be brought on by a normal upwards cycle of the economy.
No normal cycle could deal with the burden of Iraq. We need to stop spending all that fake money to fight a republican crusade before any normal cycle can bring relief. McCain won't end Iraq..he likes it.
QuoteBut yeah, I can see why you'd want to portray them as basically identical. I know all of you are just waiting for Obama to get elected so that he can get all the credit for the good economy, which will in reality be brought on by a normal upwards cycle of the economy.
You might as while throw the war in Iraq in that statement as well. By the time Obama gets in, the current 150,000 troops will be down dramatically, and he will be raising his hands in victory speeches across America--unless of course another terrorist plane decides to take a right hand turn
The problem is that this is not a normal cycle. There were peaks and troughs in the last two decades, but the "sane" price was always around $125k. Previous peaks were 10-15% deviations from this median. We are now 80% above the median. That's a long way to fall.
(http://mysite.verizon.net/vodkajim/housingbubble/united_states_1890-2007.png)
i think the housing market is fabulous...i just bought a brand new home for 75k less than it was going for last summer
Quote from: ice grillin you on July 16, 2008, 09:45:56 AM
i think the housing market is fabulous...i just bought a brand new home for 75k less than it was going for last summer
i can't believe you used Fabulous
Quote from: Cerevant on July 16, 2008, 09:31:43 AM
The problem is that this is not a normal cycle. There were peaks and troughs in the last two decades, but the "sane" price was always around $125k. Previous peaks were 10-15% deviations from this median. We are now 80% above the median. That's a long way to fall.
Sure, it's a long way to fall back to the actual median. But you and I both know that's not going to happen, and even if it did, there is still SOME value to property. A lot of idiots took a lot of bad loans on houses they couldn't afford, and it artificially drove the price up. While a full correction would actually be much better for the long-term stability of the banking/mortgage industry AND for the cost of housing, it really fargs all of us in the ass that do own a home. So, we know it won't completely correct.
I'm confused as to what you're trying to argue here anyway. It's clear this is an extremely different scenario than the dot com boom/bust, because we are talking about tangible assets. It's clear that a correction was necessary in the wildly-inflated price of housing. It's clear that that actual fundamentals of the economy for most of us really haven't changed.
I suppose you just want Bush to come out and follow suit with the media and say how farged we are? Explain to me how that would be beneficial in any way.
<------ghetto fab
The only people that this housing market is potentially hurting (other than the ones who bit off more than they can chew) are those that are looking to downgrade where they live (meaning a smaller house...or house to condo transition...). Selling one and buying another house winds up about a 1:1 trade. And first time buyers are getting a bargain as well.
Quote from: Wingspan on July 16, 2008, 09:54:31 AM
The only people that this housing market is potentially hurting (other than the ones who bit off more than they can chew) are those that are looking to downgrade where they live (meaning a smaller house...or house to condo transition...). Selling one and buying another house winds up about a 1:1 trade. And first time buyers are getting a bargain as well.
the people it hurts are the people who bought during the housing explosion four five years ago and now for whatever reason HAVE to sell
My point was that this is not just part of a cycle, but a dramatic change that has no precedent in history. As a result, assuming that it will just fix itself is a bit naive.
I agree that there is a fine line between causing an economic panic and fixing the problem, but you can engender confidence by showing that you understand the problem and that you have some concept of how to fix it. The problem I have with McBush is that their plan seems to be to stay in a state of denial. Cause, you know, fighting a war is fun and profitable!
Quote from: ice grillin you on July 16, 2008, 09:59:53 AM
Quote from: Wingspan on July 16, 2008, 09:54:31 AM
The only people that this housing market is potentially hurting (other than the ones who bit off more than they can chew) are those that are looking to downgrade where they live (meaning a smaller house...or house to condo transition...). Selling one and buying another house winds up about a 1:1 trade. And first time buyers are getting a bargain as well.
the people it hurts are the people who bought during the housing explosion four five years ago and now for whatever reason HAVE to sell
Which is pretty much what I said.
Quote from: Cerevant on July 16, 2008, 10:03:58 AM
My point was that this is not just part of a cycle, but a dramatic change that has no precedent in history. As a result, assuming that it will just fix itself is a bit naive.
I agree that there is a fine line between causing an economic panic and fixing the problem, but you can engender confidence by showing that you understand the problem and that you have some concept of how to fix it. The problem I have with McBush is that their plan seems to be to stay in a state of denial. Cause, you know, fighting a war is fun and profitable!
Your posts used to be somewhat informative and insightful. Now, everything you post is propaganda for Obama, and a strong, vile hate to anything either Bush or McCain stands for. No one is 100% correct or 100% wrong, and your posts have degraded to the point of watching an Obama infomercial at 3:00 AM.
At least talk about tits or something sometimes.
Cerevant has always been a rah rah Obama guy, but I agree that we should talk about tits. And butts. Hooray for tits and butts.
Quote from: Father Demon on July 16, 2008, 10:17:54 AM
Quote from: Cerevant on July 16, 2008, 10:03:58 AM
My point was that this is not just part of a cycle, but a dramatic change that has no precedent in history. As a result, assuming that it will just fix itself is a bit naive.
I agree that there is a fine line between causing an economic panic and fixing the problem, but you can engender confidence by showing that you understand the problem and that you have some concept of how to fix it. The problem I have with McBush is that their plan seems to be to stay in a state of denial. Cause, you know, fighting a war is fun and profitable!
Your posts used to be somewhat informative and insightful. Now, everything you post is propaganda for Obama, and a strong, vile hate to anything either Bush or McCain stands for. No one is 100% correct or 100% wrong, and your posts have degraded to the point of watching an Obama infomercial at 3:00 AM.
when have you been dookie...he was never not a schill for obama...i called him out on this a long time ago
I was talking pre-election season, when he used to talk about other stuff. Now his Obamuslim (is that similar to McBush?) rhetoric is non-stop.
But I agree, IGY - you did call him out a long time ago. I guess it took me longer to tire of the rhetoric than most.
Now, as discussed:
(http://techdigest.tv/scarlett-johansson-album-release-napster.jpg)
yeah to be honest i never really noticed him before the primary....but once that kicked off he was untenable
Prices in townhouses in my neighborhood are finally going back up. I'm hoping that some of the people who are trying to sell at prices from a year and a half ago get it. Then i'll be selling with about 40k in equity.
Quote from: rjs246 on July 16, 2008, 10:29:19 AM
Cerevant has always been a rah rah Obama guy, but I agree that we should talk about tits. And dude butts. Hooray for tits and dude butts. I drive a Toyota Prius! People fear me!
I did not bring Obama into this discussion. I did say that I don't think that Bush and McCain's strategy of "its all in your head" will be successful.
Actually, I knew nothing about Obama before we were down to Obama vs. Hillary. Early on I was very pro Gore and Paul curious. I became an "Obama shill" as an exercise to come up with evidence that IGY completely wrong with his assertions that Obama had no chance to win the primary.
I am always open to logical debate, and am always willing to consider evidence supporting other views. I would say that I have a number of views which are in direct conflict with the Obama platform. I'm just sick of the US government being run by criminals (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/15/complicity/index.html). (Yes, you too Pelosi)
I stick to the assertion of a quote I made before: the worst case scenario is for either of these guys to get elected and to get everything they want.
That being said, I guess I haven't been doing a good enough job of pandering to my base. Consider this my apology:
(http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g142/jooshh/lohan-jessica-alba.jpg)
Lohan has no right to be in that picture.
Lohan has poop stains on her leg
Sorry, I was looking for the classic Alba Ass picture, but this was the first one I could find.
wow i never knew that was lohan
(http://eatliver.com/img/2008/2775.jpg)
I have tried and tried and tried again to eat and enjoy liver, but I just can't eat liver.com.
The first two or three bites of liver are always freaking delicious. The next however-many-bites-it-takes-to-finish-the-meal taste like chalky rectum.
liverwurst and espcially pate is friggin delicious tho
my favorite tho and something i make about once a month...liver mousse...
chicken livers onion butter cream brandy thyme s&p...heat it all up food processor it and take a trip to heaven
Quote from: rjs246 on July 17, 2008, 08:53:11 PMchalky rectum
wow, the words I've always been looking for to describe the taste
well done
i can't say that description really has an basis for me.
Liver always leaves a chalky film in my mouth. And after a few bites tastes like ass. It's not all THAT complicated.
I've never eaten it and I never will.
I use chicken livers as bait when I go fishing for catfish. Those things stink worse than MDS.
I made money the past two days, yay stocks
Wachovia posted a 8.9 billion loss, cut dividends, its gonna be a slaugher today
They just announced 6350 jobs cut today also. They are farged
Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on July 22, 2008, 08:09:52 AM
Wachovia posted a 8.9 billion loss, cut dividends, its gonna be a slaugher today
They just announced 6350 jobs cut today also. They are farged
Damn. They should have known better than to associate themselves with Philadelphia sports.
So, what's the next name for the Wachovia Center?
Quote from: FastFreddie on July 22, 2008, 11:39:04 AM
So, what's the next name for the Wachovia Center?
Depression Center
wachovia changed their #'s, laying off over 10k and their stock is up now. Over 10% of their workforce being let go.
hope you didn't short sell going into this morning.....
Quote from: Father Demon on July 22, 2008, 03:26:27 PM
hope you didn't short sell going into this morning.....
nope, honestly i have no idea what the hell is going on anymore in the stock world. Pahlsson speaks, and Wachovia despite those losses is up nearly 25% farging crazy.
Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on July 22, 2008, 11:54:19 AM
wachovia changed their #'s, laying off over 10k and their stock is up now. Over 10% of their workforce being let go.
same thing happened to starbucks. this past week.
This $400 Billion housing bailout.... Why in the hell is Congress spending all this time on it? It benefits much fewer people than it takes away from.
Ugh.
Governmental bailouts sure are neat. They rescue and reward the people who took part in shady/unethical business practices while the rest of us who played by the rules are still left sitting around holding our dicks with various amounts of debt and unreasonably high housing prices to deal with.
Don't forget, though... it also helps all the poor, unfortunate people that were "tricked" into taking out bad loans on houses they couldn't afford. They REALLY deserve our help!
Does anyone see what happened here?
Companies offered sub-prime mortgages to people who otherwise wouldn't have been able to afford the large houses they were buying.
This helps to artificially drive up the cost of buying a house.
Homeowners everywhere get a massive boner because the house they bought 5 years ago is suddenly worth twice what they paid for it, or more.
The people eventually have to pay more than they can afford and lose their homes.
Meanwhile the mortgage companies lose the money that was owed to them on these bogus loans and are in serious financial perril...
BUT WAIT! Here comes the government to bail those companies out. Johnny No Brains still doesn't have a home to live in. People still can't afford to buy a house because the market is already farged by this ludicrous rise in prices. But the companies that gave out these loans in the first place get to keep operating with no punishment because the government is giving them Billions of dollars (that it doesn't even have) to recover all of the money they lost.
It's insanity. Not one thing in this scenario makes a farging lick of sense.
What I don't understand is why a bill that primarily benefits the shylocks in the mortgage industry is mostly being challenged on the right (even though Bush has said that he'll sign it, like the douche he is). Why is the a partisan issue? And if it is a partisan, shouldn't it be the Republicans being douches and bailing out the industry?
They're torn, you see, between bailing out their massive-industry masters and staying true to their 'small government' platitudes.
Bush obviously has no problems with the whole fiscal conservativism thing. He gave it up a few years back... Well, actually, I don't think he ever really was one.
Remember the whole "I'm a uniter; not a divider" shtein? Good times.
That's the funny thing. Without fiscal conservatism the republicans aren't really republicans anymore. They're just whores to the corporate and religious leaders who feed them money. This is why republicans are viewed in such poor light these days, but I guess there's no need to beat that dead horse. They're all whores. It's just a matter of which pimps they choose to whore themselves to.
They're not all whores. There are some of them that are already really rich and are thus able to stick to their ideals. Then, some of them are just stupid and easily swayed by public opinion.
But seriously, this housing bill doesn't even have public opinion behind it. It makes no sense.
get a room you lovers
No thanks, I'm too busy making love to my Prius.
I blame the appraisers. Those Romes should all farging die.
Or, worse, we could make them all work for county government.
I'm sure you'd be thrilled if they passed this before you cashed in on the down market with your new place.
Ass.
money is currently 176th on my list of things i worry about...in fact i cant find enough places to give my money away to
Good for you. Do you and reese want to compare paystubs, big guy?
given anything to the Slavery Museum yet? They need some donations.
http://www.usnationalslaverymuseum.org/home.asp
ive wanted to for a long time...but the whole thing has been a clusterfarg for a while now with shady accounting and disorganization...i think there are better places to give money too
That's rich. A government employee is complaining about accounting practices.
By the way, you've touched on exactly why I think there are better places to put my money than the IRS.
Quote from: ice grillin you on July 25, 2008, 08:23:52 AM
ive wanted to for a long time...but the whole thing has been a clusterfarg for a while now with shady accounting and disorganization...i think there are better places to give money too
First I've heard of it....link?
i dont have a link...its been in the papers here for years now...
try a fancy google search and im sure youll find something on it...its not really a secret
you sure it's not whitey trying to sabotage the effort? those blacks can't do numbers, can't resist stealing, etc?
There is no such thing as black-collar crime.
Quote from: Diomedes on July 25, 2008, 08:35:06 AM
you sure it's not whitey trying to sabotage the effort? those blacks can't do numbers, can't resist stealing, etc?
doug wilder is white isnt he?
farg if I know
whites steal money as a matter of pride, witness FF
well, I've read enough. they don't have much funding is the problem. They've got a lot of expenses and right now are spending more than they're bringing in. There is no proof they have the 50M Wilder says they do either.
here's a link http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2008-03-18-national-slavery-museum_N.htm
I sent them money a couple years ago, will probably send more some day.
it's pretty goddamn ridiculous that we don't have a national slavery museum....I mean unless you look at the whole country as a monument to what slavery built, but that's not what I'm talking about
I haven't stole a thing since taking $20 from my sister in the 5th grade.
But white people do like stealing money. Enron, Countrywide, Exxon, etc... And that's just the private sector.
FF=Enron, Countrywide, Exxon
they are the pinnacle of the system you worship
Unsurprisingly, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Big business is no better than big government in most cases. My problem is the people that assume massive government is the best way to keep all the evil corporations from becoming evil (aka turning a profit).
you're problem is you're stupid and greedy
Where is the national Native american museum?
D.C., on the mall
Quote from: Diomedes on July 25, 2008, 08:50:48 AM
you're problem is you're stupid and greedy
you are problem is you are stupid and greedy!
it's embarrassing how hard your dick gets for me Wingnut
Quote from: Diomedes on July 25, 2008, 08:43:29 AM
well, I've read enough. they don't have much funding is the problem. They've got a lot of expenses and right now are spending more than they're bringing in. There is no proof they have the 50M Wilder says they do either.
here's a link http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2008-03-18-national-slavery-museum_N.htm
I sent them money a couple years ago, will probably send more some day.
it's pretty goddamn ridiculous that we don't have a national slavery museum....I mean unless you look at the whole country as a monument to what slavery built, but that's not what I'm talking about
couldnt agree more and id love to help them out but they need to get their shtein in order before i give them money
whats most ironic abou the memorial is that it took black people to come up with the idea and get it off the ground...i dont know if its guilt and not wanting to bring attention to such an atrocity in our own country but damn you think the govt would would handle this...its the least they could do
id be interested to see if theres a national holocaust museum in germany
Anyone know who this wingnut fellow is? Doi keeps flattering himself talking about him.
the corporate cheerleader is making fun of me, I'm so angry
Quote from: Wingspan on July 25, 2008, 09:29:59 AM
Anyone know who this wingnut fellow is? Doi keeps flattering himself talking about him.
some eagle front office charlie manuel loving homer from CF
lololol
link?
Quote from: Diomedes on July 25, 2008, 09:31:04 AM
the corporate cheerleader is making fun of me, I'm so angry
Oh, come on
hypocrite, you can do better that that.
Teabag is going to make me cry
Quote from: Diomedes on July 25, 2008, 08:41:20 AM
whites steal money as a matter of pride, witness FF
Yep good old whitey in the corporate offices are the only evil ones in this great nation.
not a politician, :o and he isn't even white!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Jefferson
Quote from: FastFreddie on July 25, 2008, 08:36:21 AM
There is no such thing as black-collar crime.
This is funny.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tG5a1Z7LoFY&feature=related
Thankyou Slaves
Bob Barr jus sent me an email outlining how much each person in the US owes based on our government's debt. Right now it stands at more than $31,000 per person. After the Freddie/Fannie bailout that number will increase to $32,000+.
Yay.
Quote from: rjs246 on July 25, 2008, 04:29:18 PM
Bob Barr jus sent me an email outlining how much each person in the US owes based on our government's debt. Right now it stands at more than $31,000 per person. After the Freddie/Fannie bailout that number will increase to $32,000+.
Yay.
IGY is probably writing out a check as we speak. Maybe he can pay for all of us.
After he covers that debt, money could be more like #80 on his list of problems, though.
im not that rich
Quote from: ice grillin you on July 26, 2008, 09:28:41 AM
im not that rich
Well, you would be rich enough to solve the national debt, if you could only bring yourself to be slightly more of a money-grubbing whore like me or Lito Sheppard.
Now, donate to the slavery museum, and donate like you mean it.
Quote from: FastFreddie on July 22, 2008, 11:39:04 AM
So, what's the next name for the Wachovia Center?
The TD Centre. With the loonie propping up the dollar, Jeff & Joe might want to move the Eagles to Toronto.
Quote from: Cerevant on July 27, 2008, 09:51:09 AM
Quote from: FastFreddie on July 22, 2008, 11:39:04 AM
So, what's the next name for the Wachovia Center?
The TD Centre. With the loonie propping up the dollar, Jeff & Joe might want to move the Eagles to Toronto.
they already bought Commerce, wouldnt be a stretch for them
Awful. Senate passes housing bill 72-13. (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080726/congress_housing.html?.v=3)
I certainly understand the desire to help those that are less fortunate, but this is blatantly rewarding stupidity and allowing both the homeowners and the mortgage companies to be let off the hook completely. Not to mention the fact that it is costing the government $400 billion. What a crock of shtein.
Oh, and this is part of the bill also:
QuoteThe ceiling on the US national debt has been lifted by a further $800bn, giving the Treasury almost unlimited resources to prop up the two lenders.
Because, obviously, the problem with the stability of the American economy was that the government didn't already have enough debt.
Quote from: rjs246 on July 28, 2008, 08:28:00 AM
I certainly understand the desire to help those that are less fortunate, but this is blatantly rewarding stupidity and allowing both the homeowners and the mortgage companies to be let off the hook completely. Not to mention the fact that it is costing the government $400 billion. What a crock of shtein.
400 billion to help 400,000 people and essentially save the economy (because if freddie and fannie crashed burned all hell would brake lose) isnt that much...shtein the iraq war costs 2 billion a week
read the bill more closely...its actually a real nice piece of legislation...this is one of those instances of govt at its best
So, it costs the same as 2 years of the Iraq War, and that's not supposed to be an ugly comparison?
Quote from: ice grillin you on July 28, 2008, 08:39:57 AM
this is one of those instances of govt at its best
This is one of those instances when you show your true colors as an out-and-out Socialist. This is an awful bill that goes over and above shoring up Fannie and Freddie. Classic government overintervention that staves off the present crisis only to further jeopardize our economic future.
Give me a break. You will absolutely not convince me that this is government at its best. I don't think we should be funding this massively expensive war and I don't think that we should be removing responsibility for making awful financial decisions from homeowners or mortgage companies. Where does it end? Anyone can do anything without repercussions in a world where the government spends money that it doesn't have to bail people out for being farging idiots...
Quote from: FastFreddie on July 28, 2008, 08:47:28 AM
So, it costs the same as 2 years of the Iraq War, and that's not supposed to be an ugly comparison?
Quote from: ice grillin you on July 28, 2008, 08:39:57 AM
this is one of those instances of govt at its best
This is one of those instances when you show your true colors as an out-and-out Socialist. This is an awful bill that goes over and above shoring up Fannie and Freddie. Classic government overintervention that staves off the present crisis only to further jeopardize our economic future.
actually by comparing it to the iraq invasion makes it look that much better....the iraq invasion has killed a million people and destroyed an entire country....this bill helps save the homes of 400,000 people the equivalent to the entire city of miami...it also keeps our stock market from crashing and sends our economy back on the right track
but forget the homeowners and mortgage companies the bill has tons of other good stuff in it as well...revamping the fha and lending rules for example so that this doesnt happen again....really you should read the actual bill
They can rewrite the lending rules without giving $400,000,000,000 to iceholes who can't make sound financial decisions.
Quote from: ice grillin you on July 28, 2008, 08:59:52 AM
it also keeps our stock market from crashing and sends our economy back on the right track
It artificially delays the natural correction of the market and increases the already-ridiculous national debt.
Quote from: rjs246 on July 28, 2008, 09:00:56 AM
$400,000,000,000
It looks a lot uglier when you type in all the zeros.
Quote from: rjs246 on July 28, 2008, 09:00:56 AM
They can rewrite the lending rules without giving $400,000,000,000 to iceholes who can't make sound financial decisions.
cost a lot of money to revamp a govt agency...trust me...and again read the bill...you have no clue as to whats really in it...i know its the neat and easy thing to act hardcore just say farg dumb people....but if your sister or mother was gonna lose their entire life you might not feel the same way...not to mention this happened not because people were dumb (of course in some instances that may have been true) but much more so because of the rogue lending practices of the brokers...people didnt become dumb overnite...people didnt change...the way these lenders operated did
i dont like what happened anymore than you...but the solution isnt to farg everyone in the ass...its to help people and companies get out of this mess if possible...it will help us all in the long run...because in the end nobody wins unless everybody wins...and this legislation adresses some very important problems in a very good way
farg people who took out zesty loans, its their own damn fault for not understanding what they were getting other than a low payment.
My mother or sister wouldn't be in this mess because they have sense enough to only buy things that they can actually afford. Like I said, the government should absolutely re-write the lending rules to keep shtein like this from happening again, but a no-repercussions, no-responsibility 'resolution' only costs everyone who followed the rules and made good decisions money and tells the world 'hey, feel free to make shady business deals that negatively impact the nation and the economy because when it crashes and burns we will be here to bail you out.'
I want no part of that. Responsibility, personal, financial or otherwise is something that is vastly under-valued these days and bleeding heart politics flies directly in the face of encouraging people/companies to take responsibility for their decisions.
i wish i had bought that 400k house i always wanted, then to have the gubament bail me out
Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on July 28, 2008, 09:11:32 AM
farg people who took out zesty loans, its their own damn fault for not understanding what they were getting other than a low payment.
most of these buyers were people who had never bought a house before and werent versed in financial matters in the least...people didnt go in and say i know i cant afford this loan but farg it if they will give it to me im gonna take it anyway...these were low income and often unedcuated home buyers who were buying a dream home for the first time in their life to get something better for their children and families and got misinformation from the lenders
the answer is not to throw them all out on the street and have their entire lifes destroyed...i guess i have a different mentality than you all in that i couldnt want someone homeless because i think they are dumb horrible people...isnt a much better solution to make their mortage a little more affordable so they can survive?...its not like this bill pays off anyones home or gives them free rent...it makes the loan a little more tolerable for them...in fact even with this bill some people will still lose homes but it wont be to a catastrophic degree
Quote from: rjs246 on July 28, 2008, 09:13:16 AM
My mother or sister wouldn't be in this mess because they have sense enough to only buy things that they can actually afford. Like I said, the government should absolutely re-write the lending rules to keep shtein like this from happening again, but a no-repercussions, no-responsibility 'resolution' only costs everyone who followed the rules and made good decisions money and tells the world 'hey, feel free to make shady business deals that negatively impact the nation and the economy because when it crashes and burns we will be here to bail you out.'
I want no part of that. Responsibility, personal, financial or otherwise is something that is vastly under-valued these days and bleeding heart politics flies directly in the face of encouraging people/companies to take responsibility for their decisions.
its not a bail out and you wouldnt call it bleeding heart politics if you saw some of the republicans who voted for it...it a financially smart recovery bill that could only be done in a country like america...again govt at its best
Quote from: ice grillin you on July 28, 2008, 09:33:35 AM
you wouldnt call it bleeding heart politics if you saw some of the republicans who voted for it...
A good way to gauge the legislation is to see that a lot of Republicans (including Bush) are for it?
OK.
Quote from: ice grillin you on July 28, 2008, 09:33:35 AM
Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on July 28, 2008, 09:11:32 AM
farg people who took out zesty loans, its their own damn fault for not understanding what they were getting other than a low payment.
most of these buyers were people who had never bought a house before and werent versed in financial matters in the least...people didnt go in and say i know i cant afford this loan but farg it if they will give it to me im gonna take it anyway...these were low income and often unedcuated home buyers who were buying a dream home for the first time in their life to get something better for their children and families and got misinformation from the lenders
the answer is not to throw them all out on the street and have their entire lifes destroyed...i guess i have a different mentality than you all in that i couldnt want someone homeless because i think they are dumb horrible people...isnt a much better solution to make their mortage a little more affordable so they can survive?...its not like this bill pays off anyones home or gives them free rent...it makes the loan a little more tolerable for them...in fact even with this bill some people will still lose homes but it wont be to a catastrophic degree
They can move back into more affordable housing that fits their payscale. I was a first time how buyer, I have not completed college, yet i somehow figured it out. I had to take a farging test from Fannie Mae so that i could get my loan as a first time homebuyer, did all these people not? And maybe im an icehole, but if your making 70k a year, you should not be in a 400k+ house, its not hard to figure out.
Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on July 28, 2008, 09:41:19 AM
Quote from: ice grillin you on July 28, 2008, 09:33:35 AM
Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on July 28, 2008, 09:11:32 AM
farg people who took out zesty loans, its their own damn fault for not understanding what they were getting other than a low payment.
most of these buyers were people who had never bought a house before and werent versed in financial matters in the least...people didnt go in and say i know i cant afford this loan but farg it if they will give it to me im gonna take it anyway...these were low income and often unedcuated home buyers who were buying a dream home for the first time in their life to get something better for their children and families and got misinformation from the lenders
the answer is not to throw them all out on the street and have their entire lifes destroyed...i guess i have a different mentality than you all in that i couldnt want someone homeless because i think they are dumb horrible people...isnt a much better solution to make their mortage a little more affordable so they can survive?...its not like this bill pays off anyones home or gives them free rent...it makes the loan a little more tolerable for them...in fact even with this bill some people will still lose homes but it wont be to a catastrophic degree
They can move back into more affordable housing that fits their payscale. I was a first time how buyer, I have not completed college, yet i somehow figured it out. I had to take a farging test from Fannie Mae so that i could get my loan as a first time homebuyer, did all these people not? And maybe im an icehole, but if your making 70k a year, you should not be in a 400k+ house, its not hard to figure out.
im sure you had a fair lender....if you had had a snake oil salemen as your lender perhaps you wouldnt have figured it out
Why was this bill truly passed?
Two words. Election. Year.
Quote from: FastFreddie on July 28, 2008, 09:07:48 AM
Quote from: ice grillin you on July 28, 2008, 08:59:52 AM
it also keeps our stock market from crashing and sends our economy back on the right track
It artificially delays the natural correction of the market and increases the already-ridiculous national debt.
Exactly - let's borrow more money to solve the debt problem.
At least the inflation will make it easier to pay off.
Quote from: ice grillin you on July 28, 2008, 09:08:39 AM
Quote from: rjs246 on July 28, 2008, 09:00:56 AM
They can rewrite the lending rules without giving $400,000,000,000 to iceholes who can't make sound financial decisions.
cost a lot of money to revamp a govt agency...trust me...and again read the bill...you have no clue as to whats really in it...i know its the neat and easy thing to act hardcore just say farg dumb people....but if your sister or mother was gonna lose their entire life you might not feel the same way...not to mention this happened not because people were dumb (of course in some instances that may have been true) but much more so because of the rogue lending practices of the brokers...people didnt become dumb overnite...people didnt change...the way these lenders operated did
i dont like what happened anymore than you...but the solution isnt to farg everyone in the ass...its to help people and companies get out of this mess if possible...it will help us all in the long run...because in the end nobody wins unless everybody wins...and this legislation adresses some very important problems in a very good way
This is setting a bad precedent. Does this mean that GM and all their customers can get federal assistance for buying their crappy gas guzzling cars since they cant afford to drive them?
Quote from: ice grillin you on July 28, 2008, 09:44:15 AM
im sure you had a fair lender....if you had had a snake oil salemen as your lender perhaps you wouldnt have figured it out
Again, the fault goes both ways. It's only in the last 50 years that debt has become a way of life. Banks like to make money, and people don't like to delay pleasure. The problem is that prices go up much more quickly to create an unattainable equilibrium. The "housing crisis" was a long overdue coming to earth to make homes more affordable for people that had wisely waited (or felt they had to wait) to buy. The bill will keep prices just out of reach for people.
Hilariously, this bill supports the "snake oil" lenders and hurts those who are struggling to find a way to buy a home. You'd think Democrats would have good reasons to be against it also, especially those like you that aren't bought and sold like the guys actually in Congress.
Quote from: Cerevant on July 28, 2008, 09:48:19 AM
At least the inflation will make it easier to pay off.
Ha.
Quote from: ice grillin you on July 28, 2008, 09:44:15 AM
Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on July 28, 2008, 09:41:19 AM
Quote from: ice grillin you on July 28, 2008, 09:33:35 AM
Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on July 28, 2008, 09:11:32 AM
farg people who took out zesty loans, its their own damn fault for not understanding what they were getting other than a low payment.
most of these buyers were people who had never bought a house before and werent versed in financial matters in the least...people didnt go in and say i know i cant afford this loan but farg it if they will give it to me im gonna take it anyway...these were low income and often unedcuated home buyers who were buying a dream home for the first time in their life to get something better for their children and families and got misinformation from the lenders
the answer is not to throw them all out on the street and have their entire lifes destroyed...i guess i have a different mentality than you all in that i couldnt want someone homeless because i think they are dumb horrible people...isnt a much better solution to make their mortage a little more affordable so they can survive?...its not like this bill pays off anyones home or gives them free rent...it makes the loan a little more tolerable for them...in fact even with this bill some people will still lose homes but it wont be to a catastrophic degree
They can move back into more affordable housing that fits their payscale. I was a first time how buyer, I have not completed college, yet i somehow figured it out. I had to take a farging test from Fannie Mae so that i could get my loan as a first time homebuyer, did all these people not? And maybe im an icehole, but if your making 70k a year, you should not be in a 400k+ house, its not hard to figure out.
im sure you had a fair lender....if you had had a snake oil salemen as your lender perhaps you wouldnt have figured it out
I did have a snake oil lender, K Bank out of Bodymore. Worst experience i've ever had, at the most important time. Somewhere on this site i've prob written about how bad they are/were. Great rate, but amazingly horrible company, i had to do everything on my own, and didnt trust word one from them.
Quote from: ice grillin you on July 28, 2008, 09:33:35 AM
its not a bail out and you wouldnt call it bleeding heart politics if you saw some of the republicans who voted for it...
Once again you're assuming that I'm only talking about Democrats being bleeding hearts. There are plenty of bleeding heart "compassionate" conservatives. Bleeding heart, bail-out politics only serves to undermind people's responsibility for their actions/decisions. I don't care if we're talking about massive corporate bailouts or Affirmative Action. What the government is telling its people is, "Go ahead and make poor decisions. We'll be there to make sure you don't face any consequences for your actions."
All you see is the poor helpless idiot who couldn't think their way out of a plastic bag and now is in danger of losing their home and your heart bleeds. You don't think about the big picture and how removing corporate responsibility will almost certainly have universally negative effects on our country's economy.
There are idiots everywhere.... EVERYWHERE! If a company decided to invest in idiots they should get what they deserve.
I am willing to put most of the blame on the lenders, although I would argue that a good proportion of the buyers who fell victim to this were looking to make a buck off this pyramid scheme. It is hard for me to find much sympathy.
Quote from: Phanatic on July 28, 2008, 02:05:44 PM
There are idiots everywhere.... EVERYWHERE! If a company decided to invest in idiots they should get what they deserve.
:CF - Proof Positive.
Record deficits coming (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080728/budget_deficit.html)
QuoteThe new figures are so eye-popping that the next president may face pressure to take action instead of adding to it with expensive spending programs as promised by Democrat Barack Obama or new tax cuts pledged by Republican John McCain.
Ha! How not to get elected 101: Promise to raise taxes and cut spending.
And CBS news just reported that the CEO of both those bailout lending companies were given bonuses in excess of $14 million each, even with their companies suffering losses totaling billions.
Quote from: Cerevant on July 28, 2008, 02:12:40 PM
I am willing to put most of the blame on the lenders, although I would argue that a good proportion of the buyers who fell victim to this were looking to make a buck off this pyramid scheme. It is hard for me to find much sympathy.
There will always be idiots to invest in. It is a constant. They should not be bailed out either but they're most likely already in financial trouble hence being deemed unworthy for credit.... except to those currently getting bailed out by the government.
Many of these people could afford a house...just not the one they bought. The scam goes something like this:
Buy a $500k home in a market where prices are increasing 20%/year
Get an interest-only loan that balloons at 5 years
Pay $2k/mo
Sell after 2 years. Cost: $48k Profit: $152k
Go buy a nice $250k house
It is called Margin Buying, and it is what caused the depression (substitute stocks for real estate as the "sure thing")
So how does this effect the future lending?
I do not own a house yet but I was hoping to buy one within the next two years. I've got a pretty good financial sense as far as credit goes and I know how to be smart with my money.
But I am not well versed on buying houses. I do not want to be taken advantage of nor do I want to pay extra because of irresponsible people and lenders.
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on July 28, 2008, 09:38:13 PM
So how does this effect the future lending?
I do not own a house yet but I was hoping to buy one within the next two years. I've got a pretty good financial sense as far as credit goes and I know how to be smart with my money.
But I am not well versed on buying houses. I do not want to be taken advantage of nor do I want to pay extra because of irresponsible people and lenders.
It's simple:
It will artificially keep home prices higher, and you will have less of a chance of getting a decent rate on a loan, because competition in the home lending arena is much less active now.
actually the housing market wont rebound for another year or two...phreak youre in a golden position of wanting to buy and not needing to sell...if you can afford it id buy asap
The projections i've been told are late 2009 for a majority of the country with FL and California around 2010-2011. All this does is keep things where they are at, and your boy Barry will get to feel the wrath of the market correction.
Actually, I'd wait until prices start to turn up again - there might be a long way to fall yet (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/29/home-prices-plunge-record_n_115562.html)...
QuoteNEW YORK — Home prices tumbled by the steepest rate ever in May, according to a closely watched housing index released Tuesday, as the housing slump deepened nationwide.
The Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller 20-city index dropped by 15.8 percent in May compared with a year ago, a record decline since its inception in 2000. The 10-city index plunged 16.9 percent, its biggest decline in its 21-year history.
No city in the Case-Shiller 20-city index saw price gains in May, the second straight month that's happened. The monthly indices have not recorded an overall home price increase in any month since August 2006.
Home values have fallen 18.4 percent since the 20-city index's peak in July 2006.
phreak shouldnt wait....he has nothing to dump...if he can afford it he should be full steam ahead and buying now
a lot tho matters where you live...i live in an area where the housing market hasnt been affected nearly as much and was able to sell pretty easily and at a decent price...which is why national housing numbers are pretty meaningless
Exactly...if you are not selling a place to buy another, and you plan to be in the house for at least 5 years, then it really doesn't matter. Now is as good a time as any to buy.
I would advice to actually go take some classes (if they even offer them anymore) on the ins and outs of a mortgage, and real estate. It helps with mortgage points, and gets you a solid deal, and you'll be comfortable with you decision because you will actually understand what you are buying.
Phreak even though they are a major cause of the current crisis, Freddie Mac has great info
Preparing for Home Ownership (http://www.freddiemac.com/corporate/buyown/english/preparing/right_for_you/)
What is a Mortgage (http://www.freddiemac.com/corporate/buyown/english/mortgages/what_is/)
If the housing prices are falling faster than they ever have, why wouldn't you wait until they bottom out?
Bennigans is No More.... Why can this not be Applebees, i hate that place
i was wondering what was up the one by me closed a couple months ago...gonna be a potbelly
they are both putrid...but applebees is the worst EVER
i dont like the things but ive heard from more than one person that the bennigans monte christo was money
Quote from: ice grillin you on July 29, 2008, 02:05:31 PM
i dont like the things but ive heard from more than one person that the bennigans monte christo was money
Add me to the list. I've only ever been to a Bennigan's once, but I have fond memories of that sandwich.
Steak and Ale was owned by the parent company of Bennigans, so they are closing up as well. I never ate there, but people used to always say good things about the place.
One of the times I agree with IGY - national numbers mean nothing when it's time to decide to buy. Look at the local scene only. If you have nothing to sell, then there's nothing wrong with buying now IMO. Even if we reach the bottom a year from now and it rebounds, any long-term home buyer will be fine. Trying to time the housing market is just as difficult as timing the stock market.
Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on July 29, 2008, 02:15:13 PM
Steak and Ale was owned by the parent company of Bennigans, so they are closing up as well. I never ate there, but people used to always say good things about the place.
used to eat there all the time when i was a young buck...salad bar was off the meter
File this one under "people that deserve foreclosure" (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D927JS2O0&show_article=1)
1. They get a shiny new house built for them by "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition."
2. They take out a mortgage/equity loan for $450,000 against their new home to start a construction business.
3. Business fails, loan defaults, house foreclosure imminent.
My target to buy is two years. The housing market here has always been pretty good as far as cost of living goes, which is one of the reasons I moved back here. And now that the market has slumped I hope to get a sweet deal. But I am not ready yet. I want a bigger down payment and I want to find a place I want, not buy a place just because I want to buy. It will be something that I am comfortable with and something I know I will be in for awhile.
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on July 28, 2008, 09:38:13 PM
So how does this effect the future lending?
I do not own a house yet but I was hoping to buy one within the next two years. I've got a pretty good financial sense as far as credit goes and I know how to be smart with my money.
But I am not well versed on buying houses. I do not want to be taken advantage of nor do I want to pay extra because of irresponsible people and lenders.
You will get plenty of advice on the money side here. But....
If your buying a new home, or one that is less than 10 years old, KNOW YOUR BUILDER!! I kills me how many people who buy a house and don't know or could care less who built it. All builders are not reputable. Codes and inspectors only go so far as to insuring that a house is built within their guidelines. They are more concerned with plumbing and electric than the actual construction and materials used. Find out who the builder was and check with the states home improvement commission to see how many or if any complaints have been made and what they are about. Get references. Talk with people who live in homes built by your builder. Most are eager to give their opinions. What kind of structural guarantee does he offer? Is he reliable in taking care of anything that might go wrong later down the road? No house is ever built perfect. Things can and do go wrong, wether because of materials used or workmanship. Talk with the lumber company he deals with. Builders that work on shoestrings and have bad credit cut corners and do shoddy work. Get references on his subcontractors. Electricians, plumbers, and such.
GET A HOME INSPECTION!! And make sure the seller pays for it.
If your buying a house 10 years old or older, no one may know who the builder is, but if it has stood that long without any real structural problems, you are probably alright. Check the electric panel. If it looks neat and the breakers are clearly labeled, you are probably good. If you see wires hanging out and nothing is labeled, chances are someone didn't know what he was doing. Check the exterior doors and windows for a weather tight seal. Single pain wood windows=big time heat loss, even with storm windows. If there is vinyl windows, who is the manufacturer? Anderson is what I use. A good window at a good price with an excellent warranty. A lot of replacement windows are garbage. Get the u rating of the windows.
(http://img2.timeinc.net/toh/i/a/tools/window-glazing-05.jpg)(http://www.metrosiding.com/images/NFRC_rating_small.gif)
Check out the attic space. Wires everywere and junction boxes=shoddy electric work. Check to see if it's properly insulated. There should be at least 12" of insulation. Check for proper ventilation. Gable vents? Ridge vents? Check were the roof sits on the exterior wall. This is important. There should be a space there for ventilation from the outside soffit. Normally, Styrofoam baffles are used, but with older construction sometimes there is nothing. If your air handler is in the attic, make sure it has the proper drainage for the condensation.
(http://education.nachi.org/images/upload/insulation_baffles_1.JPG)(http://education.nachi.org/images/upload/soffit-ridge_vent.jpg)
Not having the proper ventilation can lead to the roof sheathing and the rafters rotting out. If that is already happening, you'll know by looking at it. Check for white growth, or water stains. Especially around vent pipes and chimneys.
Check out your crawl space! A home inspector will do this, to a certain extent. Your the one buying the house. Know what your getting without having to hear it second hand. Are there water stains on the block work? If there are, it could mean during a heavy rain, your crawl space turns into a lake. Does the insulation look good, or is it hanging down like it could have been wet? Do the floor joist look like they have been dry, or are there water stains on them? Either of these could mean lack of proper ventilation. There should be vents in the block work no more than 10 feet apart and two feet on either side of a corner. Without ventilation, your asking to have to replace your floors. Is there a working sump pump? Some crawl spaces are going to have water in them, no matter what. Make sure it doesn't just lay there and evaporate. If you see no evidence of water in the crawl space, you might not need one. Make sure your air handler and water tank are elevated off the ground. Make sure your drains look like they have the proper fall. Look to see that all wires are stapled up to the joist and not hanging all over the place. Make sure any duct work is tight and strapped good to the floor joist.
Check your bathroom/s around the tub, toilet and sink for leaks and rotting floors. If the toilet moves side to side, or the floor is spongey, it's been leaking and the floor could be rotted. Check the tub were it sits across the floor. Check under the cabinet at all sinks. Do you see signs of water damage? Check the hot water heater. Is it a newer energy efficient model or a older one? Other than heating and air conditioning, your water heater uses more electric than anything.
For an older or newer home, CHECK FOR SETTLEMENT CRACKS. Mostly at door opening and corners. If your told, oh, we can fill and paint that for you, don't believe it! You could possibly have to shore up walls from the crawl space, or install stronger headers. Either of which is a major cost and pain in the ass.
Don't just buy a house because it's pretty and your wife loves it. Check it out well so it doesn't start falling down around you after you move in, because it's too late then.
no seller is paying for your home inspection
if im selling a house im not going to pay someone to find shtein wrong with it that i will have to come out of pocket to fix
More useless advice:
Be careful about the advice you get from a Real Estate Agent. According to the law, they are supposed to represent your best interests, but they don't make any money if you don't buy a house. Conflict of interest.
They probably have good knowledge of builders, who built what development and what is falling down. If they have nothing negative to say about any property, you probably have an overpaid secretary.
Similarly, people tend to overreact to home inspection results. As a result, less reputable agents will recommend inspectors who give glowing inspection reports. No house older than 5 years should have a clean inspection report.
I've had the best luck with older agents - late 40's early 50's - who have been selling real estate for 15-20 years. Too young and they don't have much knowledge about the area. Too old and they don't understand how things have changed and how to use technology to make the best of the time spent searching.
I usually select the agents with the biggest tits. They just might fall out at some point.
Do you make them run or something?
Quote from: ice grillin you on July 30, 2008, 11:27:31 AM
no seller is paying for your home inspection
Usually true, but sellers often pay for home warranties.
That said, the seller refusing to pay for the home warranty would just indirectly affect the buyer's offer in theory. So, it doesn't really matter who pays for it. The buyer would be a dumbass not to get one regardless.
Bullcrap. Why pay for a home inspection when you might not buy the house? I've seen deals done both ways, sellers will and do pay for home inspections. Make sure your not out the money when you might not even buy the house. Thats stupid.
Actually, the homeowner doesn't have to fix a single thing that a inspector finds wrong. It is more or less a tool for the buyer to get info on what might be wrong.
I wouldn't pay much attention to anything any agent would say about a house or it's builder. They won't volunteer any info that will make the house less desirable.
Do your own research. I can't think of anything any dumber than to rely on a realtors advice on a builder or house.
it depends on the realtor, use the Simpsons episode where Marge is a realtor as an example.
Yeah, only on a tv cartoon.
Quote from: General_Failure on July 30, 2008, 11:54:44 AM
Do you make them run or something?
I'm not giving up my trade secrets.
Look, don't be lazy, DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH!!
Most builders are credible. Ones that have been in business a long while, it isn't hard to get feedback on their rep because they are well known. They don't have to advertise a lot because they are good and get a lot of work through word of mouth.
There are those few who want to make money and screw you. People will talk about a crappy job 10 times more than a good one, so it isn't hard to find out about a crappy builder. Just ask anyone he's worked for. It ain't that hard to do.
just google a builder, the less you find, the better i would suppose. My dad is a realtor, jumped out of the car business after 25 years last summer, decided he wanted to change, not exactly a great time for either business. But the crap he's learned so far is amazing, and how many bad Agents there are astounds him. He's surprised how half of them even get approval to drive a vehicle.
By the way, most of the inspectors are in bed with agents and thus want to facilitate the sale of the house also. If they're a constant pain in the ass, will agents ever recommend them?
Inspectors are required by law to give an unbiased inspection. You don't have to use your realtors inspector. Just open up the yellow pages.
Actually, "Required by Law", is a stretch. Still, there is a code of ethics (http://www.insidenout.net/ashi_standard.asp).
An agent can be a great source of information if you get a good one. My last agent spoke up while we were walking around admiring the newly finished basement, "You know, the heater, water heater, washer and dryer are all new. I bet this place was damaged in the flood (2 years ago). If you don't trust your agent, don't bother getting one - just contact the agent of the person selling the house. You should be able to get a kick-back on the buyer's agent commission the seller would have paid.
Quote from: shorebird on July 30, 2008, 12:09:08 PM
Bullcrap. Why pay for a home inspection when you might not buy the house?
$400 dollars to protect yourself when youre dropping hundreds of thousands of dollars is nothing in the grand scheme of things...and again the seller is the one coming out of pocket as a result of what the inspector finds...why would the seller pay someone that is gonna cost them money
Quote from: FastFreddie on July 30, 2008, 12:32:06 PM
By the way, most of the inspectors are in bed with agents and thus want to facilitate the sale of the house also. If they're a constant pain in the ass, will agents ever recommend them?
ive sold and bought a total of six houses and ive found the opposite to be true...inspectors are being paid to find shtein and they usually do their job very well...all the ones i have dealt with have been anal as shtein...im sure some are in bed with agents but i havent found one yet...also the chances that a house sale falls thru because of a home inspection i would imagine is pretty rare
Quote from: Cerevant on July 30, 2008, 11:30:11 AM
More useless advice:
Quote from: Cerevant on July 30, 2008, 12:48:15 PM
An agent can be a great source of information if you get a good one. My last agent spoke up while we were walking around admiring the newly finished basement, "You know, the heater, water heater, washer and dryer are all new. I bet this place was damaged in the flood (2 years ago). If you don't trust your agent, don't bother getting one - just contact the agent of the person selling the house. You should be able to get a kick-back on the buyer's agent commission the seller would have paid.
Quote from: ice grillin you on July 30, 2008, 12:56:30 PM
Quote from: shorebird on July 30, 2008, 12:09:08 PM
Bullcrap. Why pay for a home inspection when you might not buy the house?
$400 dollars to protect yourself when youre dropping hundreds of thousands of dollars is nothing in the grand scheme of things...and again the seller is the one coming out of pocket as a result of what the inspector finds...why would the seller pay someone that is gonna cost them money
Quote from: FastFreddie on July 30, 2008, 12:32:06 PM
By the way, most of the inspectors are in bed with agents and thus want to facilitate the sale of the house also. If they're a constant pain in the ass, will agents ever recommend them?
ive sold and bought a total of six houses and ive found the opposite to be true...inspectors are being paid to find shtein and they usually do their job very well...all the ones i have dealt with have been anal as shtein...im sure some are in bed with agents but i havent found one yet...also the chances that a house sale falls thru because of a home inspection i would imagine is pretty rare
Because the seller is the one
making the money and after the first inspection he already has one for any other buyer. Also, like I said before, the seller isn't obligated to fix anything.
Major anal, dickheads personified.
apparently Shorebird got raped by an agent/inspector train
Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on July 30, 2008, 01:06:33 PM
apparently Shorebird got raped by an agent/inspector train
Let's just say I've lived and learned.
The truly evil ones are the appraisers. farging douches, all.
Quote from: shorebird on July 30, 2008, 01:05:29 PM
Quote from: ice grillin you on July 30, 2008, 12:56:30 PM
Quote from: shorebird on July 30, 2008, 12:09:08 PM
Bullcrap. Why pay for a home inspection when you might not buy the house?
$400 dollars to protect yourself when youre dropping hundreds of thousands of dollars is nothing in the grand scheme of things...and again the seller is the one coming out of pocket as a result of what the inspector finds...why would the seller pay someone that is gonna cost them money
Quote from: FastFreddie on July 30, 2008, 12:32:06 PM
By the way, most of the inspectors are in bed with agents and thus want to facilitate the sale of the house also. If they're a constant pain in the ass, will agents ever recommend them?
ive sold and bought a total of six houses and ive found the opposite to be true...inspectors are being paid to find shtein and they usually do their job very well...all the ones i have dealt with have been anal as shtein...im sure some are in bed with agents but i havent found one yet...also the chances that a house sale falls thru because of a home inspection i would imagine is pretty rare
the seller isn't obligated to fix anything.
and the buyer isnt obligated to do a home inspection
Quote from: FastFreddie on July 30, 2008, 01:15:37 PM
The truly evil ones are the appraisers. farging douches, all.
and their fancy measuring tapes
Quote from: ice grillin you on July 30, 2008, 01:19:26 PM
and the buyer isnt obligated to do a home inspection
No shtein. Geez, your power of reasoning is only exceeded by your attention to the obvious.
Quote from: shorebird on July 30, 2008, 12:58:59 PM
Quote from: Cerevant on July 30, 2008, 11:30:11 AM
More useless advice:
Quote from: Cerevant on July 30, 2008, 12:48:15 PM
An agent can be a great source of information if you get a good one. My last agent spoke up while we were walking around admiring the newly finished basement, "You know, the heater, water heater, washer and dryer are all new. I bet this place was damaged in the flood (2 years ago). If you don't trust your agent, don't bother getting one - just contact the agent of the person selling the house. You should be able to get a kick-back on the buyer's agent commission the seller would have paid.
So, if you can't trust anything the agent says, what is the point of getting one? To set up showings? You are certainly going to save more money by ditching the agent than you would by making a stink about the home inspection.
Quote from: Cerevant on July 30, 2008, 01:32:20 PM
Quote from: shorebird on July 30, 2008, 12:58:59 PM
Quote from: Cerevant on July 30, 2008, 11:30:11 AM
More useless advice:
Quote from: Cerevant on July 30, 2008, 12:48:15 PM
An agent can be a great source of information if you get a good one. My last agent spoke up while we were walking around admiring the newly finished basement, "You know, the heater, water heater, washer and dryer are all new. I bet this place was damaged in the flood (2 years ago). If you don't trust your agent, don't bother getting one - just contact the agent of the person selling the house. You should be able to get a kick-back on the buyer's agent commission the seller would have paid.
So, if you can't trust anything the agent says, what is the point of getting one? To set up showings? You are certainly going to save more money by ditching the agent than you would by making a stink about the home inspection.
Because they have access to properties the minute they come on the market, and 10 times more properties than what you could get from sale papers or the internet.
They do see properties 1-2 days before they make it to realtor.com, but I've never seen a listing not show up on that site. Is that worth $6000 to $7000 to you? *shrug*
Quote from: Cerevant on July 30, 2008, 01:42:26 PM
They do see properties 1-2 days before they make it to realtor.com, but I've never seen a listing not show up on that site. Is that worth $6000 to $7000 to you? *shrug*
If you contact your sellers agent, or if you have a realtor contact your sellers agent, your not paying anymore of a commision. The realtors split it. And you can also have the deal were the seller pays the commision. They are the ones making the money. They should pay. The way the market is now, the buyer can set the standards of most any deal.
There is always another house out there. Especially nowadays. If the conditions of the sale aren't to your liking, get up and walk away. I've done it before. There is nothing like getting up and walking out of a realtors office while he sits there pen in hand. I've done the same thing at settlements. Talk about getting someones attention.
Remember, the buyer is the one in control.
you sound like an awesome client and im sure any realtor would love to represent you
I could give a shtein about what any realtor thinks, or wether they would want to rep me.
Maybe you want to be all cuddly with them and invite them over for dinner. Not me.
I can give you and example. The last house I sold, it was five years ago, I had lived in it for 2 years prior. After the home inspection and all the things I took care of, they wanted sidewalk from the front driveway to the back door, and a pad with lattice around it for their garbage cans. At first I said no way, until I realized that they were looking at more than one house and would nix a $350,000 deal because of a little concrete. Yeah, I put in sidewalk.
The buyer holds the purse strings. It's that simple.
you're a sucker
Quote from: shorebird on July 30, 2008, 01:51:57 PM
If you contact your sellers agent, or if you have a realtor contact your sellers agent, your not paying anymore of a commision. The realtors split it. And you can also have the deal were the seller pays the commision. They are the ones making the money. They should pay. The way the market is now, the buyer can set the standards of most any deal.
If you contact the seller's agent, they usually take the commission for both (the commission rate is set with the listing, and the agents split it). What I was suggesting was to negotiate with the seller/agent to get part of the commission back.
That ain't happening. You might get them to lower the commision rate a point or two, but thats not likely either.
When I sold the house in Souderton, the buyer was a fleshpopering icehole - every concession was met with another request. Finally I put my foot down, and the buyer wouldn't move. The buyer's agent wrote me a check for the difference and closed the deal.
As you say, you have to be willing to walk away, but if I were looking at getting 3% for a sale, and someone came to me and said you can close the deal today and get 4% I think I'd take it.
yeah, sorry about that Cervant, but i really wanted that rape room. that was a deal breaker.
Remote control doors for the rape room ain't cheap.
The economy is screwed (http://www.star-telegram.com/245/story/817387.html), regardless of who gets elected:
QuoteOh, but Bush — the nation's first MBA president, mind you — had such grand plans! His tax cuts for the rich would foster economic growth and job creation, resulting in more tax revenues, and everything would be rosy. The string of budget surpluses rung up by the Clinton administration would continue unabated.
But look where we are in the twilight of Bush's tenure. America has experienced seven straight months of job losses. The housing crisis is the worst since the Great Depression. Energy and food prices have soared. An almost-anything-goes regulatory approach has produced an epidemic of bad subprime loans, spiraling credit-card debt and a tsunami of property foreclosures and bankruptcy filings.
The wages of many Americans aren't keeping up with inflation. Millions of middle-class households from Florida to California have seen their net worth (assets minus liabilities) wither as a result of falling home values, higher personal debt and a shrinking 401(k) hammered by a declining stock market.
Republicans' once-logical claim to being the party of small government has been eroded by Bush's presidency. While the Bush tax cuts continue to restrict government revenues, spending has soared for entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare (including a costly new prescription drug program), defense, education and other departments.
Interest payments on the national debt totaled an enormous $377.3 billion during the first nine months of the current fiscal year — the fourth-highest spending category in the budget.
Meanwhile, Bush and Congress have failed to address the scary long-term funding shortfalls facing Social Security and Medicare.
QuoteDisappointingly, the policy positions espoused by McCain and Obama don't provide the degree of fiscal sobriety that Washington must embrace. Neither candidate can deliver on all his promises, while simultaneously shrinking the deficits and meaningfully addressing Social Security and Medicare.
As I paraphrased before, the worst that could happen is that either of these guys get everything they are asking for.
Quote from: Cerevant on August 13, 2008, 04:18:49 PM
As I paraphrased before, the worst that could happen is that either of these guys get everything they are asking for.
No, that's pretty much what reasonable people like me have said all along. You've been too busy hanging on Obama's penis to realize that his economic "plan" makes no sense at all.
Find one post where I say anything positive about his economic plans. I like his healthcare ideas. I like his campaign reform ideas. I think he will be a huge positive for international relations. I'm not crazy about how much money he wants to spend.
Is money used to pay for other things, like healthcare or additional regulation?
As I sit here waiting for my company to get bought out I see a lot of indicators that working in IT is going to really suck for a while. Everyone is outsourcing their IT this days. I guess not a big deal but I've worked for an outsourcing company before and it kind of sucked. Maybe there are good ones but you never feel like your a part of something.
Maybe I should go back to being an electrician...
Quote from: Phanatic on August 14, 2008, 11:18:12 AM
I see a lot of indicators that working in IT is going to really suck for a while. Everyone is outsourcing their IT this days.
Welcome to 2003.
Quote from: reese125 on January 16, 2008, 12:09:10 PM
Long-term..yes your right its scary, but do you know how long the gold bull market has been going on now? Whenever the market is down, you can always look to gold
My accountant is seeing a big jump in 2008 and I agree
How's the gold in your portfolio working out?
It's down about 10% since you posted this nonsense, no?
the fact that you pulled another FF special and got your shovel to dig up a January comment is amazing in itself, but where were you in Feb, March and April and May? Gold was outselling all asset classes since the credit crisis and was on a 33% rise since Aug of last year
Now, as rates have been cut and the dollar has been on the rise, you come in 8 months later with your "nonsense" not having a clue what Ive done with my stock since? Joke
I remembered laughing heartily at you basically saying a great investment would be to buy something at record highs. Then, I saw an article on how gold is not doing so well as of late.
You pulled another reese special and spoke as if you actually knew what the hell you're talking about. Gold will end 2008 much lower than it was in mid-January.
QuoteI remembered laughing heartily at you basically saying a great investment would be to buy something at record highs. Then, I saw an article on how gold is not doing so well as of late.
Look at my farging post again crackerjack...was I wrong about the bull market in gold for a long time since the credit crisis? Did I tell CF to jump on gold and stay there for the whole year because the market NEVER changes?
Now you make the bold prediction that gold will finish lower than mid-January? Hahaha. You are a bumbling idiot that went out of his was to try and prove me wrong and got caught looking stupid as usual
Don't let facts get in the way of your ego, reesey.
Do I smell a FF/reese suicide pact?
*insert corny michael phelps joke*
Quote from: rjs246 on August 15, 2008, 12:34:17 PM
Do I smell a FF/reese suicide pact?
Keep dreaming, cutie.
get out of SunMo's profile Fred...unless youre stealing his avatar
Freaking Lehman...just go under already. Had to work all day on a Sunday (at least the Eagles weren't playing) because of your stupid asses.
Merrill is probably going to be bought by B of A this week as well.
Shaping up to be a very bad week for the markets.
BOA just bought Merrill at $29 a share :puke
Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on September 14, 2008, 09:02:41 PM
BOA just bought Merrill at $29 a share :puke
Ha...just saw that come across. Buh bye Mother Merrill.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122142278543033525.html?mod=special_coverage
I just saw the rumors about ten minutes before i got 2 calls about it being finalized. Im not a fan of that price, considering they closed at 17 friday
So how many bad loans were given out by these 'cornerstones' of the US economy? Enough to bring them all down? I know there are a ton of irresponsible people out there but really? The whole industry must have been trying to kill itself to be this farged up.
Quote from: Phanatic on September 15, 2008, 03:06:22 PM
So how many bad loans were given out by these 'cornerstones' of the US economy? Enough to bring them all down? I know there are a ton of irresponsible people out there but really? The whole industry must have been trying to kill itself to be this farged up.
Technically, Merrill and Lehman didn't loan out the money themselves but actually bought the debt from other banks.
Say you have a 100k mortgage from Wachovia. Wachovia packages your mortgage with 1,000 other similar mortgages and sells them as a pool to Merrill. Merrill doesn't have that kind of cash laying around, so they borrow money from Lehman to finance the purchase of your mortgage.
Now, you and many of the other mortgagees decide to stop paying your mortgage because the payments ballooned, you lost your job, whatever. Merrill is now holding an asset that is worth less than what it paid for it, and it cannot keep up with its debt payments to Lehman because of fewer mortgage payments coming in.
So places like Wachovia are OK since they sold off the debt, but places like Merrill and Lehman that actually OWN the debt are gone.
So Wachovia (one example) who sold the loans isn't even paying the ultimate price for starting this mess? Though I did hear Wachovia had some problems and here in St. Louis the Feds raided them or something.
My mortgage has changed hands several times. We started with Wells Fargo, and it's been sold and re-sold. Can't even remember who owns it now.
Quote from: Geowhizzer on September 15, 2008, 03:34:01 PM
My mortgage has changed hands several times. We started with Wells Fargo, and it's been sold and re-sold. Can't even remember who owns it now.
Right, and the entity to which you make payments might not even be the one that really has skin in the game.
It's fun.
Quote from: Phanatic on September 15, 2008, 03:31:56 PM
So Wachovia (one example) who sold the loans isn't even paying the ultimate price for starting this mess? Though I did hear Wachovia had some problems and here in St. Louis the Feds raided them or something.
Generally, the Wachovia's, Soveriegn's, and Commerce Banks are being effected much, much less than the big houses because they sell off their mortgage holdings. Wachovia does have some problems but they should be OK.
The consumer banks make money on fees, not the mortgages themselves. In order to maximize their fee intake they have to be able to churn a certain number of mortgages out week in and week out. In order to have the capital to do that they have to sell the mortgages they take in from consumers to get the money "back", to loan it out again. They actually rarely hold the debt on their books.
Wachovia et al, was simply feeding the appetite and greed of the big firms. I wouldn't blame the originators so much as the big guys who bought the stuff.
Are we seeing cracks in the free market self-regulation theory?
The interesting thing about capitalism is that it requires a free market to thrive in the immediate/short term but in the long run it requires regulation. Without regulation it will literally burn itself out and result in a series of monopolies because the best, cheapest and most streamlined product can and will eventually eat up the entire marketplace in a free market. Once in place, monopolies represent the exact opposite of the capitalistic ideal of a competitive marketplace, but a truly open market will inevitably lead to them.
The failures of all of these financial institutions seems to me to be an example of this. The mortgage marketplace ran unchecked for years and companies were falling all over themselves to make easy money in questionable ways. When the bills came due and no one paid some of the major players lost their shirts, leaving fewer of the major companies to fight for their share of a marketplace. Taking a step closer to a monopoly.
Anyway, the idea of 'the marketplace' regulating itself is nonsense, regulations need to be put in place and enforced and that isn't hippy leftist nonsense. They are needed for the sake of continued capitalistic competition and the expansion of wealth.
in 3 years BOA will be Bank of Earth
Quote from: Butchers Bill on September 15, 2008, 03:38:01 PM
Quote from: Phanatic on September 15, 2008, 03:31:56 PM
So Wachovia (one example) who sold the loans isn't even paying the ultimate price for starting this mess? Though I did hear Wachovia had some problems and here in St. Louis the Feds raided them or something.
Generally, the Wachovia's, Soveriegn's, and Commerce Banks TD Banks are being effected much, much less than the big houses because they sell off their mortgage holdings. Wachovia does have some problems but they should be OK.
(http://tdbank.com/img/TDBanksign_sky.jpg)
The Toronto Dominion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_Dominion) is commin to get ya, eh?
Quote from: rjs246 on September 15, 2008, 03:55:59 PM
Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on September 15, 2008, 03:55:39 PM
in 3 years BOA will be Bank of Earth
Exactly my point.
It does seem like this 'crisis' is causing consolidation so that there will only be a few large players left controlling everything. The capitalist model eats itself?
In the absence of regulation? Absolutely.
how do the rich get flithy richer with regulation in place?
A wicked jump shot?
I would like a more nuanced explanation, or more honest if nuance is not required, of why the Fed bailed out Bear Stearns but not Lehman Bros or Merrill Lynch. What I hear on the news is "line in the sand" mumbo jumbo, which sounds like a bunch of crap to me. Was it simply because they went first, and so they got lucky? What their situation a less risky one for a bailout?
They had to cut off the free corporate hand outs somewhere!
Quote from: rjs246 on September 15, 2008, 04:43:11 PM
A wicked jump shot?
That only gets your rich, not rich enough to employ the guy with the wicked jump shot. Or buy a giraffe.
To Dio: Yes, Bear Sterns got lucky by being the first. Fannie and Freddie shortly followed and also got lucky. It had to end at some point though, and apparently we've reached that point.
I wanted to clarify something that I said before. Regulation is needed BEFORE THE FACT. After the fact bailouts are counterproductive and do nothing other than cultivate a consequence-free environment where any and all business practices are acceptable because cash overrules all else...
Merrill Lynch is actually a fairly conservative company and their loan reps never once asked me to hit a number. I can't imagine how many of these companies are eventually going to go into the shteinter but if a great organization like Merrill goes down. . . yikes.
Merrill will still be Merrill, you'll likely see them all staying on board since they are the best out there
They are obviously not the best.
Brokerage wise, they are one of the best. Being someone who was aquired, they should feel good as they are well regarded.
Your corporate employee pride/respect thing is truly revolting.
I don't feel good about this acquisition for many reasons.
BAC can suck my pens.
Quote from: Diomedes on September 15, 2008, 09:12:10 PM
Your corporate employee pride/respect thing is truly revolting.
ha, farg boa, i loved MBNA. But im just saying from a standpoint of workers talent, Merrill guys will be fine.
Someone on the radio today said that Fannie and Freddie being government backed is the main reason they were bailed out. Also said that the government in the late 90s mandated that they give loans to more people to encourage home ownership or something. Kind of like some social engineering gone bad and we're now paying the price. Not sure if it is true though because there are a lot of companies outside of those two that are in trouble. Also seemed like a conveniant way to blame a specific political party.
I'm not sure what the big deal is. So what if yet another financial banking goliath crumbled just a few days after the Treasury Department announced you and I would be bailing out Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae? The Repubelican candidate said "the fundamentals of our economy are strong". So there ya go. Stop your "whining".
How does it benefit anyone to say that the fundamentals of our economy aren't strong?
I suppose if the goal is to drive the market into the toilet, that would be an excellent idea.
Wachovia down 40% in two days, falling like a brick
Quote from: FastFreddie on September 16, 2008, 08:01:00 AM
How does it benefit anyone to say that the fundamentals of our economy aren't strong?
I suppose if the goal is to drive the market into the toilet, that would be an excellent idea.
There seems to be a big push now to redefine economic terms to make or situation appear worse than the current "model" shows. Moving blame toward your oppenent and setting up the "miraculous comeback" economic recovery 6-12 months after Washington regime change. Only the taxpayers are innocent in this but thay will pay the price. Wallstreet has been full of paper profits since the 90's using one gimmic after another to postpone these failures. The Bush administration and both parties in Congress are almost as guilty as the Wallstreet/Banking greedy. Using home ownership to prop up their claim to a strong economy.
No parachutes..tear up the fatcats contracts and let them try to get money in court
Be scared..panic..no one is telling the truth >:(
Looks like there may be a firesale on million dollar homes in NJ :-\
Too bad no one in their right mind would ever want to live in NJ.
QuoteHow does it benefit anyone to say that the fundamentals of our economy aren't strong?
Yea, since when did we need a government that doesn't lie to us?
QuoteI suppose if the goal is to drive the market into the toilet, that would be an excellent idea.
Yes, that's correct. Can you imagine how much worse the economy might be if Bush and McCain weren't telling us how great it was?
Quote from: rjs246 on September 16, 2008, 02:13:42 PM
Too bad no one in their right mind would ever want to live in NJ.
maybe thats why I like here so much ??? I can complain to anyone I want and they understand :)
So now the Fed bails out AIG...wtf?
bizarre times
This country is running on fumes.
If the Repubelicans can just.....keep it......going......a little......longer, buy a little more time, ........they just......might......extend their deceitful, disastrous, reich.
On a tangent....remember when the Bush Republicans (which is to say most Republicans) wanted to hand over management of Social Security to Wall Street? Anyone still wanna argue it's a good idea?
Actually, with where the market is now, using some private investment would not be a bad idea at all.
In fact, Social Security could be a good test for improved regulation of the sector. Honestly, with the current state of the Social Security system, it has a 99% chance of being an improvement.
Putting taxpayer money in the stock market is a bad idea.
I knew you'd support it.
Quote from: FastFreddie on September 17, 2008, 07:23:43 AM
In fact, Social Security could be a good test for improved regulation of the sector.
Dio, you missed the most shocking thing about FF's post. The board's most vocal capitalist is talking about industry regulation. Bob Barr would not be pleased.
Bob Barr can suck it. I'm not an anarchist; I'm a capitalist. Regulation on Wall Street is failing. It's not that we need to throw more money or government programs at the problem... It's that the regulation already in place is a crock of shtein and needs to be overhauled.
Quote from: Diomedes on September 17, 2008, 07:07:08 AM
On a tangent....remember when the Bush Republicans (which is to say most Republicans) wanted to hand over management of Social Security to Wall Street? Anyone still wanna argue it's a good idea?
I'll put my vanguard SEP plan up against soc secur anytime
Morgan Stanley despite good earnings is in deep shtein right now, the market is crazy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERtDaAtkvhQ&feature=related
The financial mess is making at least a couple of guys happy.
pair that with the galveston bear and I hope we are seeing a trend in modern activism....interruption of idiotic media reports by jackasses worldwide
Unreal. (http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/18/markets/markets_newyork/index.htm?cnn=yes)
QuoteStocks swayed on both sides of unchanged throughout the session. But they spiked in the final hour on a news report that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is looking to create a more long-term solution to the current credit crisis, perhaps creating an independent agency to take bad loans off bank balance sheets.
So, rather than address the regulations (or lack thereof) that caused the problem, they are considering creating a government agency to just absorb the bad loans and let the companies who dished them out get off without any repercussions? That the bloody farg is wrong with people?
Corporate accountability is one of the keystones of the success of a capitalistic economy. If a company does wrong by it's customers it fails, which keeps companies acting in a way that benefits their customers, thereby benefiting themselves. This type of bullshtein completely undermines that by valuing the almighty dollar over sound financial behavior.
True fiscal conservatives everywhere should be outraged with this. It's exactly why I think he's a big government social conservative. His answer to every major crises is to create another government agency rather then make the existing ones so their freaking jobs.
See home land security... liberal conservative and an absolute disaster as he's opposite of what is needed in every way. I have hate now...
Quote from: FastFreddie on September 17, 2008, 08:15:19 AM
Bob Barr can suck it. I'm not an anarchist; I'm a capitalist. Regulation on Wall Street is failing. It's not that we need to throw more money or government programs at the problem... It's that the regulation already in place is a crock of shtein and needs to be overhauled.
And it was those tax and spend liberals who pulled what little regulation there was apart, right? Right?!?
Quote from: Phanatic on September 19, 2008, 02:02:18 AM
True fiscal conservatives everywhere should be outraged with this.
Why qualify it like that? Everyone who benefits from the merits of responsible capitalism should be outraged.
g dub better not get a farging library
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_FBXGhy-QmVw/SNKN_OBDC_I/AAAAAAAACAg/rpdZaDJ61Kk/s320/card1791.JPG)
Just caught part of Paulson's press conference and it's making me face smachingly angry. Irresponsible business practices leads to failed companies leads to panic leads to a panicked government response leads to a new unnecessary government agency (which both McCain and Obama are backing, farging tools) leads to higher taxes to pay for the mistakes of massive evil corporations leads to NO ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THOSE IRRESPONSIBLE ACTIONS.
farg that. Spend my taxes on fixing the farging roads or improving our educational system. Not on bailing out, and ensuring the future bail outs, of massive soulless make-money-at-all-costs corporations. farg.
did barry really come out and support the creation of a new agency...yesterday he was leaning against it and this morning he was uncommitted and wanted to meet with paulson and bernake today before he fully formulated his own plans
I just saw his speech and he was backing Paulson's request for "the authority to address the situation". Paulson has come out and said that his plan is to form a new agency to handle this... which is of course what the SEC is supposed to be there for. So now what? We have two agencies that are in charge of regulating our financial caretakers? Are they going to dissolve the SEC and create a new set of regulations that actually attempt to create a level playing field and encourage responsible business practices (which would be fine with me)? Who knows, but Obama appears to be backing Paulson's plan...
How does our government pay for the Iraqi occupation when we can't even afford to rebuild our roads? Magic money. How does it pay for all these bailouts? Why more magic money, of course.
When is the magic money fairy going to want her money back, and who are going to be the ones that will pay for it?
$700 BILLION to bail out the financial market... The US government might just devalue the dollar to shtein so there's nothing left. We're farged...
The thing is that this asinine plan will work, short term. People will see that the Dow is going up and it will make them feel better because they don't know shtein about shtein and everyone will think that everything is hunky dory.
But ultimately that's where we've gotten ourselves. Everyone is talking about confidence in the marketplaces, but no one is addressing the real problems. They're making people feel better about everything because this awful plan makes the speculators that control wall street happy so the Dow goes up. Yippee skippee! The Dow goes up so things must be good! Imbeciles.
If they would address the real problems and let these hideous failures fail as they should the markets would not recover so quickly, but will end up being healthy in the long run. These panic-stricken quick fixes do nothing other than guarantee that this shtein will happen again.
I can't be the only one who thinks this, right? There have got to be people who didn't drop ECON001 at Penn State who can see that this is a bad idea, right? RIGHT?
Hey, I'm on board. New, redundant federal agencies: bad. Bailouts for irresponsible behavior (whether corporate or individual): bad. Printing money to cover gaps in the system: bad. Borrowing from China: bad.
But what do you expect? The fox been in the henhouse for decades now. The pigs are at the farmhouse table. The circle of life is unbroken.
Whatever.
I invested $500,000 in a Dow index fund, and plan on clearing 20% in a month's time.
Well, I would have if I had half a mil to do that with.
QuoteI can't be the only one who thinks this, right?
Nope. I never took Econ 101, but it seems pretty obvious that this is a bandaid approach, in my view intended to limp the economy along to the November 4th finish line.
Quote from: rjs246 on September 21, 2008, 01:27:07 AM
I can't be the only one who thinks this, right? There have got to be people who didn't drop ECON001 at Penn State who can see that this is a bad idea, right? RIGHT?
Taxes haven't been raised since Bush took office, that would be fine if he didn't spend frivously and push the national debt up to 9.4 trillion. Inflation/money in circulation/taxes/debt is such a balancing act that regardless of who the next President is they're walking into a mess. The bailouts were sort of necessary to rebuild confidence in the marketplace, so short term it was a good move even though we're flipping the bill.
Creating yet another government agency and more bureaucracy usually causes more problems.
How we became the United States of France (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1843168,00.html?cnn=yes)
QuoteThis is the state of our great republic: We've nationalized the financial system, taking control from Wall Street bankers we no longer trust. We're about to quasi-nationalize the Detroit auto companies via massive loans because they're a source of American pride, and too many jobs — and votes — are at stake. Our Social Security system is going broke as we head for a future where too many retirees will be supported by too few workers. How long before we have national healthcare? Put it all together, and the America that emerges is a cartoonish version of the country most despised by red-meat red-state patriots: France. Only with worse food.
Admit it, mes amis, the rugged individualism and cutthroat capitalism that made America the land of unlimited opportunity has been shrink-wrapped by a half dozen short sellers in Greenwich, Conn. and FedExed to Washington D.C. to be spoon-fed back to life by Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson. We're now no different from any of those Western European semi-socialist welfare states that we love to deride. Italy? Sure, it's had four governments since last Thursday, but none of them would have allowed this to go on; the Italians know how to rig an economy.
You just know the Frogs have only increased their disdain for us, if that is indeed possible. And why shouldn't they? The average American is working two and half jobs, gets two weeks off, and has all the employment security of a one-armed trapeze artist. The Bush Administration has preached the "ownership society" to America: own your house, own your retirement account; you don't need the government in your way. So Americans mortgaged themselves to the hilt to buy overpriced houses they can no longer afford and signed up for 401k programs that put money where, exactly? In the stock market! Where rich Republicans fleeced them.
Now our laissez-faire (hey, a French word) regulation-averse Administration has made France's only Socialist president, Francois Mitterand, look like Adam Smith by comparison. All Mitterand did was nationalize France's big banks and insurance companies in 1982; he didn't have to deal with bankers who didn't want to lend money, as Paulson does. When the state runs the banks, they are merely cows to be milked in the service of la patrie. France doesn't have the mortgage crisis that we do, either. In bailing out mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, our government has basically turned America into the largest subsidized housing project in the world. Sure, France has its banlieus, where it likes to warehouse people who aren't French enough (meaning, immigrants orAlgerians) in huge apartment blocks. But the bulk of French homeowners are curiously free of subprime mortgages foisted on them by fellow citizens, and they aren't over their heads in personal debt.
We've always dismissed the French as exquisitely fed wards of their welfare state. They work, what, 27 hours in a good week, have 19 holidays a month, go on strike for two days and enjoy a glass of wine every day with lunch — except for the 25% of the population that works for the government, who have an even sweeter deal. They retire before their kids finish high school, and they don't have to save for a $45,000-a-year college tuition because college is free. For this, they pay a tax rate of about 103%, and their labor laws are so restrictive that they haven't had a net gain in jobs since Napoleon. There is no way that the French government can pay for this lifestyle forever, except that it somehow does.
Mitterand tried to create both job-growth and wage-growth by nationalizing huge swaths of the economy, including some big industries, including automaker Renault, for instance. You haven't driven a Renault lately because Renault couldn't sell them here. Imagine that. An auto company that couldn't compete with a Dodge Colt. But the Renault takeover ultimately proved successful and Renault became a private company again in 1996, although the government retains about 15% of the shares.
Now the U.S. is faced with the same prospect in the auto industry. GM and Ford need money to develop greener cars that can compete with Toyota and Honda. And they're looking to Uncle Sam for investment — an investment that could have been avoided had Washington imposed more stringent mileage standards years earlier. But we don't want to interfere with market forces like the French do — until we do.
Mitterand's nationalization program and other economic reforms failed, as the development of the European Market made a centrally planned economy obsolete. The Rothschilds got their bank back, a little worse for wear. These days, France sashays around the issue of protectionism in a supposedly unfettered EU by proclaiming some industries to be national champions worthy of extra consideration — you know, special needs kids. And we're not talking about pastry chefs, but the likes of GDF Suez, a major utility. I never thought of the stocks and junk securities sold by Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley as unique, but clearly Washington does. Morgan's John Mack calls SEC boss Chris Cox to whine about short sellers and bingo, the government obliges. The elite serve the elite. How French is that?
Even in the strongest sectors in the U.S., there's no getting away from the French influence. Nothing is more sacred to France than its farmers. They get whatever they demand, and they demand a lot. And if there are any issues about price supports, or feed costs being too high, or actual competition from other countries, French farmers simply shut down the country by marching their livestock up the Champs Elysee and piling up wheat on the highways. U.S. farmers would never resort to such behavior. They don't have to: they're the most coddled special interest group in U.S. history, lavished with $180 billion in subsidies by both parties, even when their products are fetching record prices. One consequence: U.S. consumers pay twice what the French pay for sugar, because of price guarantees. We're more French than France.
So yes, while we're still willing to work ourselves to death for the privilege of paying off our usurious credit cards, we can no longer look contemptuously at the land of 246 cheeses. Kraft Foods has replaced American International Group in the Dow Jones Industrial Average, the insurance company having been added to Paulson's nationalized portfolio. Macaroni and cheese has supplanted credit default swaps at the fulcrum of capitalism. And one more thing: the food snob French love McDonalds, which does a fantastic business there. They know a good freedom fry when they taste one.
Blame Greenspan! (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/32b85c72-859b-11dd-a1ac-0000779fd18c.html)
Blame the donkeys! (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0)
Let's face it; there are very few innocents in this mess.
September 22, 2008
Falling Into Fall
So many shoes are poised to drop this week that the American scene might be confused for the world's greatest-ever clog dancing festival, but a closer look will reveal a circle of cavorting skeletons.
Last week's ripe moment turned out to be the Thursday night Washington photo op when Treasury Secretary Paulson and Fed Chief Bernanke emerged from a huddle with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and just about every other legislative eminentissimo in an attempt to reassure the nation that its financial system had not turned into something like unto a truckload of stinking dead carp. I don't know about you, but I got two distinct vibes from the faces in that particular tableau: 1.) abject fear, and 2.) a total lack of conviction that they knew what they were doing.
The product of that huddle was a cockamamie scheme for the US treasury to absorb all the losses from a twenty-year binge in which Wall Street created and retailed the most complex set of swindles ever seen on this planet Earth. The background music to the tableau was the whoosh of a several trillion dollars exiting the US financial system never to be seen again.
The next day (Friday) many particulars of that scheme began to emerge -- such as the complete lack of oversight and review mechanisms for Treasury's new power to monetize private business failures and frauds -- and the stock market soared in response. Other new features of the reformed capital landscape also resolved later that day, like a new experiment aimed at eliminating the short sale as a way of guaranteeing that henceforth market bets could only be placed on the upside of the table. It will be interesting to see how that reform works out in the days ahead.
Over the weekend, all these various playerz retreated into their gilded bunkers to negotiate the details, and by Sunday night, among other things, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley -- the two remaining investment giants left standing -- announced that they would metamorphose into regular banks in order to qualify for additional truckloads of government loans in exchange for any leftover fraudulant securities still lurking in their vaults. Another new provision had the Treasury rescuing swindled foreign companies, too -- in effect, saving the world, which seemed at least, how you say, pretty ambitious.
By this morning, many new arguments had been raised by a suddenly de-zombified congress as to whether the proposed grand bail-out might reward recent Wall Street turpitudes and incentivize future mis-deeds and it looks like enough objections may be lodged to gum-up the process before it even goes into effect -- which, of course, would tend to revert the whole reeking cargo of trouble to its original train-wreck trajectory. I guess we'll see what happens now.
Any way you paint this grotesque panorama, it looks like a very new chapter of history for life in the USA. Basically, we are a much poorer nation than we were even a couple of years ago, and we have a much-reduced ability to project our will around the world, or even among our own floundering sectors and regions. Most troubling to me is the question of legitimacy that now hangs over the proscenium like a guillotine blade. Factoring in the old saw that history doesn't repeat but it rhymes, I think the situation emerging is rather like the crisis of legitimacy that preceded the Civil War. Then, in the 1850s, the nation's two symbiotic political parties, Whig and Democrat, entered a zone of fatal discredit. The White House had been occupied by a sequence of empty cravats named Fillmore, Pierce, and Buchanan, and so much pent-up mistrust roiled the centers of power that the nation entered a convulsion.
At issue then was the great festering unresolved polity of slavery. The Whig party, in its oafish, craven fecklessness, disappeared so quickly from the scene that an embarrassed God Almighty seemed to have hooked it off-stage in a nanosecond. Into the vacuum stepped an awkward lawyer from Illinois -- widely mocked by the coarser elements of what was then called the press as a figure resembling an ape in a stovepipe hat. He accomplished one crucial thing in the process of his emergence: he deployed a potent rhetoric that captured the essence of the crisis and clarified it for all to understand what was at stake -- and then the convulsion commenced in earnest.
The Republican Party amounts to today's Whigs. Their candidate for president, John McCain, is trying to run away from his own party -- as one might shrink away from a colony of importuning lepers. I am actually not kidding when I label the Republicans "the party that wrecked America," because I believe that is truly how the popular strain of history will regard them when (maybe if) the wreckage of their ministrations ever clears. But history doesn't repeat exactly. The current figure from Illinois, Barrack Obama, has yet to offer a truly crisis-clarfying rhetoric, though he labors under the expectation of being able to do so. Like his long-ago predecessor, he is mocked by the coarser elements of what we call "the media" these days -- Fox News and the moron-rousers of talk radio.
Some of the issues yet-to-be-clarified concern the behavior of the American public in the broad sense. We have obdurately resisted the reality of the energy crisis that hangs over everything we do (as slavery hung over the 1850s), from the way we inhabit the landscape to the way we do daily business in our 240-million-plus fleet of cars and trucks that ply the ribbons of asphalt and the lagoons of parking that now run from sea to shining sea where the fruited plain was replaced by the Wal Marts.
Mr. Obama isn't kidding either when he alludes to the change America faces, though history has not yet rhymed enough for his rhetoric to really set forth the terms of this change in its stark particulars. And even if he is able to articulate these things, he won't forestall the convulsion anymore than Lincoln held back a war between the states. That prior crisis was when America learned good and hard how tragic life could be, and it colored our national character for a century -- until we chucked it all to become a society of overfed clowns, with God Almighty replaced by Ronald McDonald. That pageant of happy idiocy is now ending. Like everyone else in this fraught and nervous land, I'm standing by to see what transpires in the days just ahead.
From http://www.kunstler.com/index.html
Possible new scam:
QuotePrevious message | Go to Next message | Back to Messages
Mark as Unread | Print
<Flag this message>
Tuesday, September 23, 2008 5:11 AM
From: XXXXXXX <Add sender to Contacts>
To: XXXX
Dear XXXXX
I need to ask you to support an urgent secret business relationship with a transfer of funds of great magnitude.
I am Ministry of the Treasury of the Republic of America. My country has had crisis that has caused the need for large transfer of funds of 800 billion USD. If you would assist me in this transfer, it would be most profitable to you.
I am working with Mr. Phil Gramm, lobbyist for UBS, who (God willing) will be my replacement as Ministry of the Treasury in January. As a former U.S. congressional leader and the architect of the PALIN / McCain Financial Doctrine, you may know him as the leader of the American banking deregulation movement in the 1990s. As such, you can be assured that this transaction is 100% safe.
This is a matter of great urgency. We need a blank check. We need the funds as quickly as possible. We cannot directly transfer these funds in the names of our close friends because we are constantly under surveillance. My family lawyer advised me that I should look for a reliable and trustworthy person who will act as a next of kin so the funds can be transferred.
Please reply with all of your bank account, IRA and college fund account numbers and those of your children and grandchildren to wallstreetbailout@treasury.gov so that we may transfer your commission for this transaction. After I receive that information, I will respond with detailed information about safeguards that will be used to protect the funds.
Yours Faithfully,
Minister of Treasury Paulson
lol
Ron Paul weighs in. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/23/paul.bailout/index.html)
The dude wants the government to butt out entirely, which is lunacy since deregulation and lax enforcement of regulations helped lead to this mess, but this part was right on the money.
QuoteI am afraid that policymakers today have not learned the lesson that prices must adjust to economic reality. The bailout of Fannie and Freddie, the purchase of AIG, and the latest multi-hundred billion dollar Treasury scheme all have one thing in common: They seek to prevent the liquidation of bad debt and worthless assets at market prices, and instead try to prop up those markets and keep those assets trading at prices far in excess of what any buyer would be willing to pay.
Additionally, the government's actions encourage moral hazard of the worst sort. Now that the precedent has been set, the likelihood of financial institutions to engage in riskier investment schemes is increased, because they now know that an investment position so overextended as to threaten the stability of the financial system will result in a government bailout and purchase of worthless, illiquid assets.
Exactly. At this point, you have to let them down easy, but you ultimately have to let them down.
The debt-driven economy is farging us all.
Quote from: FastFreddie on September 23, 2008, 11:40:51 AM
Exactly. At this point, you have to let them down easy, but you ultimately have to let them down.
The debt-driven economy is farging us all.
The pyramid scheme is collapsing, and those at the top are scrambling to prop themselves up before they go down with the prols.
Cynicism alert: could the reaction to this crisis be a political ruse?
Economy Tanks
BushCo comes up with a ridiculous plan to buy bad debt with...more debt.
Congressional Republicans scream, "Socialist!"
Bush bad, Republicans good
Socialism = Liberals
Obama = Liberal
Financial crisis all Obama's fault!
I'm pretty sure you've finally lost your mind.
It is quite possible that I have lost my mind, but first four steps have already been taken: (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/23/bush-team-congress-haggle_n_128501.html)
QuoteSen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., added, "This massive bailout is not a solution. It is financial socialism and it's un-American."
Republicans hate the bail-out, and that effectively separates them from BushCo. It is just a matter of time until McCain jumps on the bandwagon. The only question is when/where it became contrived.
At some point, it would be a good idea to reduce the incentive for people to abuse the markets, no?
You are preaching to the choir. It just seems odd that the Republicans, who have been loyally marching to the Bush drum are suddenly up in arms with his policy decisions.
Not at all. McCain/Palin are mavericks, fighting against Washington fat cats. It should be obvious to any red-blooded American that they're talking about the filthy liberals who control Congress. It's about damned time that these Republican patriots starting fighting back!
Next step? MOB RULE (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article4810644.ece)
Mob rule? Woo-hoo! Where can I sign myself up for some purple heart bandaids?
Someone needs to pay. I heard on the radio news that the FBI is now investigation a bunch of companies and CEO's. I tuned in on the back end of it. Just Brutal.
Many top Economists deride the bailout plan (http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/john.cochrane/research/Papers/mortgage_protest.htm)
I came into the middle of the story, so I didn't catch who said it, but one of the conservative congressmen said the way to solve this problem is to eliminate capital gains tax.
Are you farging kidding me? Really, you think that's going to help? Seriously? We need to consider building some guillotines and digging out the torches and pitchforks at this point. Culling Congress may be the only hope.
Slimey people beget slimey results.
Read that there's a big back lash against CEO salaries. While I kind of agree I don't think you can regulate something like their salaries.
Quote from: Phanatic on September 24, 2008, 08:03:26 AM
Slimey people beget slimey results.
Read that there's a big back lash against CEO salaries. While I kind of agree I don't think you can regulate something like their salaries.
That doesn't mean that the government won't try. Kneejerk politics kicks ass.
That's the only kind of politics the dumb-ass American public responds to.
Quote from: FastFreddie on September 24, 2008, 07:25:17 AM
Many top Economists deride the bailout plan (http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/john.cochrane/research/Papers/mortgage_protest.htm)
Extremely concise and right on the money. This shtein had better not fly right through congress...
yes...very concise...but Im looking for something a little more precise...especially from top economists around the nation
thats great and all that they voiced their opinion...might not cut it
No one cares what you're looking for, reese.
I know....thank god youre here because we all care what rjs is looking for in life
I know.
The level of detail is such that the Bush administration might actually understand it.
as crazy as it sounds....amongst all this chaos, bailouts and restructuring...if you have the cash...now is the time to buy some stocks
once this bear market ends, you will see the stock market take a major jump over the next 6-12 months
I don't understand how that could sound crazy to anyone. Dollar-cost averaging is a basic fundamental of investing. Even if the market hasn't hit bottom yet, it pays to reinvest as much as possible when prices are discounted.
Not many people have cash sitting around, I'm sure, but now is certainly the time to benefit from the uncertainty of others.
True, but I don't think we've seen the bottom of this stock market drop yet. When the bailout measure meets continued broad opposition from fiscal conservatives investors will freak.
Quote from: FastFreddie on September 24, 2008, 11:01:33 AM
I don't understand how that could sound crazy to anyone. Dollar-cost averaging is a basic fundamental of investing. Even if the market hasn't hit bottom yet, it pays to reinvest as much as possible when prices are discounted.
Not many people have cash sitting around, I'm sure, but now is certainly the time to benefit from the uncertainty of others.
no question...and dont just look at individual stocks. To play it safe, you can always put some cash in the S & P index and wait for the turn-around.
Oct 11 07--$101.48
Now-- $51
Quote from: rjs246 on September 24, 2008, 11:03:05 AM
True, but I don't think we've seen the bottom of this stock market drop yet. When the bailout measure meets continued broad opposition from fiscal conservatives investors will freak.
The craziness is that both sides of the aisle think the Bush plan sucks. It looks like Dodd is finally ready to man up and stop helping his buddies in industry also.
QuoteThe craziness is that both sides of the aisle think the Bush plan sucks.
It only took eight years for the Repubelicans to finally come around?
No bailout agreement, which is good. Do this shtein right and don't just hand these fargers a blank check for their zesty decision making. But boy how the markets will tumble.
I think we should all stop paying our mortgages immediately. Tell the banks to go straight to hell and they can take my house after they take my gun.
Quote from: Diomedes on September 25, 2008, 07:39:12 PM
I think we should all stop paying our mortgages immediately. Tell the banks to go straight to hell and they can take my house after they take my gun.
Now this is an attitude I can get behind. Want to be my VP?
Can I drink on the job?
Don't you know me at all?
I actually laughed out loud at page 1 of this thread. It's astonishing how much worse things are now than any of us predicted it to be. I'm scared to death at this point, to be frank. Every indicator I'm looking at is saying we're approaching critical mass in terms of a financial crisis that will make the depression look like a tea party.
Better start brushing up on your Chinese. They'll own America soon enough.
Washington Mutual seized and parts of it were sold to JPMorgan Chase
WaMu should be seized for its radio commercials alone.
You know where to put your money...
(http://www.rbcbankusa.com/file-153031.gif) (http://www.tdbank.com/img/tdbanklogo.gif)
BTW, anyone with a clue knew something bad was going to happen months ago...all the leading economic indicators were pointing squarely and decisively toward recession. The evidence was so strong that my wife (who has access to reports on the indicators from her work) asked if there was a definition for a depression...
we are no doubt in a major recession now, but the funny thing a mild recession is exactly what this economy needed alot earlier for the way the economy was going. Its a natural part of the business cycle, and it would of allowed for the economy to heal itself
the fact that Washington couldnt see a collapse and just kept seeing consumers and investors spending at an all time high is even scarier.
no one cared because they were all getting Caked Off for such a long period of time. Wachovia is off the on deck spot and now is at the plate.
What is McCain asking for?
1) Tax breaks for companies willing to take on the "bad debt"
2) Suspend capital gains tax.
What do these two have in common? Converting investments to cash until the storm is over.
#1 lets companies take on bad mortgages at basically no cost and forclose - pocket the change and move on.
#2 lets rich investors move their money out of the US market until the market has stopped falling.
And what happens to the market when there is a massive sell-off? Who suffers? One clue: not the people who have converted their investments to Euros.
Quote from: Cerevant on September 26, 2008, 05:55:26 AMYou know where to put your money...
....and RBC owns Citizens Bank, so I'm good for now....
For the sake of argument let's say that the Senate Dems and Repubs, the House Dems, and the White House all more or less agree on a plan, which seems to be where they are right now. It's a bailout plan not very different from what Paulson wants, basically.
But the House Republicans are not buying it, and are proposing a very different solution. Can someone explain why the House Republican proposal is seen as a bad idea to the other wonks and pols?
Quote from: Diomedes on September 26, 2008, 10:31:24 AM
For the sake of argument let's say that the Senate Dems and Repubs, the House Dems, and the White House all more or less agree on a plan, which seems to be where they are right now. It's a bailout plan not very different from what Paulson wants, basically.
But the House Republicans are not buying it, and are proposing a very different solution. Can someone explain why the House Republican proposal is seen as a bad idea to the other wonks and pols?
It's because the House Repbulicans don't really have a proposal of their own as far as I know. The only reason this bailout is getting any support at all is because it's the only idea anyone has had. It's a bad idea that has the potential to lead to very bad things down the road, but there's a sense that if this isn't headed off immediately everything will completely fall apart. Politicians don't like that idea.
By all accounts the Republicans were on board until their constituents spoke up and let them know that this was a farging awful plan. People don't want to see their houses lose value while the iceholes who made it happen get to continue doing business on the tax-payer's dime. And good for them for actually doing something.
But in the mean time there is literally no agreed-upon counter-proposal because it's about 4 years too late for anything sensible to be done about this. It's either adopt a terrible plan, or let the shtein hit the fan and allow the markets to adjust and correct themselves naturally. Either way, we're all in for a big shtein storm.
I know that the Keating 5 scandal has been basically ignored because it is considered old, but isn't the fact that McCain was in part responsible for the S&L crash relevant to current events?
Quote from: Diomedes on September 25, 2008, 07:39:12 PM
I think we should all stop paying our mortgages immediately. Tell the banks to go straight to hell and they can take my house after they take my gun.
"Gun Control"...Hitting the bullseye every time :yay
Using some very undocumented math techniques I came up with .. if each worker would pay the government $6-7K the goverment could raise the 700B. In return the government would agree not to penalize any payers soc. sec. upon retirement (even if I decided to continue working I would not have the $13K threshold income level)..just tax my earned wages each year....problem solved...mission accomplished..write me in on election day:yay
Quote from: Cerevant on September 26, 2008, 10:55:27 AM
I know that the Keating 5 scandal has been basically ignored because it is considered old, but isn't the fact that McCain was in part responsible for the S&L crash relevant to current events?
Absolutely! Once again he is the most experienced to handle this crisis :-D
http://www.cnbc.com/id/26895236
Both Sides had the deal worked out, then the Mavrick came to town. Both sides are offering him up to the platter now.
Quote"We're going ot get this done—and stay in session long enough to get it done," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters. "The time is now, for House Republicans to come to the negotiating table and for presidential politics to leave the negotiating table."
Quote"A few days ago i called on Sen. McCain to take a stand to let us know where he stands on the issue on this bailout, but all he has done is stand in front of the cameras," Reid said. "We still don't know where he stands on the issue."
Reid is "both sides?"
For those that want to understand this mess in easy language (http://docs.google.com/TeamPresent?docid=ddp4zq7n_0cdjsr4fn&skipauth=true&pli=1)
Rushing to throw a bunch of money at this with minimal thought is really going to come back to haunt us all. I just want to get on the record now there.
Restraint and indecision is better than what we're going to get.
I concede that some level of "bailout" is necessary to prevent complete immediate collapse, but the $700 billion plan is a complete mess.
GOP has an alternate plan I heard this morning. Any of you financiers know anything about it?
It sort of makes my ass twitch to think that Republican dregulation has helped cause this and that now we are relying on their fiscal-conservatism to come up with a reasonable rescue plan.
Don't worry faceless, soulless corporations. Do whatever you want in any manner you would like. No rules. And to make matters even better for you, when the bomb drops we'll concoct a plan to clean up your mess.
Quote from: Phanatic on September 26, 2008, 12:43:05 PM
GOP has an alternate plan I heard this morning. Any of you financiers know anything about it?
there are no details of this plan by the GOP that I have seen or read anywhere. Either way, its looking like this plan is scaring the shtein out of both dems and repubs.....which is not good.
Heres the latest:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PersonalFinance/story?id=5891721&page=1 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PersonalFinance/story?id=5891721&page=1)
Quote from: rjs246 on September 26, 2008, 10:49:35 AMIt's either adopt a terrible plan, or let the shtein hit the fan and allow the markets to adjust and correct themselves naturally.
I vote for the latter. Time for America to stop living on credit.
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/business/hancock/blog/2008/09/hopkins_economists_against_the.html
QuoteHopkins economists against the bailout
Four economics professors at the Johns Hopkins University are on yesterday's petition against the bailout. They are:
Christopher Carroll, professor of economics
Hülya K. K Eraslan, associate professor of economics
Caroline Fohlin, research professor of economics
Stephen H. Shore, assistant professor of economics
Tiemen Woutersen, assistant professor of economics
Here is the petition:
To the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate: As economists, we want to express to Congress our great concern for the plan proposed by Treasury Secretary Paulson to deal with the financial crisis. We are well aware of the difficulty of the current financial situation and we agree with the need for bold action to ensure that the financial system continues to function. We see three fatal pitfalls in the currently proposed plan: 1) Its fairness. The plan is a subsidy to investors at taxpayers' expense. Investors who took risks to earn profits must also bear the losses. Not every business failure carries systemic risk. The government can ensure a well-functioning financial industry, able to make new loans to creditworthy borrowers, without bailing out particular investors and institutions whose choices proved unwise.
2) Its ambiguity. Neither the mission of the new agency nor its oversight are clear. If taxpayers are to buy illiquid and opaque assets from troubled sellers, the terms, occasions, and methods of such purchases must be crystal clear ahead of time and carefully monitored afterwards.
3) Its long-term effects. If the plan is enacted, its effects will be with us for a generation. For all their recent troubles, America's dynamic and innovative private capital markets have brought the nation unparalleled prosperity. Fundamentally weakening those markets in order to calm short-run disruptions is desperately short-sighted.
For these reasons we ask Congress not to rush, to hold appropriate hearings, and to carefully consider the right course of action, and to wisely determine the future of the financial industry and the U.S. economy for years to come.
hugs and kisses,
Quote
Signed (updated at 9/25/2008 8:30AM CT)
Acemoglu Daron (Massachussets Institute of Technology)
Adler Michael (Columbia University)
Admati Anat R. (Stanford University)
Alexis Marcus (Northwestern University)
Alvarez Fernando (University of Chicago)
Andersen Torben (Northwestern University)
Baliga Sandeep (Northwestern University)
Banerjee Abhijit V. (Massachussets Institute of Technology)
Barankay Iwan (University of Pennsylvania)
Barry Brian (University of Chicago)
Bartkus James R. (Xavier University of Louisiana)
Becker Charles M. (Duke University)
Becker Robert A. (Indiana University)
Beim David (Columbia University)
Berk Jonathan (Stanford University)
Bisin Alberto (New York University)
Bittlingmayer George (University of Kansas)
Boldrin Michele (Washington University)
Brooks Taggert J. (University of Wisconsin)
Brynjolfsson Erik (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Buera Francisco J. (UCLA)
Camp Mary Elizabeth (Indiana University)
Carmel Jonathan (University of Michigan)
Carroll Christopher (Johns Hopkins University)
Cassar Gavin (University of Pennsylvania)
Chaney Thomas (University of Chicago)
Chari Varadarajan V. (University of Minnesota)
Chauvin Keith W. (University of Kansas)
Chintagunta Pradeep K. (University of Chicago)
Christiano Lawrence J. (Northwestern University)
Cochrane John (University of Chicago)
Coleman John (Duke University)
Constantinides George M. (University of Chicago)
Crain Robert (UC Berkeley)
Culp Christopher (University of Chicago)
Da Zhi (University of Notre Dame)
Davis Morris (University of Wisconsin)
De Marzo Peter (Stanford University)
Diomedes, Judas (Concretefield Academy)
Dubé Jean-Pierre H. (University of Chicago)
Edlin Aaron (UC Berkeley)
Eichenbaum Martin (Northwestern University)
Ely Jeffrey (Northwestern University)
Eraslan Hülya K. K.(Johns Hopkins University)
Faulhaber Gerald (University of Pennsylvania)
Feldmann Sven (University of Melbourne)
Fernandez-Villaverde Jesus (University of Pennsylvania)
Fohlin Caroline (Johns Hopkins University)
Fox Jeremy T. (University of Chicago)
Frank Murray Z.(University of Minnesota)
Frenzen Jonathan (University of Chicago)
Fuchs William (University of Chicago)
Fudenberg Drew (Harvard University)
Gabaix Xavier (New York University)
Gao Paul (Notre Dame University)
Garicano Luis (University of Chicago)
Gerakos Joseph J. (University of Chicago)
Gibbs Michael (University of Chicago)
Glomm Gerhard (Indiana University)
Goettler Ron (University of Chicago)
Goldin Claudia (Harvard University)
Gordon Robert J. (Northwestern University)
Greenstone Michael (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Guadalupe Maria (Columbia University)
Guerrieri Veronica (University of Chicago)
Hagerty Kathleen (Northwestern University)
Hamada Robert S. (University of Chicago)
Hansen Lars (University of Chicago)
Harris Milton (University of Chicago)
Hart Oliver (Harvard University)
Hazlett Thomas W. (George Mason University)
Heaton John (University of Chicago)
Heckman James (University of Chicago - Nobel Laureate)
Henderson David R. (Hoover Institution)
Henisz, Witold (University of Pennsylvania)
Hertzberg Andrew (Columbia University)
Hite Gailen (Columbia University)
Hitsch Günter J. (University of Chicago)
Hodrick Robert J. (Columbia University)
Hopenhayn Hugo (UCLA)
Hurst Erik (University of Chicago)
Imrohoroglu Ayse (University of Southern California)
Isakson Hans (University of Northern Iowa)
Israel Ronen (London Business School)
Jaffee Dwight M. (UC Berkeley)
Jagannathan Ravi (Northwestern University)
Jenter Dirk (Stanford University)
Jones Charles M. (Columbia Business School)
Kaboski Joseph P. (Ohio State University)
Kahn Matthew (UCLA)
Kaplan Ethan (Stockholm University)
Karolyi, Andrew (Ohio State University)
Kashyap Anil (University of Chicago)
Keim Donald B (University of Pennsylvania)
Ketkar Suhas L (Vanderbilt University)
Kiesling Lynne (Northwestern University)
Klenow Pete (Stanford University)
Koch Paul (University of Kansas)
Kocherlakota Narayana (University of Minnesota)
Koijen Ralph S.J. (University of Chicago)
Kondo Jiro (Northwestern University)
Korteweg Arthur (Stanford University)
Kortum Samuel (University of Chicago)
Krueger Dirk (University of Pennsylvania)
Ledesma Patricia (Northwestern University)
Lee Lung-fei (Ohio State University)
Leeper Eric M. (Indiana University)
Leuz Christian (University of Chicago)
Levine David I.(UC Berkeley)
Levine David K.(Washington University)
Levy David M. (George Mason University)
Linnainmaa Juhani (University of Chicago)
Lott John R. Jr. (University of Maryland)
Lucas Robert (University of Chicago - Nobel Laureate)
Luttmer Erzo G.J. (University of Minnesota)
Manski Charles F. (Northwestern University)
Martin Ian (Stanford University)
Mayer Christopher (Columbia University)
Mazzeo Michael (Northwestern University)
McDonald Robert (Northwestern University)
Meadow Scott F. (University of Chicago)
Mehra Rajnish (UC Santa Barbara)
Mian Atif (University of Chicago)
Middlebrook Art (University of Chicago)
Miguel Edward (UC Berkeley)
Miravete Eugenio J. (University of Texas at Austin)
Miron Jeffrey (Harvard University)
Moretti Enrico (UC Berkeley)
Moriguchi Chiaki (Northwestern University)
Moro Andrea (Vanderbilt University)
Morse Adair (University of Chicago)
Mortensen Dale T. (Northwestern University)
Mortimer Julie Holland (Harvard University)
Muralidharan Karthik (UC San Diego)
Nanda Dhananjay (University of Miami)
Nevo Aviv (Northwestern University)
Ohanian Lee (UCLA)
Pagliari Joseph (University of Chicago)
Papanikolaou Dimitris (Northwestern University)
Parker Jonathan (Northwestern University)
Paul Evans (Ohio State University)
Pejovich Svetozar (Steve) (Texas A&M University)
Peltzman Sam (University of Chicago)
Perri Fabrizio (University of Minnesota)
Phelan Christopher (University of Minnesota)
Piazzesi Monika (Stanford University)
Piskorski Tomasz (Columbia University)
Rampini Adriano (Duke University)
Reagan Patricia (Ohio State University)
Reich Michael (UC Berkeley)
Reuben Ernesto (Northwestern University)
Roberts Michael (University of Pennsylvania)
Robinson David (Duke University)
Rogers Michele (Northwestern University)
Rotella Elyce (Indiana University)
Ruud Paul (Vassar College)
Safford Sean (University of Chicago)
Sandbu Martin E. (University of Pennsylvania)
Sapienza Paola (Northwestern University)
Savor Pavel (University of Pennsylvania)
Scharfstein David (Harvard University)
Seim Katja (University of Pennsylvania)
Seru Amit (University of Chicago)
Shang-Jin Wei (Columbia University)
Shimer Robert (University of Chicago)
Shore Stephen H. (Johns Hopkins University)
Siegel Ron (Northwestern University)
Smith David C. (University of Virginia)
Smith Vernon L.(Chapman University- Nobel Laureate)
Sorensen Morten (Columbia University)
Spiegel Matthew (Yale University)
Stevenson Betsey (University of Pennsylvania)
Stokey Nancy (University of Chicago)
Strahan Philip (Boston College)
Strebulaev Ilya (Stanford University)
Sufi Amir (University of Chicago)
Tabarrok Alex (George Mason University)
Taylor Alan M. (UC Davis)
Thompson Tim (Northwestern University)
Tschoegl Adrian E. (University of Pennsylvania)
Uhlig Harald (University of Chicago)
Ulrich, Maxim (Columbia University)
Van Buskirk Andrew (University of Chicago)
Veronesi Pietro (University of Chicago)
Vissing-Jorgensen Annette (Northwestern University)
Wacziarg Romain (UCLA)
Weill Pierre-Olivier (UCLA)
Williamson Samuel H. (Miami University)
Witte Mark (Northwestern University)
Wolfers Justin (University of Pennsylvania)
Woutersen Tiemen (Johns Hopkins University)
Zingales Luigi (University of Chicago)
Zitzewitz Eric (Dartmouth College)
Just found out that my brother works for an AIG Subsidiary. There all a bit worried over there.
Quote from: Diomedes on September 26, 2008, 05:22:35 PM
Quote from: rjs246 on September 26, 2008, 10:49:35 AMIt's either adopt a terrible plan, or let the shtein hit the fan and allow the markets to adjust and correct themselves naturally.
I vote for the latter. Time for America to stop living on credit.
I agree completely. A depression now won't kill me. A depression in 25 years might.
Im going out to buy my AR 15
Citibank aquired Wachovia's banking operations, Wachovia shares are at .77, there was a bidding war between Wells Fargo and Citi, and it was who could go the lowest won lol
Everyone is running away from taking credit for the bailout bill, which makes sense since the voters all absolutely hate it. (http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1845325,00.html?cnn=yes)
So are we gonna have Citi Center in South Philly now?
The house rejected the Bailout bill, and the Dow plunged 500 points in about 2 minutes. Fantastic
yep, it was down over 625 when i just walked by a tv.
I applaud every lawmaker who voted against it.
AB stock which is due to be bought out for cash at $70 a share is down to $63 a share right now. InBev shareholders approved the deal and in this market there's no way someone says no to the deal I would think. Despite being downgraded you might make a descent bit of $$. As long as InBev can get the loans still.
Quote from: Diomedes on September 29, 2008, 02:59:47 PM
I applaud every lawmaker who voted against it.
Me too, actually. What the hell? How can you and I possibly agree on this?
Quote from: FastFreddie on September 29, 2008, 03:48:03 PM
Quote from: Diomedes on September 29, 2008, 02:59:47 PM
I applaud every lawmaker who voted against it.
Me too, actually. What the hell? How can you and I possibly agree on this?
...and now we know why almost no one who is up for re-election voted for the bill.
It's a disastrous bill that would have cost the taxpayers literally trillions of dollars in the long road. It's time to fix the problem once and for all and throwing money we don't have at it isn't the answer.
what is hilarious is listening to the morons who write into the news or call and they play their thoughts, the public has no farging clue what is at stake other than no one is there to bail them out. The major issue is the fact that our currency is losing its value daily, and that the credit market is freezing, which means small business owners are farged, and spending will slow. Im just happy i have a gun, and a decent amount of cash saved up. Yay Depression. I might move to the woods with Dio in WV
Party at Dio's cabin!
Of course, the other possibility is Bush is using scare tactics (not Bush....) and, while bad, it's not the end of the world.
Thank God it failed. Of course, my dumb farg congresswoman baaed yes. Yay me.
More federal debt is not the answer. All the talk about soup lines and great depression may actually come to pass and it may not. I don't know. I don't think it's as bad as Bush Co. says. but call me crazy, so what if it is. The country survived the Great Depression and it will survive the next one.
We've got to get off the teat of the money lenders. A federal bailout only postpones the crisis by getting us deeper in. We're crack heads saying to ourselves..all we gotta do is smoke the biggest rock ever and our jones will go away forever.
Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on September 29, 2008, 05:58:17 PM
our currency is losing its value daily
Dollar posts biggest gain in 15 years (http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/markets/article4844255.ece)
People just don't understand economics. Prices were already wildly inflated due to easy access to debt-based spending. The crash is due to the realization that much of that money will never be repaid, and frankly, it absolutely has to happen to ensure the long-term stability of the economy.
It would be a lot better to be let down easy, but how much of your tax money are you willing to spend just to have the band-aid come off a little more gently?
P.S. I'm still astonished that Dio and I seem to agree almost completely on this.
We built a mortgage investment bubble on top of a real estate bubble to save us from the internet bubble.
Time to pay the piper.
Someone on NPR had a fairly reasonable idea of changing the conditions on peoples loans to where they could afford the payments and interest rates on them thus making this mortgage mess manageable. If payments are being made it's worth something. Granted this doesn't work all the time but it doesn't have to. They were calling Paulson an idiot for just throwing money at it too.
If you watched the Daily Show last week, that is exactly what Bill Clinton said. He had several ideas for how the bailout could be an investment that could reduce the deficit/debt long term. As someone else said, it is weird to remember what it was like to have a president with a clue.
I also could care less about the fargs that took out arm loans and have their rates out of control right now, bunch of morons who dont deserve to stay in their houses. Mostly it pisses me off i was responsible, and didnt behave like a moron and get a house well above my means
Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on September 30, 2008, 07:00:12 AM
I also could care less about the fargs that took out arm loans and have their rates out of control right now, bunch of morons who dont deserve to stay in their houses. Mostly it pisses me off i was responsible, and didnt behave like a moron and get a house well above my means
Pretty much.
This guy is smarter than anyone in Congress (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/miron.bailout/index.html?iref=mpstoryview).
Let them all crash and burn... unless my parents lose their retirement money and try to move in with me. On second thought, maybe this bailout is a good idea afterall...
Quote from: Diomedes on September 29, 2008, 08:08:03 PM
More federal debt is not the answer. All the talk about soup lines and great depression may actually come to pass and it may not. I don't know. I don't think it's as bad as Bush Co. says. but call me crazy, so what if it is. The country survived the Great Depression and it will survive the next one.
We've got to get off the teat of the money lenders. A federal bailout only postpones the crisis by getting us deeper in. We're crack heads saying to ourselves..all we gotta do is smoke the biggest rock ever and our jones will go away forever.
The FDIC is what's preventing the Great Depression part 2. First thing people did when the market tanked was run to the bank and take all of their money out. No need to do that now.
Quote from: FastFreddie on September 30, 2008, 09:40:26 AM
This guy is smarter than anyone in Congress (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/miron.bailout/index.html?iref=mpstoryview).
his theory of basically letting all the companies go bankrupt in hopes of the market fixing itself in time could be a little short-sighted. Those hundreds of billions of bad credit dollars by declining companies left out there to get bought by SOMEONE still feeds the problem because they are worth peanuts. Its creates another loop to this mess
Its a nice philosophy in a smaller arena, but that kind of bankruptcy would also also cause millions of job losses, that would cause a major trickle-down effect in all areas of business, and in turn feed right back to a worsen economy
Bottom line--you need a bailout plan of some sort or shtein gets worse for all of us and our 401K's
Wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. Government intervention just relocates the problem to the taxpayers, allows the companies that should be failing to keep doing business and encourages similar risky behavior in the future. Why not partake in risky behavior when there's absolutely no risk? The government will just bail them out.
"You make me laugh, Tom. What were you gonna do? All I'd have to do is squirt a few and you'd let me go."*
All a bailout does is delay the inevitable market correction. I'd rather let the markets tumble now and get back to their natural levels (rather than have them continue to be artificially propped up by panicked government finagling) than have the markets tumble 20-30 years from now when I'm trying to retire and or pay for my kids to go to college.
This needs to happen eventually, now is as good a time as any. Especially since it coincides with an election where the incumbant party needs so badly to be ousted.
*Random, only barely related, Miller's Crossing quote.
There are so many bad loans out there that no loans will be allowed. Worst case scenario is that something like auto loans can't be handed out. The car industry fails. All those jobs and any jobs related to making cars fails. Unemployment way up and people can't earn a living. Just one example. Do the same thing for any industyry that depends on loans like realestate or small businesses. All because some financial guru decided it was a good idea to go after people deemed a high risk because all they cared about was their commision.
So the true bail out plan would be to let no one off the hook, however you can make sure that a certain segment of those high risk folks make their payments by converting them to a fixed rate they can handle. That puts some value back into those junk morgages and saves the entire system. No one gets out of paying their bills and we all go about watching the Eagles suck on a Sunday afternoon.
While there is something to be said for scrapping the whole thing and starting over it's just not all that desirable for the big picture. Someone in a position of power should be out there making sure that responsible people like you and I have the opportunity to support ourselves and our families.
How dare you refer to me as a responsible person.
I needed a car a couple of months ago and found a good deal on a used ride and paid cash.
I sold it for a 20% profit last week.
Eat that, debt lovers.
Both my cars are paid for.
mine too
and since both me and my girl have govt jobs you all paid for them
I'd never sold a car at a profit before, though. That's the novel part.
Kudos to both of you, though. I'll bet rjs didn't pay cash for his Prius.
I paid in semen. And promises of more semen to come.
One's paid for, the other has a year left.
The fact that my car is paid off is probably the only thing keeping me from trading it in to get something more economical on gas. Mine gets about 25/26 mpg (I drive about 60 miles per day to and from work), but I don't want another car payment.
I will drive that thing into the ground, then buy a cheaper car with good gas mileage.
The one we're paying off was a 2006 Kia Sedona (when we had child #2, plus my wife sometimes drives students) that we were able to get brand new for $13,000 because they were leftovers. Got it in a 3-year loan to keep interest fairly low, and will drive that one into the ground as well.
Quote from: SD_Eagle on September 30, 2008, 11:49:37 AM
Quote from: Diomedes on September 29, 2008, 08:08:03 PM
More federal debt is not the answer. All the talk about soup lines and great depression may actually come to pass and it may not. I don't know. I don't think it's as bad as Bush Co. says. but call me crazy, so what if it is. The country survived the Great Depression and it will survive the next one.
We've got to get off the teat of the money lenders. A federal bailout only postpones the crisis by getting us deeper in. We're crack heads saying to ourselves..all we gotta do is smoke the biggest rock ever and our jones will go away forever.
The FDIC is what's preventing the Great Depression part 2. First thing people did when the market tanked was run to the bank and take all of their money out. No need to do that now.
you really think 100k is sufficient? People with under 100k are safe, but the big boys out there are taking their cash out, thats where you have problems. +
And you all owe me money more than likely
Sufficient enough to prevent another great depression, yes.
Well Osama Bin Laden was right. America is much weaker than we thought we were. I haven't really trusted Washington but I had no idea that it was this corrupt (on both sides of the isle while leaderless from the whitehouse)). Absolutely astonishing. Next big Washington perk..bullet proof limos :fire :fire
No dude. Bomb and missile proof limos. Get with the times.
i wanna know where osama bin laden is gonna live once the bushes have to leave the white house
I've paid cash for my last three cars over the past 11 years - and continue to make the "payments" to my savings or money market accounts while I have them. Well, that used to be true, but that practice stopped this year for obvious reasons. But doing that has always allowed us to pay cash.
I also sold a car for profit once after owning it for 8 months. I can't remember the specifics, but because it was a lower end car I got a great deal on, I was able to "flip" it for a healthy percentage, although not real big bucks. It is a cool feeling. Congrats, FF.
Quote from: ice grillin you on September 30, 2008, 04:07:54 PM
i wanna know where osama bin laden is gonna live once the bushes have to leave the white house
It will be sweet to get the Bushes out of public housing
Quote from: Father Demon on September 30, 2008, 04:08:24 PM
I also sold a car for profit once after owning it for 8 months. I can't remember the specifics, but because it was a lower end car I got a great deal on, I was able to "flip" it for a healthy percentage, although not real big bucks. It is a cool feeling. Congrats, FF.
The best part was that I had a handshake agreement and a personal check within 3 hours of posting on craigslist, and the car was gone with a cashier's check in hand only 3 hours after that. I never had to leave my house to make the sale. Easy money.
So, I guess the market thinks the bailout is happening now?
P.S. My 401k was down 32% for the year as of this morning before market open.
Personal accounts of financial transactions FTL.
How much is your monthly payment on the Prius in litres of semen?
With the housing market going in the tank, I've been putting in applications all over the place. It's bad, specially on the Shore. People are scared to spend money and material prices have gone so high that a house 5 years ago cost almost twice as much today. Theres absolutely nothing out there. Guys who have been working steady for years have laid people off that have been working with them forever.
Going for an interview next week with a gubment organization not far from CF's own igy. I have an inside track with someone in the know. Man, I'd love to get a cushy government job to finish the rest of my working life with.
Paid holidays, sick leave, vacation time, overtime..........sounds too good to be true for someone like me whose been sweating it out on his own for the last 20 years.
Capitalism, like evolution, only works when the weak die and the strong survive.
Banks that over-exposed themselves to mortgages securities based on selling morons loans they could never repay need to become extinct.
Quote from: MadMarchHare on October 01, 2008, 07:19:36 AM
Capitalism, like evolution, only works when the weak die and the strong survive.
Except for the fact that this condition, left unchecked, leads directly to monopolies. So... Capitalism only works when the weak die and the strong survive, and regulations are put in place to ensure reasonable and ethical behavior in the name of level-playing-field competition.
New competition has to be encouraged. The problem is that in banking, there are only two ways to make money: loans and fees.
God-fearing and government- and debt-hating host Dave Ramsey actually has a plan that makes some sense:
QuoteCommon Sense Plan.
I. INSURANCE
A. Insure the subprime bonds/mortgages with an underlying FHA-type insurance. Government-insured and backed loans would have an instant market all over the world, creating immediate and needed liquidity.
B. In order for a company to accept the government-backed insurance, they must do two things:
1. Rewrite any mortgage that is more than three months delinquent to a 6% fixed-rate mortgage.
a. Roll all back payments with no late fees or legal costs into the balance. This brings homeowners current and allows them a chance to keep their homes.
b. Cancel all prepayment penalties to encourage refinancing or the sale of the property to pay off the bad loan. In the event of foreclosure or short sale, the borrower will not be held liable for any deficit balance. FHA does this now, and that encourages mortgage companies to go the extra mile while working with the borrower—again limiting foreclosures and ruined lives.
2. Cancel ALL golden parachutes of EXISTING and FUTURE CEOs and executive team members as long as the company holds these government-insured bonds/mortgages. This keeps underperforming executives from being paid when they don't do their jobs.
C. This backstop will cost less than $50 billion—a small fraction of the current proposal.
II. MARK TO MARKET
A. Remove mark to market accounting rules for two years on only subprime Tier III bonds/mortgages. This keeps companies from being forced to artificially mark down bonds/mortgages below the value of the underlying mortgages and real estate.
B. This move creates patience in the market and has an immediate stabilizing effect on failing and ailing banks—and it costs the taxpayer nothing.
III. CAPITAL GAINS TAX
A. Remove the capital gains tax completely. Investors will flood the real estate and stock market in search of tax-free profits, creating tremendous—and immediate—liquidity in the markets. Again, this costs the taxpayer nothing.
B. This move will be seen as a lightning rod politically because many will say it is helping the rich. The truth is the rich will benefit, but it will be their money that stimulates the economy. This will enable all Americans to have more stable jobs and retirement investments that go up instead of down. This is not a time for envy, and it's not a time for politics. It's time for all of us, as Americans, to stand up, speak out, and fix this mess.
True fiscal conservatives are the only ones with any hope of coming up with a reasonable solution to this mess that free-market, deregulation fiscal conservatives got us into.
I like #1 and #2, but #3 is bullshtein. Eliminating capital gains does nothing but encourage the rich to pull their money out until things start to turn around. His theory is pure trickle-down economics, which is a proven failure.
Further, the capital gains tax is still in place, but that didn't stop the bargain hunters from pulling the Dow half way back to pre-crash levels.
#3 is not bullshtein if there is use with specific stipulations to control the fluctuation
get rid of it entirely..yes I agree with you...not the answer
Quote from: MadMarchHare on October 01, 2008, 07:19:36 AM
Capitalism, like evolution, only works when the weak die and the strong survive.
Banks that over-exposed themselves to mortgages securities based on selling morons loans they could never repay need to become extinct.
pretty sure that banks had to make a certain % of "sub-prime' loans to meet the Fed's (congress's) requirements. It was transfering the paper latter that brought most of the greedy down :P
I just emailed my congressman.
Christ I'm a nerd.
I earn almost twice the British national average wage and can't get a mortgage in London. Would be interested to hear an American's view on that
nm
Senate passes bailout bill, house coming around (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/financial_meltdown)
Aw shtein. Well someone remember to lock up when it's over... :boom
Quote from: rjs246 on October 01, 2008, 11:02:19 PM
I just emailed my congressman.
Christ I'm a nerd.
I hit up both Senators and my Congressman. I am teh biggest of all nerds!
BTW, here are all the Senators that voted against it. Apparently, Libby Dole got my note, but Richard Burr is a douche.
Quote
Allard (R)
Barasso (R)
Brownback (R)
Bunning (R)
Cantwell (D)
Cochran (R)
Crapo (R)
DeMint (R)
Dole (R)
Dorgan (D)
Enzi (R)
Feingold (D)
Inhofe (R)
Johnson (D)
Landrieu (D)
Nelson (FL) (D)
Roberts (R)
Sanders (I)
Sessions (R)
Shelby (R)
Stabenow (D)
Tester (D)
Vitter (R)
Wicker (R)
Wyden (D)
I didn't bother with my Senators. Massachussets liberal douche Senators are so entrenched in their seats and so ready to spend spend spend that I don't see how an email from me will have had the slightest impact.
But my local schmuck congressman got a mini-novel from me. Sure to be read and carefully considered...
Quote from: rjs246 on October 02, 2008, 07:27:10 AM
I didn't bother with my Senators. Massachussets liberal douche Senators are so entrenched in their seats and so ready to spend spend spend that I don't see how an email from me will have had the slightest impact.
One of your Senators didn't even vote! What a slacker!
Since you guys mention it I wrote my senator as well. I feel unclean!
This video puts the blame squarly on democrats going back to Carter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4)
The blame is on all the people who thought one or more of the following three things:
1. Everyone deserves to own a home, no matter their income or ability to pay.
2. Home values are a slam dunk to always be increasing.
3. Debt-fueled spending is better than no spending.
The debt itself drove prices up, making #2 true for a very long time. #1 has been and will always be ridiculous. Home ownership is neither a birthright nor necessarily a financial milestone.
While I would love to blame Democrats, and Democrats would love to blame Bush, Bush, or Reagan... all of the above are guilty of borderline retardation.
Our Congress sucks a fat load of shtein. (http://www.nypost.com/seven/10022008/news/nationalnews/piggy_pols_in_hog_heaven_with_pork_packe_131770.htm)
Wool research?
Better than bomb research.
Explosive sheep!
I demand a "$4M credit to Phreak's bank account" entry.
I've changed my opinion, i dont want this thing to pass, F it. Let the world markets crumble, start over, i have my gun and enough saved up for a while
nevermind, CNBC sucks at explaining what the hell they are voting for
That got a solid chuckle from me.
House passed the bailout... :deion
farging wonderful. Utter bullshtein.
263-171
So 15-20 years from now we'll all be having the exact same conversation. Awesome.
yeah, but by then we'll be much closer to retirement, and thus it will be a lot more scary
This is why the elderly should be shot. They are the only ones who stand to gain from this horseshtein bill because they were the only ones who don't have enough time left to allow the markets to even themselves out. Fortunately, they're also the group that usually controls the vote because their old asses don't have shtein else better to do.
i do my part everyday..slowly and wonderfully
Quote from: rjs246 on October 03, 2008, 02:14:47 PM
So 15-20 years from now we'll all be having the exact same conversation. Awesome.
Thank Barney Fwank and Senator Dodd
Quote from: rjs246 on October 03, 2008, 02:26:22 PM
This is why the elderly should be shot. They are the only ones who stand to gain from this horseshtein bill because they were the only ones who don't have enough time left to allow the markets to even themselves out. Fortunately, they're also the group that usually controls the vote because their old asses don't have shtein else better to do.
If it makes you feel any better I am now going to do everything possible to have Soc. Sec. taxes raised and benifits doubled..it's the least you can do for all we scarificed for you 8). We are the true great generation..GET TO FARGIN WORK. I WANNA GO TO AC AND THE $100.00 TABLE :-D
I thought the greatest generation fought in WWII... pretty sure that ain't you.
i thought we're the greatest generation?
we can play video games online for christ's sake!
Quote from: rjs246 on October 03, 2008, 02:46:03 PM
I thought the greatest generation fought in WWII... pretty sure that ain't you.
No thats a common mistake. The WWII guys killed way to many collaterals in there bombing raids..US RVNers rule..check out the kill vs kill ratio..We rule
Quote from: SunMo on October 03, 2008, 02:46:53 PM
i thought we're the greatest generation?
we can play video games online for christ's sake!
and totally pwn noobs
Quote from: fansince61 on October 03, 2008, 02:51:09 PM
Quote from: rjs246 on October 03, 2008, 02:46:03 PM
I thought the greatest generation fought in WWII... pretty sure that ain't you.
No thats a common mistake. The WWII guys killed way to many collaterals in there bombing raids..US RVNers rule..check out the kill vs kill ratio..We rule
my grandfather could kick your ass
Either way. You crusty old fargs need to realize that your days are numbered and clear out of the way. Don't ruin the economy further just because you're old and bitter.
Hahaha - because you'll be different
At least I'll have the future generations in mind when I turn to a diet of speed balls and hookers when I turn 75 or whatever the average life expectancy is
I'd like to think that I'll be different, but more importantly I'd like to think that the decisions I make leading up to that point won't have me 100% dependent on money that is in the goddamned stock market. There's this idea that the stock market will always go up and when it doesn't people farging freak out. IT'S SUPPOSED TO GO DOWN SOMETIMES. And when it's artificially propped up because people can't handle the idea of fluctuation it can only lead to bad things down the road...
And yes. Coke and hookers in old age is definitely the way to go. farg shteinting in a bag and eating oatmeal.
So, whose fault is this mess? The Dems? The Repubs? Try a little bit of everyone... (http://www.newsweek.com/id/161936/output/print)
QuoteSo who is to blame? There's plenty of blame to go around, and it doesn't fasten only on one party or even mainly on what Washington did or didn't do. As The Economist magazine noted recently, the problem is one of "layered irresponsibility ... with hard-working homeowners and billionaire villains each playing a role." Here's a partial list of those alleged to be at fault:
* The Federal Reserve, which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.
* Home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.
* Congress, which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses.
* Real estate agents, most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes.
* The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families.
* Mortgage brokers, who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates.
* Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages.
* Wall Street firms, who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.
* The Bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market.
* An obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic.
* Collective delusion, or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up.
Well, the most recent blame falls on all the iceholes that voted for this wildly retarded bailout.
And if any of them represent you, be shore not to vote for them.
10-4
The problem I have with this list is:
* Home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.
You can not expect a generation of idiots, raised by the principals of "Do Better Than Thy Neighbors" to understand the ramifications of what could happen.
A) Lowest common denominator is stupidity
B) we should weed them out through selective population
C) Once we solve their problems, who's next??
Stupidity and irresponsibility gets rewarded in this country. I liken' the government bailout to a 6 year old who spent his lunch money on candy, calling his mommy from school to get more money for lunch.
When are the honest, hardworking Americans who pay their bills ever going to get rewarded for anything? I took advantage of low interest rates, low material prices, and built the nicest house I've ever owned. The big difference between me and the rest of the keep up with the Jones' Americans, is that I worked with a budget that I knew I could afford. What does this farging government do for me besides raise property taxes, raise state and federal taxes, spend billions of dollars of American's money in other countries, and then spend billions more of American's money bailing out scam artists who are already millionaires? And then you have Obama telling me to save money on gas by getting tune ups and checking tire pressure. Hey dumbass, I already do that.
So right now with the market going to crap because of all this other bullcrap, I'm forced to look for work elseware. I'll be my own boss no more. That sucks.
This country is so farged up right now, and so much of Congress is backing up with their handout, that it doesn't really matter who the president is. Not much will change in our lifetime.
I hate to say it, shore, but the gubment is always hiring.
:-D
:'( <----- Me.
After Monday, I could be right there with you.
I work now for a quasi gubament company.
So, now we're looking at the "Wells Fargo Center" hosting the Sixers and Flyers? (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a3kLqJLWovqw&refer=worldwide)
I would like a personal bailout.
I have a balance on one of my CC's.
Help me government!
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on October 04, 2008, 11:36:56 AM
I would like a personal bailout.
I have a balance on one of my CC's.
Help me government!
Damn right. If they can bail out people with 7 figure bank accounts, why not us?
Boom goes the Dynamite
I'm bullish long-term, but I almost agree with Jim Cramer that we still have some way to go before it hits bottom.
whats funny is everyone said Cramer was crazy last year for his "Armegeddon" rant...
With the Dow continuing to fall, can someone explain to me why that is? Wasn't this bailout supposed to be the end-all or at least the beginning to recovery?
Or is it basically like someone plugging a leak in a damn with bubblegum?
Did you hear (http://www.videosift.com/video/Family-Guy-Surfing-Bird-Bird-is-the-Word)
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on October 06, 2008, 10:24:55 PM
With the Dow continuing to fall, can someone explain to me why that is? Wasn't this bailout supposed to be the end-all or at least the beginning to recovery?
Or is it basically like someone plugging a leak in a damn with bubblegum?
No, more like plugging a leak in a dam by pissing on it.
7 billion is not enough...
Fed to buy massive amounts of short-term debts
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081007/ap_on_bi_ge/financial_meltdown_32 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081007/ap_on_bi_ge/financial_meltdown_32)
Bueller? Bueller? Ben Stein explains the best way to ruin an economy (http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/yourlife/112984).
Does it involve winning his money? If so, I'm for it.
i feel like this last sentence has to be a joke...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081009/ap_on_bi_ge/virginia_layoffs (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081009/ap_on_bi_ge/virginia_layoffs)
Obama camp's vetting skills > McCain camp's vetting skills
I had a long conversation with someone this week who understands the economy a lot better than I do and it was fairly eye-opening. I won't bore everyone with the details but he did a fairly good job of convincing me that throwing money at this problem ultimately was the only thing that could be done by the government, and that it was actually very necessary, despite the fact that there are MASSIVE problems with it (giving the Fed way too much power, socializing corporate losses while privatizing corporate gains, etc.).
His contention, essentially, was that the big players on Wall Street drove things to the point where credit really was frozen, and it would have taken months if not a year or more for them to unfreeze "naturally". The stock market has lost money in enormous chunks in just two weeks and allowing the markets to correct themselves wouldn't have resulted in a depression but in an absolute collapse of our economic system. All of this means that doing nothing wasn't an option. So despite the fact that the plan is awful and they rushed into it, probably making it less than ideal, failing to act would have been even more irresponsible.
The end result is that I am still rooting for all of the big investment houses to fail and die screaming, but I have backed off of my red-faced screaming about the government intervening. My red-faced screaming is now directed at the people that caused it rather than the people trying (no matter how half-assedly) to fix it.
Thanks for the update, but you're always a red-faced drunk, so a lot of that was redundant.
Fine I'll summarize:
Negatives associates with the bailout:
- It gives too much power to the Fed to shape the economy. One person or branch of government should not have that kind of power.
- It socializes corporate losses while keeping any gains privatized, costing all of us a whole lot of money in the mean time.
- It represents absolutely no punishment for the people responsible for this mess and thereby is likely to encourage similarly risky behavior in the future.
Positives associated with the bailout:
- It averts a total systemic collapse of our economy, keeping us from falling into third-world status.
As previously discussed, there is a big part of me that roots for chaos and the apocalypse, so in that sense I still wish the spineless fargs in congress had shot it down. But at least now I can see the argument for the bailout in much clearer terms.
this is beautiful...from Drew Magary
QuoteI'm not sure if you knew this, but it appears the national economy is in a bit of snit right now. I'm not totally clear on what the exact problem is, except that it would appear a generous portion of my life savings were wiped out, and that there's no clear solution to the problem, and that no one knows just how bad it will get, or how long a recovery will take, and that we may all soon need to eat raw sewage and form large huddles to keep warm.
In times such as these, it's important to keep a level head and remain focused on what is absolutely the most important thing to do in these circumstances: finding someone to get really farging pissed at. I lack the basic intelligence to come up with a constructive reaction and solution to these problems, so I think it's best for me to lash out at anyone and everyone in my path, regardless of culpability.
After all, I don't know much about economics, but I do know that none of this shtein is MY fargING FAULT. I was just going about my business, drinking lean like a good citizen. I never bought a place. I rented. So farg you, you house-buying fargfaces. "Oh, honey! Look at these granite countertops! I'm so glad we took out that 1,000-year mortgage!" Die. I also never worked at a Wall Street firm and sold consolidated debt packages. So again, farg those people in the ass with an over-sized hairbrush. And, as always, farg Congress. Hard. Right in the Barney Frankhole.
I'd also like to use this economic crisis to make convenient scapegoats out of large groups of people who clearly had nothing to do with perpetuating this crisis, but whom I've long despised anyway. Like French immigrants. God, I farging hate those people. At least Mexican immigrants are PRODUCTIVE. Ever see a French immigrant doing useful landscaping work? No. STOP SUCKING ON THE ENGORGED TEAT OF MY BELOVED COUNTRY, YOU BAGUETTE-EATING iceholeS. I'm going to meet up at the beer hall with my friends, form a new political party rooted in fear and intolerance, and discuss a "solution" for what to do about them. Rolf will be in charge of the train schedule.
I'd also like to blame the group Fall Out Boy. Because they suck and I hope they die in a tour bus accident. And I'd like to blame Sarah Palin. Because she's a farging moosetard and I hope she gets trapped under an ice floe.
In addition to blaming others for the downfall of the country, there's one other thing that can help us all feel better, and that is reveling in the financial misfortune of others. Sure, I'm going broke. But at least some cocky trader fargfaces are getting dumped by their shallow, horrible trophy fiancees. That makes me feel better. I'm also heartened to know that, now that the economy is the way it is, the party is farging over for publicly financed stadiums.
By my count, there are five NFL franchises currently trying to get new stadiums for themselves: the Saints, Bills, 49ers, Chargers, and Vikings. You could maybe add the Jags, taterskins, Rams, and Raiders to this list. But the first five teams are the ones really desperate for new, high-revenue digs.
And guess what, Mr. Spanos, and Mr. Wilf, and Ms. York, and Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Rosenbloom? YOU AREN'T GETTING shtein.
If you didn't get your new stadium in before this shteinstorm, like the Colts and New York teams did, guess what? YOU ARE fargED. No stadium for you, gentlemen. Enjoy the urinal cake-scented municipal shteinholes your teams currently reside in, because you are there FOREVER now. No one's gonna be dumb enough to plunk down public money for a $1.5 billion stadium/mall/amusement park/convention center/promenade/banquet hall/hurricane shelter anymore. Unless it's a town presided over by former DC mayor Anthony Williams.
People have long despised the idea of public financing for new stadiums. But, despite that general sentiment, pro sports owners have always managed to sucker some idiot mayor or county commissioner somewhere to either build them a new Ball Mahal, or to help them gain leverage against other local officials.
But those days were all but instantly ended by the events of the past few weeks. There will be no more sweetheart deals. There will be no more looming threats of moving a team as a way for owners to get what they want. What's that? You're gonna move the team to LA? Sure you are, icehole. I'm sure California officials, now in need of a $6 billion federal loan, will help you out. Good luck with that.
If there's any good to come out of this complete disaster of an economy, it's that the all the carping of supposedly needy pro sports owners will either go away, or be met with pure, brutal hostility. "We can't compete at this revenue level." "We reserve the right to explore our options." Yeah? WELL farg YOU, AL DAVIS. I can't afford to go to a movie, so farg your gay stadium. No more leverage for you. If you want a new stadium, you're gonna have to pony up for the whole farging thing yourself. Maybe you can take out a loan. I hear real estate loans are real easy to come by lately. Eat shtein and farging die.
So say goodbye the era of massive stadium boondoggles. Let's all celebrate with a tall glass of toilet wine. I only wish the market had crashed before Clay Bennett had acquired the Sonics.
Buttfarger.
DOW below 9000. My 401k is down over 40% for the year.
I do the cha-cha like a sissy girl. I like-a. do. the cha-cha.
i just bought in at the 4pm cutoff, Columbia Large Cap and some others. needed to do it at this low amount, considering my losses this year
Quote from: rjs246 on October 09, 2008, 01:47:15 PM
My red-faced screaming is now directed at the people that caused it rather than the people trying (no matter how half-assedly) to fix it.
Let me guess...Republicans did it while Dodd, Fwank and Maxine Waters were pwerless to stop them :paranoid
Just peaked at my 401k expecting to be driven to drink but it looks like it is holding it's own at the moment. Of course I transfered some into the company stock so as to take advantage of the cash buy out of the company I work for. Stock has been steady and I'll make some retirement $$$ when the deal goes through. I think...
Holy shtein.
If the bailout/rescue package actually buffered the drop, can you even imagine if it hadn't passed?
BOOM GOES THE DYNAMITE
oil is down to $77
Yet still $3.20 a gallon. Amazing.
Quote from: Father Demon on October 10, 2008, 02:42:29 PM
Yet still $3.20 a gallon. Amazing.
2.90 here and falling. it should be 2.40 in two weeks, and if it continues might be time to buy a hummer on the cheap :)
Quote from: Father Demon on October 10, 2008, 02:42:29 PM
Yet still $3.20 a gallon. Amazing.
I heard something about OPEC freezing prices so basically we will not see them drop at the pump.
I recently bought a home in Charles Village.
Now it's named one of the top ten U.S. neighborhoods by the American Planning Association
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/american-planners-recognize-30-countrys/story.aspx?guid={A0657FEC-EBEC-4329-9AF2-BAAD4C53A1CA}&dist=hppr
I guess they overlooked the rest of Baltimore part.
Congrats Dio :yay
So Paulson comes up with a terrible plan, but Congress agrees that something has to be done so they adopt it.
Several European Nations openly declare that the bailout details are terrible and *gasp* actually take their time with concocting their own plan. (http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/13/news/international/gumbel_eurobank.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008101313)
The Markets bottom out in response to Paulson's brainstorm. (http://www.zillowblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/panic-button.jpg)
The Europeans finally unveil their plan.
Paulson changes his plan to match what the Europeans are doing. (http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/14/news/economy/bank_bailout/index.htm?postversion=2008101408)
Markets surge.
Who put these iceholes in charge of my country?
Our rulers all love Jesus so we're good.
Quote from: Diomedes on October 10, 2008, 09:09:01 PM
I recently bought a home in Charles Village.
Now it's named one of the top ten U.S. neighborhoods by the American Planning Association
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/american-planners-recognize-30-countrys/story.aspx?guid={A0657FEC-EBEC-4329-9AF2-BAAD4C53A1CA}&dist=hppr
My neighborhood is on there too. word.
Good Q & A on how we got here, etc (http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/moneyhappy/115184)
Hahaha - I just checked back to see how this thread started. Butchers Bill essentially predicted the future perfectly in August 2007:
Quote from: Butchers Bill on August 09, 2007, 05:05:33 PM
This is not looking good folks. As a investor and analyst of some of this stuff, I think we are in for a world of hurt for the next 18-24 months.
Mortgages being foreclosed on at an unprecedented rate.
New mortgages becoming increasingly difficult to get funded.
Credit lines vanishing.
The dollar losing value daily.
China threatening to worsen the dollar collapse by sellings its reserves.
The US Fed asleep at the wheel.
MAJOR financial institutions (Goldman Sachs, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch) all in danger because of bad mortgages.
We could be seeing the start of the next great depression IMO. If the US economy goes in the tank, the rest of the world may not be far behind.
Quote from: Butchers Bill on August 09, 2007, 08:39:29 PM
Quote from: Eaglez on August 09, 2007, 08:17:37 PM
Quote from: Butchers Bill on August 09, 2007, 08:03:45 PM
Quote from: ice grillin you on August 09, 2007, 07:14:08 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eaMj1DPI6U&mode=related&search=
Sadly he's right. I work in the bond market and "Armageddon" is not an exaggeration.
So what's the inside scoop, Bill? What is everyone, in particular, truly worried about?
Some big players (I mentioned a few above) may actually become insolvent, some hedge funds who invest heavily in those companies will have nothing to back their derivative trades with, which would unravel billions possibly trillions of dollars in hedged trades.
In laymans terms, hundreds of billions of dollars (possibly trillions) would simply vanish from investors and these huge financials. If that happens, no one is safe...the stalwarts of the American economy would have proven vulnerable, and if they are, is the US gov't just as vulnerable? What if China stopped buying treasuries because of a perceived weakness in the Us's ability to pay its debt? I can tell you our government would have to shut down...80% of the bond trades I place are with the Chinese.
The scary part is the hedge fund industry in completely unregulated and there are trillions of "paper assets" that are at stake here. What happens if the US wakes up one morning to see trillions gone? I don't even want to think about it.
And here is the voice of "reason":
Quote from: ice grillin you on August 09, 2007, 08:42:47 PM
with all due respect this sounds like some y2k ish to me
Hey, IGY was wrong for a change!
Props to Butcher... although I wish to hell he was wrong.
wow, one person on here actually knows what they're talking about.
I think each of us on here knows what we're talking about to at least one particular item. The problem is, for most of us it's alcohol, bacon, and boobs and porn.
reese?
munson?
cole?
I have an ungodly wealth of knowledge about groundhogs, and nose hairs.
Quote from: SunMo on October 17, 2008, 01:49:10 PM
reese?
munson?
cole?
missed me huh Mo...thats cute.
shtein...I could only imagine if you escaped the hockey and video game thread what you could potentially contribute to the rest of us...probably nothing....so nevermind
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4531397n
Ken Lewis on 60 Minutes last night. Very good piece on BOA, and about the current Crisis. He was asked flat out if the 125billion the major banks just got makes America a socialistic state.
Quote from: Father Demon on October 17, 2008, 12:44:17 PM
Props to Butcher... although I wish to hell he was wrong.
Yeah, the one thing someone couldn't have been more right about...........
Butch could change the name of this thread by eliminating "upcoming".
this is "going out on top" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/oct/18/banking-useconomy)
that guy rules.
Seriously. Way to go, ass. We should all be so lucky.
i bet he took a dump on his desk before he left.
Quote from: FastFreddie on October 21, 2008, 01:07:29 PM
this is "going out on top" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/oct/18/banking-useconomy)
This guy was a genius. He knew that giving 125% subprime loans would fail :-D :-D
Quote from: fansince61 on October 21, 2008, 02:55:51 PM
Quote from: FastFreddie on October 21, 2008, 01:07:29 PM
this is "going out on top" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/oct/18/banking-useconomy)
This guy was a genius. He knew that giving 125% subprime loans would fail :-D :-D
How much money did you make on it?
Legalize IT
Oh, you knew too? So, I take it you completely avoided the market crash?
Shut it, dummy.
Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on October 21, 2008, 03:18:36 PM
Quote from: fansince61 on October 21, 2008, 02:55:51 PM
Quote from: FastFreddie on October 21, 2008, 01:07:29 PM
this is "going out on top" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/oct/18/banking-useconomy)
This guy was a genius. He knew that giving 125% subprime loans would fail :-D :-D
How much money did you make on it?
Legalize IT
I didn't even know to the extent it was going on or I would have been all in :yay
somewhat interesting piece on the U.S. car industry (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122463178413656455.html)
Quote from: FastFreddie on October 23, 2008, 11:23:49 AM
somewhat interesting piece on the U.S. car industry (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122463178413656455.html)
Ya gotta our government..It's consistant and teflon. And we want THIS for the rest of the world :-D
Have I mentioned lately how much I hate this administration? (http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081028/financial_meltdown.html)
Shocker Democrats, primarily, opposed further regulation that would have helped prevent this type of crisis (http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/mortgage/118012).
I heard an Obama commericial this morning again trying to link McCain and "deregulation" with the current economic issues. It's patently false, and considering he doesn't really NEED to lie to win, it's low also.
Let us know when you have something positive to say about McCain.
Why bother? No one here wants to hear that. The FACT is that Democrats had just as much, if not more, to do with creating the sub-prime market meltdown, and they are still able to use the current anti-Republican vibe in the country to blame Capitalism.
It's idiotic and is going on largely unchecked.
I think Cerevant is saying that instead of endorsing McCain, you are slamming Obama/Dems. Which is funny, because every article FF posts about the Dems in a negative light, it's countered with "Well, McCain did this or said that."
Frankly, I'm surprised FF keeps trying, because I've given up.
edit: Cervant, I wasn't singling you out at all. In fact, you probably give the best Democratic view in here, even though you do sometimes hit the rhetoric a little hard.
I would have given up by now if I were still playing Fatal Combat.
FC...good times
(http://i.cdn.turner.com/sivault/image/2006/04/23/015421082.jpg)
Quote from: Father Demon on October 29, 2008, 02:09:31 PM
I think Cerevant is saying that instead of endorsing McCain, you are slamming Obama/Dems. Which is funny, because every article FF posts about the Dems in a negative light, it's countered with "Well, McCain did this or said that."
That mentality comes from answering logically and objectively attack after attack for months...you can't help but get frustrated.
You know, I'm sure there are some strong, legitimate negatives about Obama. As I'm sure there are some strong, legitimate positives about McCain. The problem is that you can't find any of it in all the noise of "Muslim"-"Bush-lover"-"Terrorist"-"Out of touch"-"Socialist".
I know someone who lives in Pennsyltucky and is a fairly strong social conservative. I received the "Obama won't pledge the flag" e-mail from this person. At one point she said that she would like to sit down and take an objective look at where they stand on the issues - not just what they say, but their past records as well - so she could make up her mind. I couldn't think of a single place where she could get that information. Not a single place where you could say - yes, this is objective. Pathetic.
Strongest negative:
Supports over-interpretation of the Constitution (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122515067227674187.html)
Quote from: Cerevant on October 29, 2008, 02:27:27 PMNot a single place where you could say - yes, this is objective. Pathetic.
Oh, gimme a break. There is no such thing as objectivity.
It's called critical thinking. Learn it, use it in every real life application from cooking dinner to evaluating politicians. For farg sake, people need to think for themselves, not demand that shtein be handed to them on a silver platter.
No such thing as objective conclusions, but it would be nice to have the data all in one place so you could have something to base that critical thinking on...
Hasn't Obama actually proposed such a thing? A wiki for government votes, so you could get some easy-to-obtain information on who voted for what (why is another issue entirely).
But anyway, Bernanke is going to start paying people to borrow money soon. Should be fun for the value of the dollar.
I guess they'd rather use the bailout money to buy up other banks rather than start lending again?
It seems that way. But, hey, rushing one of the most expensive bills in the history of the country through in a matter of days was totally a great idea.
It worked so well for the Patriot Act though...what went wrong this time?
Maybe 3rd time is the charm for Bush. How awful has it been every time he and Congress have agreed on something? Christ.
So, I actually want to explore this one point a little more...
Democrats, and then later George W. Bush, came up with the Fair Housing Act which essentially forced banks to lower their credit criteria for lending so that poor people who couldn't afford houses could now 'buy' houses. Anyone being able to get a mortgage leads to inflated housing prices becuse anyone can now get loans that they can't really afford to pay so why not ask for more when you're selling your house? Right? Right.
So if everyone can agree that this has led (fairly directly) to the housing crisis, then why is everyone blaming Republicans for the financial problems? I have a couple of thoughts on that.
1. A lack of regulations actually made the Fair Housing Act's impact WAY worse. The subprime loan fiasco was something that regulations should have prevented from ever existing. When you combine Subprime loans with the Fair Housing Act you get people who can't afford to buy houses at normal prices in the first place, buying houses that are priced artifically high. Bubble.
2. Republicans should be angry at Republican leaders for allowing it to go this far. Rather than stepping in and saying 'The Fair Housing Act doesn't make sense and should be repealed.' Bush actually expanded it.
Democrats can be blamed for coming up with the idea, but Republicans in power are just as guilty for their lack of action to stem the problem, and are thought of as MORE guilty overall because the lack of economic oversight (a cornerstone of Republican politics) compounded the issue 10 fold.
There's blame to go around, for sure, but I can certainly understand hy the Republicans are taking the brunt of it.
You're right. Republicans should have worked harder to quash the Democrats.
Both sides should work harder to quash bad ideas. But the fact that the Republicans have done nothing about bad Democratic ideas, have proposed bad expensive ideas themselves and continued to shout about deregulation, only to back off and propose a massive government bailout once it was too late, means that the Republican party has absolutely no economic-platform to stand by and fiscal conservatives can no longer trust them to steer the ship. shtein, Democratic Presidents have been more fiscally responsible in recent history.
At this point the only reason to vote Republican is if you believe in their social platform or think that the Second Amendment is the only part of the Constitution that matters.
Quote from: rjs246 on October 31, 2008, 03:14:08 PMAt this point the only reason to vote Republican is if you believe in their social platform or think that the Second Amendment is the only part of the Constitution that matters.
The 2nd Amendment has little to fear from Obama. He's been at pains to say that he won't be trying to take anyone's guns away, and was quick to agree with the recent Supreme Court decision that D.C.'s gun ban was unconstitutional, that the 2nd Amendment meant the right of individuals to bear arms, not just militias.
Good read for anyone that wants to be smarter than they were a few minutes before. (http://welch.econ.brown.edu/oped/crisis2008.html)
Ugh. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/08/AR2008110802000_pf.html)
Just a couple months ago, it was all about driving less. Now, it's all about saving the American car industry with taxpayer money.
Maybe if the American automakers did business less like jackasses, they would actually sell. Maybe if every single new car wasn't an utter ripoff, losing 20%+ of its value off the lot, they would actually sell. Maybe if they actually made some innovations, instead of copying off the Japanese, they would actually sell.
I got news for all of you: the other shoe of this down economy hasn't dropped yet.
Quote from: FastFreddie on November 09, 2008, 07:24:59 AMI got news for all of you: the other shoe of this down economy hasn't dropped yet.
OMG, thanks sooo much! Without warnings like these, I'd have NO idea.
Ditch diggers need jobs too.
Looked up my fuel efficient car value today because I'd hit a deer and its being assesed by insurance pukes. Only lost $1000 in value since I bought it years ago. Fuel efficient being key me thinks.
Quote from: FastFreddie on November 09, 2008, 07:24:59 AM
I got news for all of you: the other shoe of this down economy hasn't dropped yet.
I read an article in Fortune today that says that less than 1/3rd of the hit has hit yet in consumer credit. The total bank write off in credit could top $2 trillion. Yes, that's a shtein load of money. Those of you that have jobs, do everything you can to hold on to them. Those of us that don't blow whoever necessary to get one.
Gotta job? I'll suck yo .....
Start looking at A.M. Best and S&P closely. A lot of insurers are in big trouble....
Circuit City files for bankruptcy.
DHL cuts 9500 jobs, and eliminates US-only air and land deliveries.
Quote from: Father Demon on November 10, 2008, 11:59:21 AM
Circuit City files for bankruptcy.
DHL cuts 9500 jobs, and eliminates US-only air and land deliveries.
I really really want to get out of Boston but the idea of leaving my job right now (and presumably looking for another one) is pretty goddamned daunting. Maybe I can learn to speak mexican talk and become an unlicensed migrant worker. I hear those guys are living the good life.
except for the fact they're mexican
Puerto Ricans think they know everything. If they knew shtein they wouldn't be Puerto Rican.
I'll hire you Rusty
Don't you work for Bank of America or some equally awful institution that is a client of mine? Sold.
Quote from: rjs246 on November 10, 2008, 12:18:29 PM
Don't you work for Bank of America or some equally awful institution that is a client of mine? Sold.
Come work for the darkside.
shtein, the main benefit i have right now is i'm going full time WFH. Probably starting next week.
I've worked from home full time before. It's not that much fun. In fact, you'll probably have bed sores from inactivity by week 3.
Quote from: rjs246 on November 10, 2008, 12:23:43 PM
I've worked from home full time before. It's not that much fun. In fact, you'll probably have bed sores from inactivity by week 3.
i already need a new chair, the pleather one i have gives me a level of swampass never seen before. When i get up it feels like i'm wearing a swimsuit
Start wearing Depends, oldtimer
If you love America, you throw money in its hole....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnX-D4kkPOQ
Awesome.
Ok, if you guys are going to bust my balls about living in Canada, here's some coming back at ya... (http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1855317,00.html)
QuoteIn the midst of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, Canada has joined the ranks of governments that in recent weeks stepped up to help banks cope with more fallout from bad U.S. subprime mortgages. In Canada's case, however, the reason for the assistance is a little different from some of its G-7 partners. Unlike banks in the U.S., Britain and Germany, which needed to be bailed out with hundreds of billions of dollars in new capital, Canada's major banks are solid and solvent. They don't need any help to work through their subprime exposure.
So why did Ottawa agree to insure the money they routinely borrow from other banks, a practice that keeps their credit operations liquid? Ironically, the troubled non-Canadian institutions that received capital injections and loan guarantees in other countries now carry a government seal of approval that tilts the playing field in their favor when it comes to borrowing. That leaves Canada's big banks, including Scotiabank, TD Bank Financial Group, RBC Royal Bank and CIBC, at a competitive disadvantage. So the government acted to level the field, not to aid troubled banks. (See pictures of the global financial crisis.)
Why has Canada withstood the subprime tornado better than other countries, and should the Canadian banking system be a model for G-7 and G-20 leaders when they gather in Washington on Nov. 15? Consider that the Geneva-based World Economic Forum, an influential think tank whose annual conference attracts the likes of Bill Gates and Tony Blair, earlier this month ranked Canada's banking system as the soundest in the world. The U.S. came in at No. 40, and Germany and Britain ranked 39 and 44, respectively. (Switzerland was No. 16, just ahead of Namibia.) "For Canadian banks, having higher capital ratios than anyone else in the world is a source of pride," says analyst Mario Mendonca with Toronto-based investment bank Genuity Capital Markets. (Read "Four Steps to Ending the Foreclosure Crisis.")
The average capital reserves for Canada's Big Six banks — defined as Tier 1 capital (common shares, retained earnings and non-cumulative preferred shares) to risk-adjusted assets — is 9.8%, several percentage points above the 7% required by Canada's federal bank regulator. That's a little better than major U.S. commercial banks like Bank of America, but significantly higher than an average capital ratio of about 4% for U.S. investment banks and 3.3% for European commercial banks.
Another factor that helped make Canada the new gold standard in banking was Ottawa's decision in the late 1980s to allow commercials banks to acquire investment dealers on Toronto's Bay Street, the country's financial hub. As a result, these institutions are subject to the same strict rules as commercial banks, while U.S. investment dealers are subject to only light supervision from the Securities and Exchange Commission. Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, of course, will now be under the U.S. Federal Reserve's supervision since they have been chartered as bank-holding companies.
Canada's banks make bad investments on occasion. When Toronto-based CIBC, Canada's most aggressive big bank, took $3.5 billion in charges against the U.S. subprime debacle, federal regulators quickly arrived on the scene. But here's the difference: CIBC ended up selling $2.94 billion worth of its own shares in the first quarter of this year to shore up capital reserves. "The relationship between government and banks is a positive one," says Minister of Finance Jim Flaherty. "We have a lot of discussions and regular meetings. The common goal is a sound financial system."
There is, of course, a flip side to Canada's regulatory system. When the global economy was flying high, Canadian banks complained about not being allowed to merge to become more significant international players. "In hindsight, that decision may have saved Canada from having a Royal Bank of Scotland on its hands," says Lawrence Booth, a finance specialist at the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management, referring to the overly ambitious bank's bailout earlier this month by the British government.
Says FFlaherty: "The credit crisis we're facing is the result of unbridled greed. We need to bridle greed." Perhaps when world leaders sit down in Washington to forge a 21st-century New Deal for the global financial system, it may have more than a smattering of Canadian banking know-how.
I just printed this out
thanks Cerevant
I think we were talking about the InBev purchase of Anheuser-Busch in this thread. Well, it became official today, and the new company is Anheuser-Busch InBev.
Old Logo:
(http://www.anheuser-busch.com/Press/PressImages/AEagle_logo_lrg.jpg)
New Logo:
(http://anheuser-busch.com/images/InBevEagleSM.jpg)
farging horrible looking.
No worries - it'll look better after a twelve pack
Rah Rah new logo...
As long as I have a job...
As technology increases the quality of design of everything has decreased. This is yet another example. It's in pretty much everything around us.
We once made buildings like this....
(http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/faculty/erics/web/wrigley.jpg)
Now we make buildings like this....
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Trump_tower.jpg)
We once had hand graved stamps like this....
(http://www.historybound.net/catalog/images/45236.jpg)
Now we have stamps like this....
(http://www.eandsstampsandcollectibles.com/image_manager/attributes/image/image_1/40122502_8636482.jpg)
Our money used to look like this....
(http://www.geocities.com/findinglincolnillinois/busindmanufimages/fivedollarbilllincolnnationalbankstampboxed.jpg)
Now our money looks like this....
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/New_five_dollar_bill.jpg)
We used to shop at places like this.....
(http://www.brynmawr.edu/iconog/wildchild/Awmarket.jpg)
Now we shop at places like this....
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Walmart_exterior.jpg)
We used to live in places like this....
(http://www.hdc.org/DIL/resized%20large/Row%20Houses%20on%20the%20South%20Side%20of%20West%2076th%20Street%207.JPG)
Now we live in shteinburg developments like this....
(http://www.hardwickhomes.com/hpgraph/suburban.jpg)
Sorry if I depress you, but we've clearly become the United States of clown farts.
please kill yourself
Advances in building technology allow the glass and steel skyscraper to be built whereas the first building in your post could never achieve such heights. Both are "neat"
I've never seen a stamp for either $5 or $9.95.
Why's the older fin so much cooler?
Not many people alive have ever shopped at a place like that first place and it's not like Wal Mart is the only place people shop. I haven't been there in years
People still live in both types of houses.
they used to make uniforms like this
(http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2006/1120/nfl_w_awaters_195.jpg)
now they make them like this
(http://images.sportsnetwork.com/football/nfl/allsport/eagles/trotter_jeremiah5.jpg)
QuoteAdvances in building technology allow the glass and steel skyscraper to be built whereas the first building in your post could never achieve such heights. Both are "neat"
Wrong. The Wrigley building was a steel skyscraper. It was clad with ceramics or terra cotta, which can still be sued to clad buildings of all types today. The reason it's not used is because it's not as cheap.
QuoteI've never seen a stamp for either $5 or $9.95.
My argument has nothing to do with the particular denomination of a stamp. Take this one, for example...
(http://bogieworks.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/01/06/bd_stamp.jpg)
QuoteWhy's the older fin so much cooler?
What?
QuoteNot many people alive have ever shopped at a place like that first place and it's not like Wal Mart is the only place people shop. I haven't been there in years.
Your argument is that the old place wasn't better because not many people alive shopped at such a place? Or that because you haven't been at Walmart in years that this form of sprawl hasn't become the overwhelming form of commerce in this country?
QuotePeople still live in both types of houses.
Some do still live in places like that, but the vast majority are outside of gentrified areas where "white flight" took hold. Most, but not all, of them are unkept leftovers for lower income minorities. Many are dangerous places. The point is, though, that these sorts of beautiful streetscapes are by and large not being built anymore. The vast majority of people view their dream house as instead being a McMansion.
Please go away.
2nd. All in favor?
...say the Repubelicans.
(http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/01Fu7w68Ua2dt/340x.jpg)
I've been called a lot of things on this board, but Republican is a new one.
Quote from: ATV on November 18, 2008, 04:49:30 PM
QuoteAdvances in building technology allow the glass and steel skyscraper to be built whereas the first building in your post could never achieve such heights. Both are "neat"
Wrong. The Wrigley building was a steel skyscraper. It was clad with ceramics or terra cotta, which can still be sued to clad buildings of all types today. The reason it's not used is because it's not as cheap.
What is your point?? A lot of older architecture is profound, elegant and magnificent because
it's old! The same can be said of a lot of newer architecture because it's of a
new design. Glass is used in some construciton because it's
lighterNow, man constructs building like this.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/Taipei101.portrait.altonthompson.jpg)
Taipei 101 in Taiwan has been the world's tallest building at 1,670.60 ft. since 2004. It's been featured on numerous tv shows, like Modern Marvels (History ch.). A marvel of construction designed to withstand the typhoon force winds and earthquakes that occur in the Asian Pacific area, supposedly the worst place on earth to construct a skyscraper. Located at the top in the building's core, between the 88th and 92nd floors, engineers have suspended a 730-ton steel sphere that essentially acts as a giant pendulum, swaying as much as 18 inches off its axis to absorb the force of storms and quakes. It's called a tuned mass damper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuned_mass_damper)
QuoteWhy's the older fin so much cooler?
What?
[/quote]
A
fin is a five dollar bill. ::)
Quote from: Cerevant on November 18, 2008, 08:45:14 PM
I've been called a lot of things on this board, but Republican is a new one.
No matter, at least you aren't still hung up on posting pics of McCain and Palin weeks after they lost the election.
4th
QuoteI've been called a lot of things on this board, but Republican is a new one.
Didn't mean to imply you, merely the previous two.
QuoteA lot of older architecture is profound, elegant and magnificent because it's old!
Just because something is old doesn't make it profound, elegant and magnificent. No, they're this way because we used to build mostly profound, elegant and magnificent buildings.
QuoteThe same can be said of a lot of newer architecture because it's of a new design.
"A lot"? Really. Excluding a few modern mega projects such as Taipei 101, the architecture of today is best represented by buildings such as....
(http://mrsadman.com/i/sadStripMall.jpg)
or
(http://www.sfgate.com/blogs/images/sfgate/techchron/2006/03/30/best%20buy.jpg)
or
(http://www.edgewaterco.com/Businesses/images/BurgerKing.jpg)
Because for every Taipei 101 (hell, that building isn't even in the U.S.) there are easily THOUSANDS of these shteinburg buildings
Also, for your argument you put forth one of the best examples of modern architecture. My argument isn't that all modern architecture is crap. Much of it is, though. Take this for example, a beautiful building that has literally been taken a dump on by a piece of modern shteinchitecture.....
(http://www.kunstler.com/Eyesore_200801B.jpg)
Many more example can be found by perusing here...
http://www.kunstler.com/eyesore_200805.html
QuoteGlass is used in some construciton because it's lighter
For skyscrapers, sure. It's also cheaper than hiring labor to, for example, lay bricks.
Romney is spot on in today's NYTimes op-ed regarding the auto industry
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=2&hp
I agree. Hell, I think Dennis Kucinich would agree too.
I haven't read him on this subject. Has he put anything out?
The problem is Chrevrolet is the #1 auto manufacturer in Russia, #2 in China, #2 in Europe, its a world wide issue, not just domestic.
Quote from: Diomedes on November 19, 2008, 10:42:19 AM
I haven't read him on this subject. Has he put anything out?
He was massively against the first bailout. I would like to see if he has anything on this one. You could always find his "email a Congressman" link and ask. Although, it would take months for you to get a form letter response.
Quote from: Diomedes on November 19, 2008, 10:38:05 AM
Romney is spot on in today's NYTimes op-ed regarding the auto industry
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=2&hp
QuoteFirst, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.
Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries — from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.
The new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end. This division is a holdover from the early years of the last century, when unions brought workers job security and better wages and benefits. But as Walter Reuther, the former head of the United Automobile Workers, said to my father, "Getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street."
This all sounds good and in a perfect world would happen, but with the way the UAW union operates, I just don't see it happening. If you start aligning pay and reducing retiree benefits, you'll be looking for Ron Gettelfinger with Jimmy Hoffa.
Quote from: ATV on November 19, 2008, 01:23:58 AM
"A lot"? Really. Excluding a few modern mega projects such as Taipei 101, the architecture of today is best represented by buildings such as....
A few?!? You really, really have no idea what your talking about and anyone who sees modern architecture through eyes that see only Best Buys and Burger Kings isn't even worth my time.
All you have to do is look at the Linc if you want an example of beautiful and profound modern architecture, and when your there, take a look over at the Philadelphia skyline. Just a few of many, many examples.
beautiful and profound? The Linc?
I think so. Like Camden Yards at Baltimore.
Stadium construction has come a very long way from the cookie cutter days of the Astordome and the like.
(http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_menu/past_future/pictures/past_stadiums/houston_astrodome1.jpg)
(http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2006/0908/travel_mnf_g_lff_740.jpg)
(http://mall.ballparks.com/images/349pz_fs.jpg)
Damn shame the team sucks. Thanks loads Peter Angelos.
sorry. 'beautiful' and 'profound' just don't come to mind
QuoteAll you have to do is look at the Linc if you want an example of beautiful and profound modern architecture
While I agree that the architecture of sports complexes has improved since the '60s I don't consider any of it profound or beautiful.
Quoteand when your there, take a look over at the Philadelphia skyline.
Really, this is too easy. I consider the Philadelphia skyline, like nearly all of this country's skylines, to be mostly a collection of mostly corporate junkitecture. Of course there are, and were, some truly "beautiful and profound" buildings that Philadelphians should be proud of, though. They all have one thing in common - They're old....
(http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/83/116683-004-0A94B0F1.jpg)
(http://www.brynmawr.edu/Acads/Cities/imgb/nextone/med/1031a.jpg)
(http://www.workshopoftheworld.com/center_city/reading_files/page133_2.jpg)
(http://www.amazeartgallery.com/catalog/images/Philadelphia%20City%20Hall.jpg)
(http://currierandives.net/images/IndependenceHallPhiladelphia1776.jpg)
As far as I'm concerned the only piece of modern architecture in Philadelphia that would come close to being "beautiful and profound" is the PFSF building, which was built back in the 1930's...
(http://xroads.virginia.edu/~1930s/display/chrysler/images/psfsbw.jpg)
I propose an architecture thread for this sermon, that way I can easily avoid it
Seriously, the Dow drops under 8000, and the "financial crisis" thread has been taken over by some douche whining about the direction of modern architecture.
That's what I love about :CF: with each consecutive post it sinks lower and lower, perpetually boggling the mind
Michael Moore also making sense on GM:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/20/lkl.michael.moore/index.html
When Michael Moore and Mitt Romney agree on your predicament and your fate, you probably should just self-immolate as quickly as possible.
QuoteSeriously, the Dow drops under 8000, and the "financial crisis" thread has been taken over by some douche
I was surprised to see it as well...
QuoteOld Logo:
New Logo:
farging horrible looking.
Ahh.. he is the master baiter, but I'm not biting.
7552. Lowest since 2002.
S&P - 775. Lowest since 1997. Blasting through the bear of 2002.
Oh happy days.
Quote from: Father Demon on November 20, 2008, 03:40:11 PM
Ahh.. he is the master baiter, but I'm not biting.
I think my lip was torn out. I'll stop.
LOL @ people who think the sitting President has anything to do with the stock market
Yeah, almost 8 years of running the country and he has nothing to do with it.
The instability of a President with no power, and an incoming newbie, its going to get ugly. I just hope he tags Warren Buffet to work on the problem. Buffet will make 100 billion, and still make the country rebound
Try Economics 101, kids.
Micro or Macro?
eggo
Quote from: FastFreddie on November 21, 2008, 10:54:56 AM
Try Economics 101, kids.
The first assumption of basic economic theory is that buyers and sellers always act rationally.
FAIL
Quote from: Cerevant on November 21, 2008, 11:58:42 AM
Quote from: FastFreddie on November 21, 2008, 10:54:56 AM
Try Economics 101, kids.
The first assumption of basic economic theory is that buyers and sellers always act rationally.
FAIL
Just watch THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVp8UGjECt4).
http://www.youtube.com/v/VVp8UGjECt4&hl=en&fs=1
QuoteTry Economics 101, kids.
Still a child.
You add absolutely no value to this world and should immediately off yourself.
I think it's safe to say the best part of him got wiped off onto the curtain.
Obama has more effect on markets today than he ever will again (http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=AjllUgsQ5QWu4Nz6fiEw6TO7YWsA/SIG=1233ohn5t/**http%3A//biz.yahoo.com/rb/081121/business_us_markets_stocks.html).
Yes, markets rise and markets fall, but If we've learned one thing from the past eight years it's that competent leadership in the white house DOES matter. Not just for the economy and our stock market but for much of the stability of the entire frkn world.
Only a Sean-Hannity-listening-Bob-Barr-lever-pulling ignorant and/or dellusional motherfarger would believe otherwise.
I guess that since I'm neither of those things, I rate.
Although, rating on your list is like getting a bronze in the Special Olympics.
Dude.
STOP fargING ENGAGING HIM.
Maybe he'll just get up and leave one day when no one talks to him.
Anyone else remember when he joined the board to tell us all how insensitive we were for mocking Sean Taylor? LOL @ not setting your alarm system 9 days after a burglary!
I'm just thankful the country is no longer taking it's ques from the likes of Tweetle Dumb and Tweetle Dumber.
Gibbs and Bugle?
...Because we've witnessed firsthand what happens when incompetents become "The Decider".
Today's bailout "revision" has slashed mortgage rates around the country. If you're not completely happy with your rate, you might want to call up your favorite broker and see what's up.
Quote from: ATV on November 23, 2008, 07:16:05 PM
...Because we've witnessed firsthand what happens when incompetents become "The Decider".
5-5-1?
Moore making sense on the proposed Auto bailout...
QuoteSo what to do? Members of Congress, here's what I propose:
1. Transporting Americans is and should be one of the most important functions our government must address. And because we are facing a massive economic, energy and environmental crisis, the new president and Congress must do what Franklin Roosevelt did when he was faced with a crisis (and ordered the auto industry to stop building cars and instead build tanks and planes): The Big 3 are, from this point forward, to build only cars that are not primarily dependent on oil and, more importantly to build trains, buses, subways and light rail (a corresponding public works project across the country will build the rail lines and tracks). This will not only save jobs, but create millions of new ones.
2. You could buy ALL the common shares of stock in General Motors for less than $3 billion. Why should we give GM $18 billion or $25 billion or anything? Take the money and buy the company! (You're going to demand collateral anyway if you give them the "loan," and because we know they will default on that loan, you're going to own the company in the end as it is. So why wait? Just buy them out now.)
3. None of us want government officials running a car company, but there are some very smart transportation geniuses who could be hired to do this. We need a Marshall Plan to switch us off oil-dependent vehicles and get us into the 21st century.
This proposal is not radical or rocket science. It just takes one of the smartest people ever to run for the presidency to pull it off. What I'm proposing has worked before. The national rail system was in shambles in the '70s. The government took it over. A decade later it was turning a profit, so the government returned it to private/public hands, and got a couple billion dollars put back in the treasury.
This proposal will save our industrial infrastructure -- and millions of jobs. More importantly, it will create millions more. It literally could pull us out of this recession.
Link?
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=242
Quote from: ATV on December 03, 2008, 01:19:00 PM
Moore making sense on the proposed Auto bailout...
QuoteSo what to do? Members of Congress, here's what I propose:
1. Transporting Americans is and should be one of the most important functions our government must address. And because we are facing a massive economic, energy and environmental crisis, the new president and Congress must do what Franklin Roosevelt did when he was faced with a crisis (and ordered the auto industry to stop building cars and instead build tanks and planes): The Big 3 are, from this point forward, to build only cars that are not primarily dependent on oil and, more importantly to build trains, buses, subways and light rail (a corresponding public works project across the country will build the rail lines and tracks). This will not only save jobs, but create millions of new ones.
2. You could buy ALL the common shares of stock in General Motors for less than $3 billion. Why should we give GM $18 billion or $25 billion or anything? Take the money and buy the company! (You're going to demand collateral anyway if you give them the "loan," and because we know they will default on that loan, you're going to own the company in the end as it is. So why wait? Just buy them out now.)
3. None of us want government officials running a car company, but there are some very smart transportation geniuses who could be hired to do this. We need a Marshall Plan to switch us off oil-dependent vehicles and get us into the 21st century.
This proposal is not radical or rocket science. It just takes one of the smartest people ever to run for the presidency to pull it off. What I'm proposing has worked before. The national rail system was in shambles in the '70s. The government took it over. A decade later it was turning a profit, so the government returned it to private/public hands, and got a couple billion dollars put back in the treasury.
This proposal will save our industrial infrastructure -- and millions of jobs. More importantly, it will create millions more. It literally could pull us out of this recession.
So basically you want the Government to go into full communism mode by buying out the auto dealers, congratulations on getting completely lost in your point
In this case, communism would appear to be the cheaper alternative. Awesome.
I like his first point a lot.
I heard that each of the big 3 travelled to DC by hybrid cars. I don't understand, why would they have no better way to travel 700+ miles from Detroit than in a car? Oh yea, because our rail system is a joke. Pathetic.
Right, but woe to the commie pinko fag who suggests spending tax dollars on railway infrastructure.
I never did get the pinko part of that bit of slander...
Maybe pink is almost like red?
QuoteI got some reds.
You don't mean communists, do you, Sam?
nm
Bueller? Bueller? WHERE THE farg IS THE AUTO BAILOUT?!? Bueller? (http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/yourlife/127875)
no, but just to be safe maybe i'll erase this.
Insider trading?
Quote from: phattymatty on December 09, 2008, 02:13:50 PM
no, but just to be safe maybe i'll erase this.
Now I'm curious. What did I miss?
Matty had sex with some stockbroker dude. Pretty hot.
MORE GAY JOKES!
I haven't ever bought stocks before, but I had to open an e-trade account. The way I see it is if Obama's infrastructure plans come to fruition, heavy machinery and other construction related companies will probably benefit
fact. infrastructure companies are already going way up in the last week or so.
My first purchase was a couple weeks ago was Terex for about $10 a share. It's already up to around $17. It's high, in the middle of '07, was over $90
Auto bailout dead (http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20081212_ap_bailoutdeadautomakersinsearchofalifeline.html)
That should be good for the stock market.
Can i get a job with you Rusty? BAC is cutting 35k jobs by the end of next year
You experience would actually probably be welcome at my company. Sadly, we're in a hiring freeze.
It's interesting that we'll bail out the banks but not real industry.
The Republicans can pat themselves on the back for taking a stand against unions on this one, I suppose they see this as a win.
It could not be more clear that Bush has no pull with them at all.
QuoteIt could not be more clear that Bush has no pull with them at all.
Thats a good thing.
QuoteIt's interesting that we'll bail out the banks but not real industry.
I have no problem bailing out industry especially the auto industry, but when the leadership and the employees refuse to make major changes to save themselves and the industry why bail them out until they are ready to do it. I was against the bail out of banks without major restrictions and a good way to watch what they are doing. That didn't happen and now the people who gave them the money and set this whole thing up are crying that they do not know what is going on, fargin idiots.
I really don't know enough to have a credible opinion on this bailout, so I don't know if what's happened is good or bad. I do think the Union should make concessions, but I also know they already have made some--agreeing last year to a drastic change in health care funding and dropping starting wages for new employees to non-unionized plant levels--and indicated they were willing to make changes to compensation as of the end of their contract in '11. Most recently, the union agreed to delay the timetable they had expected funding to begin for a health care fund, or something like this. Now they are being painted as the bad guys, and I don't buy it.
Quote from: Diomedes on December 12, 2008, 08:59:19 AM
I really don't know enough to have a credible opinion on this bailout, so I don't know if what's happened is good or bad. I do think the Union should make concessions, but I also know they already have made some--agreeing last year to a drastic change in health care funding and dropping starting wages for new employees to non-unionized plant levels--and indicated they were willing to make changes to compensation as of the end of their contract in '11. Most recently, the union agreed to delay the timetable they had expected funding to begin for a health care fund, or something like this. Now they are being painted as the bad guys, and I don't buy it.
The top "bad guys" in this picture is the leadership of the big three, how long have we heard about billion dollar losses every fargin quater. The unions have made some concessions no doubt, but they still pull some fault. Cutting starting wages? is the car industry in a big hiring blitz we have not heard about. Waiting until 2011 for the union to make changes or the leadership is a bad idea, it won't happen. If this thing is really as bad as they say it is, then a bankruptcy would void the union contract completely. the pres could always give them the money from half the 700bil left right?
Well, Bush is claiming principle as the reason not to give TARP money to the auto industry. Something like, it's intented to keep the credit market from dying, so it will not be used on other things. Nevermind that so far he's been unsuccessful in that effort.
What concessions did the auto makers agree to? Other than accepting a "car czar?"
What consessions did the republicans make?
One thing I read but don't know if it happened was that democrats were trying to require automakers to drop their lawsuits against being required to meet the new higher mpg standards. Automakers and republicans opposed this step, god only knows why.
the big 3 is going to get their money either way, but now instead of their own separate fund, the money is just gonna come out of the TARP.
Yeah, looks like Bush is going to bail them out now. He's not running for re-election, so what does he care?
i kind of don't have a problem with helping out the auto industry. i hate the fact that the bigwigs won't be punished for all of their mismanagement issues, but really this country can't afford to have all of these people lose jobs. the ripple effect, more than most other industries, would be disastrous.
That's the issue of course, but the lack of repercussions for the decision makers in these industries is appalling. Money coming out of TARP is better than a new batch of bailout money as far as I'm concerned, but continuing to socialize loss while privatizing profit is the worst of all possible scenarios. If the government is going to pay this much money they should have a stake in these companies and the money should be paid back in kind.
Quote from: rjs246 on December 12, 2008, 10:41:16 AM
That's the issue of course, but the lack of repercussions for the decision makers in these industries is appalling. Money coming out of TARP is better than a new batch of money as far as I'm concerned, but continuing to socialize loss while provatizing profit is the worst of all possible scenarios. If the government is going to pay this much money they should have a stake in these companies and the money should be paid back in kind.
we definitely can't have our profits provatized, i'm with you on that.
too fast, this guy.
Cock.
man this bernie madoff guy is awesome. ripping off rich dudes for 50 billion? well done sir.
Quote from: phattymatty on December 12, 2008, 03:15:42 PM
man this bernie madoff guy is awesome. ripping off rich dudes for 50 billion? well done sir.
Norman Braman was in deep (http://www.thestreet.com/story/10453101/1/report-madoff-fooled-big-names.html?cm_ven=GOOGLEFI) on that Ponzi scheme. Maybe he can move into Leonard Tose's old hotel room.
$13.4 billion going to GM and Chrysler
http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/19/news/companies/auto_crisis/index.htm?postversion=2008121912 (http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/19/news/companies/auto_crisis/index.htm?postversion=2008121912)
(http://buffalobeast.com/133/bigthree.jpg)
(http://bitsandpieces.us/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/imagescalvin-20and-20hobbs.jpg)
good find
yep, i've still never laughed at a comic.
ha...right? you'll give it the slight grin, but a laugh-out-loud is near impossible
Cry Me a River (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/01/06/germany.billionaire/index.html)
Quote(CNN) -- German billionaire Adolf Merckle, one of the richest men in the world, committed suicide Monday after his business empire got into trouble in the wake of the international financial crisis, Merckle's family said Tuesday in a statement.
Merckle, 74, was hit by a train in the southwestern town of Ulm, police said.
His family said the economic crisis had "broken" Merckle.
He was number 94 on the Forbes list of the world's richest people. He had fallen from number 44 on the Forbes 2007 rich list as his fortune declined from $12.8 billion to $9.2 billion in 2008.
Merckle's business empire included interests as diverse as cement-maker HeidelbergCement and generic drug-maker Ratiopharm. But he lost hundreds of millions of dollars, including company capital, betting against Volkswagen stock last year.
The state government of Baden-Wuerttemberg rejected his petition for financial assistance, and he entered bailout talks with several German banks.
"The financial troubles of his companies, induced by the international financial crisis and the uncertainty and powerlessness to act independently which the financial problems brought about, broke the passionate family business man, and he took his own life," his family wrote in the news release.
An employee of Germany's railroad company found the body on the tracks at about 7 p.m. Monday and notified authorities. Merckle's family had already reported him missing earlier in the day after he walked out of the house and did not return. Authorities are currently conducting DNA tests to confirm his identity.
I hope that the moment he died, he was hit by the soul train as well.
BOOOOOOOO!!!
Quote from: reese125 on January 06, 2009, 10:51:54 AM
ha...right? you'll give it the slight grin, but a laugh-out-loud is near impossible
My wife did that twice on Sunday. I was confused.
Quote from: FastFreddie on January 06, 2009, 02:06:47 PM
Quote from: reese125 on January 06, 2009, 10:51:54 AM
ha...right? you'll give it the slight grin, but a laugh-out-loud is near impossible
My wife did that twice on Sunday. I was confused.
i think that was the angry dolphin
Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on January 06, 2009, 02:15:51 PM
Quote from: FastFreddie on January 06, 2009, 02:06:47 PM
Quote from: reese125 on January 06, 2009, 10:51:54 AM
ha...right? you'll give it the slight grin, but a laugh-out-loud is near impossible
My wife did that twice on Sunday. I was confused.
i think that was the angry dolphin
dragon, dude - not dolphin
(http://theozzone.com/images/Records/2004_awards/cameo_will.gif)
somewhere between 25 and 30 layoffs in our corporate headquarters the last two days and a few more are coming tomorrow. happy new year!
Hopefully, for your sake, that they don't base their decisions on internet usage.
ha
The VP of our group said each of us was safe and as far as I know we still are. My review was approved and I haven't gotten the cold shoulder or the "give us a list of everything you do and how you do it" deal, so I think I'm OK. The remaining hits are expected to be sales, client services and people in other states. It's been a brutal two days though...
In better news, did you guys see the Hyundai deal? Buy a vehicle and you can give it back if you lose your job in the next 12 months. Not that I want a Hyundai or anything, but still a good deal I guess...
We had something like 1400 people get laid off where I work. I made the cut but the mood is absolutly black. Lots of us and them talk too.
the Hundyai Genesis just won top upscale sedan by Consumer Reports, beating Saab, Toyota, Lexus, Lincoln, et. al.
I'd drive one of those with a shtein eating grin on my face and Slayer blasting out the windows
a $5M bailout for porn huh. Now we're in trouble...
I hear they're going to drive down to DC on the bang bus.
Of course they wouldn't consider running a train....
30yr fixed mortgages down to 4.875 last I looked if anybody needs to re-fi
New company just introduced a handling fee that comes out of our 401k. Will be about $450 a year. They can't touch our benefits for a year but they're finding ways to get their money anyway. If that were in place this year the 450 would have been just part of a loss.
Former Merrill Lynch CEO John Thain has agreed to resign from Bank of America.
In more interesting news, here's an article about what he spent on redesigning his office. (http://www.cnbc.com/id/28793892)
i just ordered a desk calendar. and a wall calendar!
The next step is 90 grand for a pair of guest chairs.
and a 35k toilet
It's called a commode when you pay 5 figures for it.
Does it wipe your ass for you?
That's what the bidet is for.
It better give you some sucky sucky for 30 g's.
Very detailed opinion piece on how to handle the banking clusterfarg. (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/26/stiglitz.finance.crisis/index.html)
Quote from: reese125 on January 08, 2009, 01:19:28 PM
30yr fixed mortgages down to 4.875 last I looked if anybody needs to re-fi
Thats just about a full percentage pt. down from what I refi'd for less than a year ago.
I think they could go lower.
Quote from: FastFreddie on January 22, 2009, 12:23:05 PM
Former Merrill Lynch CEO John Thain has agreed to resign from Bank of America.
In more interesting news, here's an article about what he spent on redesigning his office. (http://www.cnbc.com/id/28793892)
And we are going to bail out the rest of these motherfargers. What about the people who didn't make bad decisions and could actually pay their mortgage, but are now having trouble because of the housing market and the general economy going in the toilet? Take those billions and help those people by paying off their mortgage. Anyone with 20 or more years to pay on. That would help both the home owners and the mortgage companies.
But noooooooooo. We are going to give billions to crooks who are the reason that the situation is what it is.
ammo is a sound investment
Quote from: FastFreddie on January 22, 2009, 12:23:05 PM
Former Merrill Lynch CEO John Thain has agreed to resign from Bank of America.
In more interesting news, here's an article about what he spent on redesigning his office. (http://www.cnbc.com/id/28793892)
Thain came out today and said he would pay back BoA for all the renovations. He's still a douche.
Quote from: Butchers Bill on January 26, 2009, 11:36:23 PM
Quote from: FastFreddie on January 22, 2009, 12:23:05 PM
Former Merrill Lynch CEO John Thain has agreed to resign from Bank of America.
In more interesting news, here's an article about what he spent on redesigning his office. (http://www.cnbc.com/id/28793892)
Thain came out today and said he would pay back BoA for all the renovations. He's still a douche.
- Commode on Legs $35,115
cla$$y
Bloody Monday: Over 71,400 jobs lost
http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/26/news/economy/job_cuts/index.htm (http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/26/news/economy/job_cuts/index.htm)
U.S. Companies Cut 519,895 Jobs Since Election
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aQCby1Ui5cSk&refer=home (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aQCby1Ui5cSk&refer=home)
Gives a list of all the companies and how many jobs they've cut. The company I work for is on there. The company I'm going to is not.
I love how 335 million is embedded in the stimulus package to fight STD's. Out of the 900 billion proposed I am willing to wager that 75% of it is pork. The only way out of this is to slash the size of the government and lower taxes. Obama is repeating the mistakes of FDR, and these mistakes will have a similar (i.e. no) effect on helping the economy.
Quote from: Butchers Bill on January 28, 2009, 11:37:13 AM
Obama is repeating the mistakes of FDR, and will these mistakes have a similar (i.e. no) effect on helping the economy.
And like FDR, he will likely be remembered fondly despite it all.
Quote from: FastFreddie on January 28, 2009, 11:54:10 AM
Quote from: Butchers Bill on January 28, 2009, 11:37:13 AM
Obama is repeating the mistakes of FDR, and will these mistakes have a similar (i.e. no) effect on helping the economy.
And like FDR, he will likely be remembered fondly despite it all.
The similarities are striking. Two Democratic Presidents following two poor, unpopular Republican Presidents. Economic turmoil following a time of relative prosperity.
Unless Obama turns out to be the anti-Christ, there is very little he can do to harm his re-election and legacy. Yes, I am saying this a week or so into his first term. There is such a mania surrounding this man, who has done nothing, that he can do almost anything he wants...which is frightening.
The whole situation is extremely scary. The "other shoe can drop" for anyone at any time.
Quote from: Butchers Bill on January 28, 2009, 12:06:27 PM
Quote from: FastFreddie on January 28, 2009, 11:54:10 AM
Quote from: Butchers Bill on January 28, 2009, 11:37:13 AM
Obama is repeating the mistakes of FDR, and will these mistakes have a similar (i.e. no) effect on helping the economy.
And like FDR, he will likely be remembered fondly despite it all.
The similarities are striking. Two Democratic Presidents following two poor, unpopular Republican Presidents. Economic turmoil following a time of relative prosperity.
Unless Obama turns out to be the anti-Christ, there is very little he can do to harm his re-election and legacy. Yes, I am saying this a week or so into his first term. There is such a mania surrounding this man, who has done nothing, that he can do almost anything he wants...which is frightening.
being the first magic negro president gains you celebrity status first and foremost -- and as we all know celebrities can do no wrong in the publics eyes and are always slobbered over---unless youre a alcohol/drug addict or a horrendous parent
the only way things could wrong for him is if we go to another war...... or he is shot and killed
Quote from: Butchers Bill on January 28, 2009, 11:37:13 AM
I love how 335 million is embedded in the stimulus package to fight STD's.
In.
We can keep the Obama lovefest/hatefest to the politics thread. It would actually be refreshing in comparison to the Israel/Palestine garbage.
Let's talk about how phatty will help fight STD's by becoming whipped and no longer having ridiculous amounts of casual, unprotected sex with strangers.
Quote from: FastFreddie on January 28, 2009, 01:28:51 PM
We can keep the Obama lovefest/hatefest to the politics thread.
Tough call. Where would you post info on the stimulus? The financial thread or the politics thread?
Oh the decisions!
If Obama can't do something soon about this economy, then by this time next year I'll be putting my cave up for sale. For the last three months I've been steadily going in the hole. A few more months like this and I'll be paying penalties for early withdraw on CD's. I know it gets slow this time of year, but man, there is absolutly nothing out there. In the last three weeks I've had one re-roofing job that was a humoungus total of nine squares. Thats 90 square ft., 27 bundles of shingles. It took two days, mainly because there was no sense in busting ass to use up all that work in just one day. I've been applying for hourly job positions everywere possible. There is a slim chance that I am lucky enough to be aquainted with someone in the know, and could aquire a union job working nights on chain grocery stores like Giant. I would ask all of you to pray to God I get this job, buuut...........I don't think so.
You season ticket holders; what would you give up in your personal life to hang on to your tickets?
Quote from: stalker on January 28, 2009, 03:59:29 PM
You season ticket holders; what would you give up in your personal life to hang on to your tickets?
I'd kill you to keep my tickets. Does that count?
Quote from: Butchers Bill on January 28, 2009, 04:21:55 PM
Quote from: stalker on January 28, 2009, 03:59:29 PM
You season ticket holders; what would you give up in your personal life to hang on to your tickets?
I'd kill you to keep my tickets. Does that count?
Quote from: Butchers Bill on January 28, 2009, 04:21:55 PM
Quote from: stalker on January 28, 2009, 03:59:29 PM
You season ticket holders; what would you give up in your personal life to hang on to your tickets?
I'd kill you to keep my tickets. Does that count?
I'd Pay Joel to kill Stillupfront
I know folks like to say Obama's done nothing but he has managed a 2 year campaign to win his parties nomination and then the presidency. That's all you need to be president in this country. It's supposed to be a pretty grueling process but if it doesn't prepare someone for the job we might want to change the requirements.
nm
Motherfarger I'm tired of these bastiches stealing the wealth of our nation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/business/29bonus.html?hp
QuoteWhat Red Ink? Wall Street Paid Hefty Bonuses
By BEN WHITE
By almost any measure, 2008 was a complete disaster for Wall Street — except, that is, when the bonuses arrived.
Despite crippling losses, multibillion-dollar bailouts and the passing of some of the most prominent names in the business,employees at financial companies in New York, the now-diminished world capital of capital, collected an estimated $18.4 billion in bonuses for the year.
That was the sixth-largest haul on record, according to a report released Wednesday by the New York State comptroller.
While the payouts paled next to the riches of recent years, Wall Street workers still took home about as much as they did in 2004, when the Dow Jones industrial average was flying above 10,000, on its way to a record high.
Some bankers took home millions last year even as their employers lost billions.
The comptroller's estimate, a closely watched guidepost of the annual December-January bonus season, is based largely on personal income tax collections. It excludes stock option awards that could push the figures even higher.
The state comptroller, Thomas P. DiNapoli, said it was unclear if banks had used taxpayer money for the bonuses, a possibility that strikes corporate governance experts, and indeed many ordinary Americans, as outrageous. He urged the Obama administration to examine the issue closely.
"But we need to pay our best people or they won't work," this gang of thieves complains when reasonable people question the practice of paying mulit million dollar bonuses to the extremely well paid and already mega rich players.
Bullshtein.
First of all, your best people failed miserably. They should be getting nothing and be grateful they aren't in prison. Secondly, there is no dearth of extremely well qualified intelligent and talented people who are available and willing to fill jobs that pay dozens and hundreds more than the average American makes in a lifetime.
farg you all.
Im not getting a bonus Dio, i told em no thanks
Quote from: Diomedes on January 29, 2009, 07:34:37 AM
Motherfarger I'm tired of these bastiches stealing the wealth of our nation.
farg you all.
You got that right.
Quote from: Diomedes on January 29, 2009, 07:34:37 AM
"But we need to pay our best people or they won't work," this gang of thieves complains when reasonable people question the practice of paying mulit million dollar bonuses to the extremely well paid and already mega rich players.
Bullshtein.
First of all, your best people failed miserably. They should be getting nothing and be grateful they aren't in prison. Secondly, there is no dearth of extremely well qualified intelligent and talented people who are available and willing to fill jobs that pay dozens and hundreds more than the average American makes in a lifetime.
That's the kicker. I've met with some very senior people at a variety of firms, and while some are truly "brilliant" some are just there because they know someone, or their daddy knew someone. I have also met middle managers that know more about the business and have better ideas than the senior people, that will never break that glass ceiling because they didn't go to Harvard and aren't a member of "the club".
I say bring back the 95% top tax bracket. Anyone who makes more than 25 million a year in comp (not salary...total comp), gets to keep a nickel for every dollar earned over 25 million.
Hopefully the Senate will vote down the sham of a "stimulus package". The president can by executive order suspend capital gains and dividend taxes. That would stimulate reinvestment in the economy and get business rolling. Additionally, an across the board income tax rate decrease would put more money in the working man's pocket and increase spending of disposable income. FDR proved that public works projects and entitlements do NOTHING to get the economy moving. The present "stimulus package" is nothing more than the furtherance of the Nanny state mentality that says ordinary citizens have no idea how to handle their own money. Bush's asinine stimulus bill of last spring did nothing. The ill founded bank bailout of this past fall did nothing. Throwing money at a problem does not solve it.
Uh, Republicans in the Senate are actually planing on ADDING a price tag to the bill. The idea of a government spending less is not an option any more, suckers.
RJS, that is why I refuse to any longer consider myself a Republican. I am a conservative. A real conservative. Not one of those fundementalist idiot, censoring, self righteous conservatives but more along the lines of the Libertarians.
That's all well and good but when push comes to shove you still vote Republican, right?
Why?
If both sides are spending like there's no tomorrow, and one side is oppressing individual liberties, doesn't it make sense to vote for the party that isn't actively oppressing liberties?
This is what I don't get about voters right now. Are people so married to the Republican party that they'll vote for them in the face of all evidence? Clearly, the answer is yes.
More to the point... will someone please outline the Republican Party's platform right now? Any conservative belief that they haven't defiled? I understand what being 'conservative' means but I really don't understand how the current Republican party even begins to represent what conservatives stand for...
I think that swings both ways. Suppression of liberties also includes the redistribution of wealth and confiscatory tax rates. And quite frankly, these issues most directly affect me. And also, I feel there are still some good republicans. I like Huckabee even though he is a fundamentalist his good points out weigh the bad. Same with Ron Paul, on balance he is someone I can support against the shtein that is out there. As it turns out, I made a mistake in the primary and really should have looked more closely at Romney.
Quote from: rjs246 on January 30, 2009, 12:24:53 AM
More to the point... will someone please outline the Republican Party's platform right now? Any conservative belief that they haven't defiled? I understand what being 'conservative' means but I really don't understand how the current Republican party even begins to represent what conservatives stand for...
You know my platform. It has been published for over 200 years. It's called the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Then: That's the way it goes. Deal with it. Smirk. These things are going to happen. They're businessmen, so it's their business.
Now: An actual adult...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMI-pKpc8fU&eurl=http://www.michaelmoore.com/&feature=player_embedded
Obama Pissed (http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/29/news/economy/obama_wall_street_bonuses.reut/index.htm?postversion=2009012921)
QuoteObama, his vice president and chief spokesman all fired off statements voicing outrage after the New York comptroller reported $18.4 billion in 2008 bonus payouts at a time when taxpayers' money was shoring up a financial system in crisis.
"That is the height of irresponsibility. It is shameful," Obama told reporters while meeting new Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Vice President Joe Biden.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said: "We're not going to be able to do what is needed to be done to stabilize our financial situation if the American people read about this type of outrageous behavior."
In office nine days, Obama said he and Geithner would send a message to Wall Street that "there will be time for them to make profits and there will be time for them to get bonuses. Now is not that time."
Interviewed on CNBC, Biden said: "I mean, it just offends the sensibilities ... I do know what they're thinking. And they're thinking the same old thing that got us here -- greed."
Well, really, what the farg did they think was going to happen? Thats
OUR MONEY they are fattening their pockets with. OUR farging money. How can it not be our money if over 35 billion was lost, three times as much as last year??
I'm telling you, I can't really put to words how I feel about Wall Street Bankers right now.
18 motherfarging billion...
QuoteIn a meeting with congressional leaders last Friday, Obama criticized companies receiving bailout money who had been "renovating bathrooms or offices."
That was a reference to reports that former Merrill Lynch CEO John Thain had spent $1.2 million fixing up his office last year, including $35,115 on a commode and $1,405 for a trash bin.
Thain subsequently wrote to Merrill employees that he planned to reimburse Bank of America Corp, which acquired Merrill and then ousted Thain. He called the spending "a mistake in the light of the world we live in today."
In light of the world we live in
TODAY!! Somebody needs to tell this man that 35 grand for a farging toilet is a mistake in the world we live in today, yesterday, and tommorrow. Out of touch bastiches.
Quote from: stalker on January 30, 2009, 12:29:57 AM
Suppression of liberties also includes the redistribution of wealth and confiscatory tax rates.
Empty talking points. The tax code has 'redistributed' wealth for a very long time. People who make more money are asked to pay a higher tax rate. farging get over it.
Quote from: rjs246 on January 30, 2009, 12:24:53 AM
More to the point... will someone please outline the Republican Party's platform right now? Any conservative belief that they haven't defiled? I understand what being 'conservative' means but I really don't understand how the current Republican party even begins to represent what conservatives stand for...
For now, they are happy to set themselves up as the opposition party. However the democrats move will define the Republicans because they will stand opposed to it. In the meantime, they'll have to rediscover fiscal conservatives and find a way to gain some traction outside of Redneck America and Filthy-Rich America. The Southern Strategy is dead, and with it the Republican party as we have known it since Nixon. The country is less white, less rural, and less racist by the day; they need to find a new way of defining themselves if they want any chance of regaining power again. It should be interesting to see how that goes, because there are no moderate Republicans in the House and very few in the Senate. With a bunch of fundie, anti-immigrant, anti-city, race-baiting leaders in office, it's going to be real interesting to see how they adapt. Right now, it's a big gamble to place their hopes on Obama failing, but since they've got nothing else, they're sticking to it.
I know that doesn't really define their platform though. If they return to a platform that is fundamentally conservative, it would shock me. Despite campaign rhetoric to the contrary, they haven't shown any real fiscal conservatism in ages. To all of a sudden rediscover that in this bunch of kooks seems to me unlikely. It doesn't seem like a conservative view point for instance to support the federal prohibition on state's setting their own laws regarding emissions...isn't this the state's rights party? I suppose they see that an issue of business vs. regulation, and of course they always side on business. But when that stance brings them to the point of arguing against the freedom for the states to govern as they please, then you're not looking at a conservative, you're looking at a federal corporatist or something like that.
They have talked a lot of small government, but done nothing to reduce or reform government when they've had power. In fact, it's increased.
Yeah, I'm rambling. I'll stop.
Quote from: rjs246 on January 30, 2009, 06:51:05 AM
Quote from: stalker on January 30, 2009, 12:29:57 AM
Suppression of liberties also includes the redistribution of wealth and confiscatory tax rates.
Empty talking points. The tax code has 'redistributed' wealth for a very long time. People who make more money are asked to pay a higher tax rate. farging get over it.
Why does past precedent automatically make something not count? You're reaching.
By the way, I think pretty much everything Dio said in his rambling is true. I would have to read more closely to say that he's 100% spot on, but if not, he's close.
Quote from: FastFreddie on January 30, 2009, 07:49:33 AM
Quote from: rjs246 on January 30, 2009, 06:51:05 AM
Quote from: stalker on January 30, 2009, 12:29:57 AM
Suppression of liberties also includes the redistribution of wealth and confiscatory tax rates.
Empty talking points. The tax code has 'redistributed' wealth for a very long time. People who make more money are asked to pay a higher tax rate. farging get over it.
Why does past precedent automatically make something not count? You're reaching.
By the way, I think pretty much everything Dio said in his rambling is true. I would have to read more closely to say that he's 100% spot on, but if not, he's close.
I may be reaching, but a tiered tax system is fair and used throughout the world. I don't see why people have such a huge problem with it. The IRS is farged and the tax laws need to be massively overhauled, but a tiered tax system is not enough of a burden to make it the sole foundation for voting republican.
No, but it's a hugely valid concern, especially when the government is going to create a majority of people in the country that pay no income tax whatsoever. That's the gift that keeps on giving for all the rest of us.
I'm fine with the poorest Americans not paying an income tax. They are taxed plenty in myriad other ways.
The various methods we're all taxed only points to the inefficiency and redundancy of the system.
Yeah well until the whole thing is revamped, poor Americans pay enough taxes and rich Americans and corporations pay too little.
Keep on keeping on, Dio. The more you reduce the incentives to grow wealth, both corporate and individual, the less wealth is grown. It's a very basic concept, but it's hard for people to grasp. Who do you think drives our economy? Who do you think pays salaries and buys the most goods?
Anyway, we will soon find out the ramifications of the rah rah bashing of all things corporate and wealthy. Punishing irresponsible use of wealth or dispersion of money? Yes. Punishing wealth to punish wealth? Ha. Should be fun.
Quote from: FastFreddie on January 30, 2009, 09:21:02 AMKeep on keeping on, Dio. The more you reduce the incentives to grow wealth, both corporate and individual, the less wealth is grown. It's a very basic concept, but it's hard for people to grasp.
We could reduce what you call the incentive to wealth drastically and suffer no reduction at all in people who are eager to chase the almighty dollar. Plenty of people are still going to work hard, innovate, hire and exploit employees, etc because despite higher taxes the system in America will always allow people to accumulate more wealth than they could possibly spend in their lifetime.
You like to paint my position as fascho-socialist, that I'd take all rich people and reduce them to 50k per year employees, but that's not what I'm talking about and you know it.
Quote from: FastFreddie on January 30, 2009, 09:21:02 AMWho do you think drives our economy?
Workers. Hundreds of millions of normal working people.
The rich scum at the top are sucking off of workers as badly as the ne'er do wells who sit on their asses in trailer parks and ghettos everywhere.
Quote from: FastFreddie on January 30, 2009, 09:21:02 AMWho do you think pays salaries and buys the most goods
Again, workers. You can't make anything to sell, and you dont' have anyone to sell it to, without workers. Wealthy capitalists in their private jets aren't saving us all by providing jobs, they're stealing from us.
No one earns 10 million dollars a year. In our farged up markets people are "worth" it, but they don't earn it.
Workers pay workers salaries. Got it. Doesn't seem circular at all.
Yeah, pretend I don't have you bent over with my meatcicle in your ass, it helps to distract from the pleasure you're guilty for feeling.
Oh, this is another one of those internet arguments where one participant simply claims victory? Got it.
You lack basic understanding of the workings of the U.S. economy, so it's really not worth continuing, especially when it looks like the President and congress are going to go ahead and prove how wrong you are. It may take 10-15 years to fully realize it, but I can wait it out. We'll both be in the same bread lines together.
I understand how this thing works just fine. Labor creates all value in the system. No one gets anywhere, no goods are made, no salaries paid, no services rendered, and no profits realized, without labor. The principal capital and driving engine is labor.
Capitalism works well, I don't argue that. But when it rewards those who do and make the least value with the bulk of the wealth, it fails. Luckily, it will always have socialism to bail it out at that point, which is what we're seeing now.
Are you promoting a cyclical system of capitalism and socialism?
Capitalism as practiced in the United States periodically runs wildly out of control to the point of self destruction, at which point socialist tools are employed to check it.
Without public education, social security, medicare and medicaid, etc, American capitalism would have failed utterly. Without government bailouts and regulation, rabid moneylovers would have broken the system to the point where they have only each other to employ and sell things to, because the rest of the country would be effectively enslaved by ignorance poverty and sickness.
There are limits to how freely capitalism can be successfully practiced. Those of you who think the rich are the economic core of the economy, who think that massive individual wealth is earned and deserved, who believe that left unfettered to their own devices these men will lead us to ever greater heights of collective well being, would land the country in exactly the same place that Stalin put his country, only by a different route.
A mix is required and the current mix is off.
Quote from: FastFreddie on January 30, 2009, 09:21:02 AM
Punishing irresponsible use of wealth or dispersion of money? Yes.
Quote from: Diomedes on January 30, 2009, 10:28:48 AM
who believe that left unfettered to their own devices these men will lead us to ever greater heights of collective well being
Yep, that isn't in direct contradiction at all. Good point.
Is it just more comfortable for you to stereotype and lump me in with some preset group in your head? Otherwise, I'm confused at why you seem to be completely incapable of noticing where we might actually agree and incapable of critical thought in general.
to me you're Ayn Rand and to you I'm Marx
the circle of life is marvelous
Our country and economic system is much more efficient when the very few have all the money and everybody else is sitting on their asses at home. That's how we get things done in this country. This is because the very few work so much more harder (when they're not sitting on their $35,000 toilets) than everybody else. This is just the natural order of economics, so it must be good for the country.
Quote from: rjs246 on January 30, 2009, 06:51:05 AM
Quote from: stalker on January 30, 2009, 12:29:57 AM
Suppression of liberties also includes the redistribution of wealth and confiscatory tax rates.
Empty talking points. The tax code has 'redistributed' wealth for a very long time. People who make more money are asked to pay a higher tax rate. farging get over it.
Hahaha. Stalker is straight out of a Limbaugh lunchtime listening group.
Quote from: Diomedes on January 30, 2009, 10:59:59 AM
to me you're Ayn Rand and to you I'm Marx
the circle of life is marvelous
I heard that "Atlas Shrugged" has become a very relevant re-read, but I don't plan on wasting my time. Do you have a copy of the manifesto?
I farging hate Ayn Rand. Couldn't get more than a few dozen pages into her books because she write for shtein. Dumb bitch.
Would you rather read Todd's recap of the next Temple basketball game?
Quote from: Diomedes on January 30, 2009, 07:37:56 AM
Quote from: rjs246 on January 30, 2009, 12:24:53 AM
More to the point... will someone please outline the Republican Party's platform right now? Any conservative belief that they haven't defiled? I understand what being 'conservative' means but I really don't understand how the current Republican party even begins to represent what conservatives stand for...
For now, they are happy to set themselves up as the opposition party. However the democrats move will define the Republicans because they will stand opposed to it. In the meantime, they'll have to rediscover fiscal conservatives and find a way to gain some traction outside of Redneck America and Filthy-Rich America. The Southern Strategy is dead, and with it the Republican party as we have known it since Nixon. The country is less white, less rural, and less racist by the day; they need to find a new way of defining themselves if they want any chance of regaining power again. It should be interesting to see how that goes, because there are no moderate Republicans in the House and very few in the Senate. With a bunch of fundie, anti-immigrant, anti-city, race-baiting leaders in office, it's going to be real interesting to see how they adapt. Right now, it's a big gamble to place their hopes on Obama failing, but since they've got nothing else, they're sticking to it.
I know that doesn't really define their platform though. If they return to a platform that is fundamentally conservative, it would shock me. Despite campaign rhetoric to the contrary, they haven't shown any real fiscal conservatism in ages. To all of a sudden rediscover that in this bunch of kooks seems to me unlikely. It doesn't seem like a conservative view point for instance to support the federal prohibition on state's setting their own laws regarding emissions...isn't this the state's rights party? I suppose they see that an issue of business vs. regulation, and of course they always side on business. But when that stance brings them to the point of arguing against the freedom for the states to govern as they please, then you're not looking at a conservative, you're looking at a federal corporatist or something like that.
They have talked a lot of small government, but done nothing to reduce or reform government when they've had power. In fact, it's increased.
Yeah, I'm rambling. I'll stop.
Thanks for stating my thoughts.
Quote from: Rome on January 30, 2009, 12:00:45 PM
Quote from: rjs246 on January 30, 2009, 06:51:05 AM
Quote from: stalker on January 30, 2009, 12:29:57 AM
Suppression of liberties also includes the redistribution of wealth and confiscatory tax rates.
Empty talking points. The tax code has 'redistributed' wealth for a very long time. People who make more money are asked to pay a higher tax rate. farging get over it.
Hahaha. Stalker is straight out of a Limbaugh lunchtime listening group.
I listen to Howard Stern damn near exclusively. I haven't listened to Limbaugh in over 10 years. He is a blow hard. Hannity is a douche. I watch a little O'Reilly.
I like the term Federal Corpratist. It better defines many current 'republicans'.
I've read Rand and Marx, have copies of them still. I liked Atlas Shrugged a lot, excepting Galt's ludicrously long repetitive manifesto towards the end. It's pure fantasy, but I was entertained, and I'm glad I know what she's about.
Quote from: Diomedes on January 30, 2009, 10:28:48 AM
Capitalism as practiced in the United States periodically runs wildly out of control to the point of self destruction, at which point socialist tools are employed to check it.
Without public education, social security, medicare and medicaid, etc, American capitalism would have failed utterly. Without government bailouts and regulation, rabid moneylovers would have broken the system to the point where they have only each other to employ and sell things to, because the rest of the country would be effectively enslaved by ignorance poverty and sickness.
There are limits to how freely capitalism can be successfully practiced. Those of you who think the rich are the economic core of the economy, who think that massive individual wealth is earned and deserved, who believe that left unfettered to their own devices these men will lead us to ever greater heights of collective well being, would land the country in exactly the same place that Stalin put his country, only by a different route.
A mix is required and the current mix is off.
I agree that a mix is required. US capitalism is a mix now. It cracks me up when I hear a super rightie talking about how horrible socialism is when it is already a very large part of our government. If we eliminated all of the socialistic aspects of our government what would be left? I really think the current batch of "Federal Corpratists" want that. No social security, no public education, a flat tax system, and everything ruled by the free market while being controlled by corporations. Would some argue that this can work?
Quote from: Phanatic on January 30, 2009, 02:26:54 PM
Quote from: Diomedes on January 30, 2009, 10:28:48 AM
Capitalism as practiced in the United States periodically runs wildly out of control to the point of self destruction, at which point socialist tools are employed to check it.
Without public education, social security, medicare and medicaid, etc, American capitalism would have failed utterly. Without government bailouts and regulation, rabid moneylovers would have broken the system to the point where they have only each other to employ and sell things to, because the rest of the country would be effectively enslaved by ignorance poverty and sickness.
There are limits to how freely capitalism can be successfully practiced. Those of you who think the rich are the economic core of the economy, who think that massive individual wealth is earned and deserved, who believe that left unfettered to their own devices these men will lead us to ever greater heights of collective well being, would land the country in exactly the same place that Stalin put his country, only by a different route.
A mix is required and the current mix is off.
I agree that a mix is required. US capitalism is a mix now. It cracks me up when I hear a super rightie talking about how horrible socialism is when it is already a very large part of our government. If we eliminated all of the socialistic aspects of our government what would be left? I really think the current batch of "Federal Corpratists" want that. No social security, no public education, a flat tax system, and everything ruled by the free market while being controlled by corporations. Would some argue that this can work?
We can only dream of this utopia.
DO IT...
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/30/executive.pay/index.html
Don't gripe here, email your congressmen.
I'm not publishing 1200 page manifestos to make your eyes bleed out.
That's true. The 100 word diatribes you post here are more than sufficient for that.
Oh, zing.
It cuts like a knife!
AP investigation shows banks being bailed out sought foreign workers (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090201/ap_on_bi_ge/bailout_foreign_workers_2)
QuoteThe average annual salary for those jobs was $90,721, nearly twice the median income for all American households.
QuoteForeigners are attractive hires because companies have found ways to pay them less than American workers.
So........not only is our money going towards caking off executives that had bad job performances, and spent bank money frivolously, but also it's going towards hiring foreign workers.
Big banking sucks.
We live in a Global economy now whether we like it or not. We aren't adjusting to the idea of it very well as a population, but business operates and competes internationally. Hiring internationally is only going to increase as a result.
i can say seeking foreign workers backfired on my workplace, the amount of manager calls/letters to the CEO/and accounts lost didnt justify the cost of heavy outsourcing. You'll see over the next 10 years more of those jobs coming back mainly because of the language barrier costing the companies revenue.
There will definitely be some ebb and flow to it, but ultimately there's no way to fend off the ever-shrinking world and the global nature of the marketplace. That will inevitably include the workforce.
A good read on how Senate Republicans can (and should) positively impact the stimulus bill. (http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/078jbqjt.asp)
The loyal left won't like some of the stuff in there, but the economic side of it is very interesting and its assessment of the Democratic pet projects in the bill is spot on.
QuoteWe live in a Global economy now whether we like it or not.
True, however it would easier to swallow if their were some policing going on, e.x. if these banks and corporations weren't able to suck up tax payer money only to dole much of out to their executives, or by allowing them to move their "home" to the Cayman Islands to escape paying taxes...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/tax/schemes/cayman.html
These people work 1000-5000 times harder than you do...
http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/storysupplement/ceopay/index.html
Must be nice.
i hope you get raped by a tiger
(http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k170/twiggins22/psycho2.jpg)
Quote from: ATV on February 05, 2009, 12:53:48 AM
These people work 1000-5000 times harder than you do...
http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/storysupplement/ceopay/index.html
Must be nice.
Their base salaries don't seem ridiculous. Hell, I make more than two of the people on the list. My bonuses don't quite add up to theirs though
15 companies that may not survive 2009 (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/15-Companies-That-Might-Not-usnews-14279875.html)
Among them:
Rite Aid
Blockbuster
Chrysler
Dollar/Thrifty Car Rental
Six Flags
Sbarro
Krispy Kreme
The Sirius part of SiriusXM
no one should miss any of them.
Dan Snyder owns Six Flags...point and laugh.
Sbarro is expensive, no wonder why they won't survive. 5 bucks a slice? farg off.
Quote from: phattymatty on February 10, 2009, 11:08:09 AM
no one should miss any of them.
Sirius will be missed. Anyone who has it will tell you it's extremely difficult to listen to terrestrial radio.
Blockbuster has been busted by Netflix. I was kinda' sceptical about it at first, but now that I've subscribed I wish I had done it years ago.
Quote from: BigEd76 on February 10, 2009, 11:04:40 AM
15 companies that may not survive 2009 (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/15-Companies-That-Might-Not-usnews-14279875.html)
Among them:
Rite Aid
Blockbuster
Chrysler
Dollar/Thrifty Car Rental
Six Flags
Sbarro
Krispy Kreme
The Sirius part of SiriusXM
That would really suck if Six Flags Magic Mountain disappeared....that is a staple of the southland...wow....many childhood memories there...forcing dad to take us and then my dad calling my brother and I out for being too Hoyda to get on the roller coasters. My pussiness of rollercoasters ended that day coincidentally.
Chrysler surprises me considering how they were talking during the bailout proceedings
Received this via email today:
Quote
This year, taxpayers will receive an Economic Stimulus Payment. This is
a very exciting new program that I will explain using the Q and A
format:
Q. What is an Economic Stimulus Payment?
A. It is money that will be sent to taxpayers.
Q. Where this money come from?
A. From taxpayers.
Q. So I'm getting back my own money?
A. Only a smidgen.
Q. What is the purpose of this payment?
A. The plan is that you will use the money to purchase a high-definition
TV set, thus stimulating the economy.
Q. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China ?
A. Shut up.
Below is some helpful advice on how to best help the US economy by
spending your stimulus check wisely:
If you spend that money at Wal-Mart, all the money will go to China.
If you spend it on gasoline it will go to the Arabs.
If you purchase a computer it will go to India.
If you purchase fruit and vegetables it will go to Mexico, Honduras, and
Guatemala (unless you buy organic).
im gonna buy a gun
Porn from the San Fernando Valley for me.
Eagles tickets?
rite aid can go to hell in 3 months
Sirius is filing BKO..lol
so we go from Sirius to Sirius/XM to probably EchoStar radio now
Ha! (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Madoffs-wife-withdrew-15-mln-rb-14324140.html)
Quote from: stalker on February 11, 2009, 02:32:01 PM
Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on February 10, 2009, 09:36:58 PM
Sirius is filing BKO..lol
Link?
It's obscure and hard-to-find (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ned=us&q=sirius+bankruptcy&btnG=Search+News).
It still hasn't happened. Some guys think it will <these guys were probably enamored by Madoff>. We'll see.
LOL, you think they have other options?
Yeah, they actually have the line to pay the debt payment on Tuesday. However, they will come up 25 mil short on their payment to MLB in March. They have actually been positive cash flow since the merger, but are in debt. In a normal credit market they would be in great shape. But this is not a normal credit market.
keep on believing. You'll be loving Charlie Ergen soon enough. I think Ergen could get Satellite Radio righted and back to making money
They are making money right now (they never have before). Charlie's buying that debt for around .80/$. If it reaches equity in the next 60 days as some think it might, he stands to make a quick 20% profit. Nice. If it shteins the bed, he controls all the assets (and they are substantial. I don't believe he has any ambition to be in the satellite radio business. He really has zero experience in it. Satellite TV while satellite based produces no content. Both XM and Sirius produce most of their own content.
Time puts up 25 people to blame.
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350,00.html
John Devaney has a great quote when you get to him. Referring to adjustable rate mortgages in early 2007: "The consumer has to be an idiot to take on those loans, but it has been one of our best-performing investments.""
Biscuit; no news yet. I hope they don't go to bankruptcy. I have been buying that stock up for months. Right now, it looks like they might make it. My source inside tells me that they have an "angel" to bai them out. What sucks is that this situation at Sirius/XM was directly caused by the government dragging their feet on the merger.
I would think it would be because they both rely heavily on the automobile industry to carry their product.
No need to go into detail on that outcome
Nice piece by Kunstler today, to remind us where we are....
February 16, 2009
President's Day
A creepy feeling ushers in President's Day this year as the suspicion grows that nobody in charge of anything knows what what to do next. The usual yin-yang consensus has solidified in congress along party lines, both equally idiotic. In the White House, Mr. Obama is under excruciating pressure to "do something" as systems unravel and economies augur into darkness. Amid all the anxiety and raging cluelessness, one thing is clear: we're doing everything possible to evade reality.
The reality we can't face is that one way of life is over and a new one is waiting to be born. It's been waiting, really, since the early 1970s, when God whacked the USA upside its head to announce that we'd outgrown our once-stupendous domestic supply of oil. I remember those fervid months following the OPEC oil embargo of 1973 (I covered the story as a young newspaper reporter.) The basic message was this: from now on we'll be running this show on other people's oil so we better start doing things differently. Back then, the not-yet-lost-in-a-fog-of-greed Baby Boom generation rolled up its tie-dyed sleeves and got to work doing a lot of forward-looking things: micro hydro-electric, passive solar houses, rural homesteading, the next generation of public transit (BART, the D.C. Metro), the first wave of urban gentrification....
Then, in 1979, the Ayatollah tossed out the Shah of Iran, we got another dose of oil problems, and a year later, President Jimmy Carter's clear-eyed view of the oil situation as "the moral equivalent of war" got overturned in favor of Ronald Reagan's dreadful Hollywood nostalgia projector. As usual in times of severe social stress, the public got delusional. Mr. Reagan was very lucky. During his tenure, two of the last great non-OPEC oil discoveries came into full production -- Prudhoe Bay, Alaska and the North Sea -- and took the leverage away from the Islamic oil nations who had been making us miserable with their threats, embargos, price-jackings, and hostage-takings.
Americans drew the false conclusion that Ronald Reagan was an economic genius (a similar thing happened in Great Britain with Margaret Thatcherism). The price of oil went down steeply while they were in office. Britain could kick back and enjoy it's last remaining industry, banking, on a majestic cushion of energy resources. The USA resumed its major post-war industry: suburban sprawl building. Reaganism got elevated to the status of a religion, though it was little more than a twisted version of Eisenhower-on-steroids. Under Reagan, WalMart embarked on its campaign to destroy every main street economy in the nation. The Baby Boomers came back from the land, clipped their pony tails, discovered venture capital, real estate investment trusts, securitization of "consumer" debt, and the Hamptons. Greed was good. (No, really....)
The first President Bush's Gulf War jolted the oil markets briefly, but Saudi Arabia was demonstrably on our side in that conflict, while the non-OPEC oil supply was goosed up by production from Mexico's giant Cantarell field. The slight economic shudder caused by the Gulf War was enough, though, to unseat Bush Number One in favor of the Boomer Bill Clinton. A puzzling figure in many ways, articulate and magnetic, Bill Clinton was hardly a reformer, surely not in terms of the national lifestyle. He was in so many ways an exemplar of it. He'd been governor of WalMart's home state (and his wife sat on its board of directors). He was a pure product of the New South, the sunbelt, with its economy literally driven by everything connected to cars -- new suburbs, malls, fast food huts, Nascar. He wasn't about to pull a Jimmy Carter and try to prepare the people for some harsh realities.
Really nobody saw what was going on during the Clinton years. The public was sleepwalking in a Martha Stewart nesting fantasy. Clinton was as lucky as Reagan. The only geopolitical conflict he faced was the Balkan gang-war that attended the collapse of Yugoslavia. Baby Boomer greed went into overdrive during the Clinton years as the former hippies hit their mid-life career strides, epitomized in billionaire-worship and the eventual money-grubbing book deals both Clintons made on departure. Does anyone remember Mr. Clinton saying, even once, that an economy based on suburban sprawl building and car dependency might not be such a good thing? Of course not. Under Clinton, the SUV became our new national bird. The price of oil flat-out crashed while Clinton was in office, sinking to the $10-a-barrel range by the time he handed over the White House keys to Bush Number Two.
Poor dim "W" rode his generation's last wave of cultural inertia into two terms as little more than custodian of things set into motion by others years before. Reality was shifting starkly "out there" but "W," raised in the protective globe of great wealth, coddled in made-to-order business deals, surrounded by political triumphalists and Jesus Jokers, couldn't see through the brush-piles in his mind. (Maybe it was all that cocaine from the years before.) He paid lip service to a murky notion called "energy independence," but to him that just meant finding a home-grown way to maintain extreme car dependency and all its perilous usufructs. The 9/11 tragedy allowed him to pretend to be a man-of-action, but as the various wars and occupations ground on, "W" more or less disappeared into the deep groove of his own limited programming.
During those years, more than a few things happened to inform the American people -- not all of whom were dim, of course -- what was up. For one, a cohort of senior geologists retired out of service to the oil industry and started publishing their own dark thoughts about the world's energy future. The discussion of these matters spread to the internet, where it grew in clarity and insight. We began to understand, for instance, the connection between our energy predicament (peak oil, so-called), and the growing parallel fiasco in hypertrophic debt creation that was driving the banking system and threatening to wreck it.
Now we've arrived at the moment of wreckage. Meanwhile, Barack Obama sailed into the White House on a tide of "hope" for "change." The change was unspecified, by both Mr. Obama and the general public (and the news media that audits its thinking). What is dogging many of us who supported Mr. Obama is the delayed entrance of much-vaunted change. At this moment of "stimulus" and TARP-II, it seems to have been about a desperate attempt to preserve the hypertrophic debt economy of "miracle" mortgages, blue-light-special shopping on credit cards, and endless happy motoring at all costs. And by "all costs" I mean literally bankrupting our society at every level to keep on living as if it were still 1999. This naturally alarms those of us who perceive a need for more drastic reprogramming in American life.
Mr. Obama is not dim. The euphoria that attended his election was largely about acquiring a leader of first-rate intelligence and sensibility, compared to his lamentable predecessor. I like to think that Mr. Obama really does know what's up -- that "change" means we have to live a lot differently, not mount a campaign to sustain the unsustainable. I suspect that President Obama has learned over the last several weeks that the nation's banking system and economy -- indeed, the whole world's -- are in way worse shape than anyone imagined before January 20. He is faced with the immediate crushing problem of appearing to do something while a tsunami of catastrophic debt deleveraging sweeps away the first outlier nations and their economies and bears down on the G-7. I suspect that in a few weeks, or possibly even a few days, Mr. Obama will have to start announcing all kinds of new and more drastic measures that will shock the stunned American public -- things like bank holidays, nationalizations, possibly even dollar devaluation.
As I've said more than once, I believe this basically honest and intelligent president will have to take on the role of the nation's hand-holding camp counselor or school teacher. When the time comes that he assumes this role, I think he'll do it pretty well, even though great pain and misery will be abroad in this land.
From http://www.kunstler.com/index.html
Oregon wants to hike beer tax 1900% (http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_021309_news_oregon_beer_tax.126942e1.html)
An excellent cautionary article about the country's current financial situation (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123491373049303821.html)
It puts the current national deficit into perspective, illustrating that percentage wise our current situation should not be alarming but that as a trend it needs to be monitored and reversed once we're back on solid ground.
Any thoughts on the latest bailout? Home owners getting $75 billion.
I for one think people who are saying 'if the banks and auto-industries are getting help, where's my bailout?' are asking the wrong question, but I don't know enough about this type of direct assistance to regular people to intelligently comment on it.
its never stopped you before.
zing.
Truer words were never typed you big hairy jerk.
Quote from: rjs246 on February 18, 2009, 12:17:43 PM
Any thoughts on the latest bailout? Home owners getting $75 billion.
I for one think people who are saying 'if the banks and auto-industries are getting help, where's my bailout?' are asking the wrong question, but I don't know enough about this type of direct assistance to regular people to intelligently comment on it.
if the govt really cared about people they would use the trillions of dollars spent on these various bailouts and the stimulus package and just pay off every mortgage in he country...and while they are at it pay off peoples credit cards too
or i you really wanna do something tangible with the banks just take the 700 billion from the stimulus package and just start a new bank...let the old ones rot and you an begin lending again
I don't think current home owners that actually pay their bills are getting anything.
Quote from: rjs246 on February 18, 2009, 12:17:43 PM
Any thoughts on the latest bailout? Home owners getting $75 billion.
I for one think people who are saying 'if the banks and auto-industries are getting help, where's my bailout?' are asking the wrong question, but I don't know enough about this type of direct assistance to regular people to intelligently comment on it.
I'm not sure if it was instituded because of people wanting some of the pie too, but I do believe it will help keeping people from having to foreclose, and for people like me that can actually pay their mortgage it may go toward home improvement projects, or other goods and services as $7,500 or $8,000 on top of your normal return is a pretty good chunk o' change
Quote from: FastFreddie on February 18, 2009, 01:11:31 PM
I don't think current home owners that actually pay their bills are getting anything.
they are getting a tax cut
but theres enough money in the stumulus and all the bailout money thats been spent to pay off EVERY mortgage in the country and most car loans and CC bills...what would help the people of the country more than eliminating their debt
Quote from: ice grillin you on February 18, 2009, 01:16:20 PM
Quote from: FastFreddie on February 18, 2009, 01:11:31 PM
I don't think current home owners that actually pay their bills are getting anything.
they are getting a tax cut
but theres enough money in the stumulus and all the bailout money thats been spent to pay off EVERY mortgage in the country and most car loans and CC bills...what would help the people of the country more than eliminating their debt
Wait, are you saying that the stimulus money would have been put to better use by paying off people's mortgages? That is not very much like you.
Quote from: FastFreddie on February 18, 2009, 01:11:31 PM
I don't think current home owners that actually pay their bills are getting anything.
According to CNN they are getting something. They're getting a chance to refinance if they meet certain criteria I believe.
Quote from: ice grillin you on February 18, 2009, 01:11:08 PM
if the govt really cared about people they would use the trillions of dollars spent on these various bailouts and the stimulus package and just pay off every mortgage in he country...and while they are at it pay off peoples credit cards too
Uh, that might be the worst idea anyone has ever had. Removing all responsibility for people's bad decisions is not 'helping' them. It's treating them like children who can't and shouldn't make decisions on their own for risk of making bad ones occasionally. Bad bad precedent to set.
The problem isn't that everyone deserves a bailout but only certain people are getting one. The problem is that NO ONE deserves a bailout but the government is picking and choosing certain companies, industries and now private citizens to give bailout money to.
You can't run your company profitably? Here's some money.
You took too much risk on in your investments? Here's some money.
You bought a house that you couldn't afford and/or ran up credit card debt? Here you go, feel free to make more bad decisions in the future because we'll be here to make it all go away based on our whims.
It's bad business. I understand the urge to play tit for tat and say 'Well they're getting money, why shouldn't we?' but that's the wrong way to look at this problem.
Of course the flip side of the coin is people who were taken in by predatory lending probably have a legit gripe. But just offering up wholesale debt relief is not a responsible option.
The way I understand it, not many homeowners are getting a credit. If you are a first time homebuyer who bought a house between April 9, 2008 and July something of '09, you get $7,500 (Bush stimulus plan). This is basically a 15 year interest free loan. If you are a first time homebuyer on any date in 2009, you get $8,000 (Obama stimulus plan) which does not have to be repaid unless the house is sold within three years after taking up residency
Quote from: FastFreddie on February 18, 2009, 01:17:21 PM
Quote from: ice grillin you on February 18, 2009, 01:16:20 PM
Quote from: FastFreddie on February 18, 2009, 01:11:31 PM
I don't think current home owners that actually pay their bills are getting anything.
they are getting a tax cut
but theres enough money in the stumulus and all the bailout money thats been spent to pay off EVERY mortgage in the country and most car loans and CC bills...what would help the people of the country more than eliminating their debt
Wait, are you saying that the stimulus money would have been put to better use by paying off people's mortgages? That is not very much like you.
im saying if they want to stimulate the economy by having banks start to loan money again and by people spending more there are no better solutions than to start a new bank than can lend and eliminate individual debt
Wait, I thought you were talking about paying off mortgages, not paying off one mortgage with a government mortgage.
i am
you could pay off every mortage in the country with the stimulus + bailout money
wow, that would be a nightmare
Quote from: FastFreddie on February 18, 2009, 01:11:31 PM
I don't think current home owners that actually pay their bills are getting anything.
No, we aren't. The government is once again rewarding failure and irresponsibility.
Quote from: ice grillin you on February 18, 2009, 01:46:13 PM
Quote from: FastFreddie on February 18, 2009, 01:17:21 PM
Quote from: ice grillin you on February 18, 2009, 01:16:20 PM
Quote from: FastFreddie on February 18, 2009, 01:11:31 PM
I don't think current home owners that actually pay their bills are getting anything.
they are getting a tax cut
but theres enough money in the stumulus and all the bailout money thats been spent to pay off EVERY mortgage in the country and most car loans and CC bills...what would help the people of the country more than eliminating their debt
Wait, are you saying that the stimulus money would have been put to better use by paying off people's mortgages? That is not very much like you.
im saying if they want to stimulate the economy by having banks start to loan money again and by people spending more there are no better solutions than to start a new bank than can lend and eliminate individual debt
My my, were have I heard that idea before??
Quote from: shorebird on January 26, 2009, 09:46:34 PM
And we are going to bail out the rest of these motherfargers. What about the people who didn't make bad decisions and could actually pay their mortgage, but are now having trouble because of the housing market and the general economy going in the toilet? Take those billions and help those people by paying off their mortgage. Anyone with 20 or more years to pay on. That would help both the home owners and the mortgage companies.
It's one of those things where if you don't put some value into those junk morgages that are clogging the banking system the whole thing could flop. At least that is the theory.
farg people who took out 400k mortgages and made 80k, and took an ARM rate. They knew or should have known the consequences. I knew there were predatory lenders, but you cant just sign your name away on over at least 50 separate signatures. Meanwhile if you are responsible, and live within your means, you just lose your home value.
Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on February 18, 2009, 08:09:58 PM
farg people who took out 400k mortgages and made 80k, and took an ARM rate. They knew or should have known the consequences. I knew there were predatory lenders, but you cant just sign your name away on over at least 50 separate signatures. Meanwhile if you are responsible, and live within your means, you just lose your home value.
Or get laid off and lose you're home.
shtein happens, hell my job is on the block. At the same time, my wife's salary can support us, it was planned when we bought just in case the worst happens, its crazy when you plan ahead
Get the farging shotguns!
Zombie Banks Feed Off Bailout Moneyhttp://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100762999 (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100762999)
QuoteIn the continuing series on the lexicon of financial misfortune, Morning Edition introduces the term "zombie bank." A zombie bank keeps draining bailout capital from the government but doesn't respond with any meaningful lending that helps the economy recover. The prevalence of zombie banks made the long Japanese recession of the 1990s especially painful.
im refinancing next week and knocking 300 bucks off my mortgage...so someones lending
Stimlulus cakes off rich guys like IGY and Paul Allen (http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-stimulus-saves-microsoft-billionaire-hundreds-of-millions-phew-2009-2)
he wishes his boat was as big as mine
I'm on a boat!
http://widgets.nbc.com/o/4727a250e66f9723/499da0bec60ac11f/4741e3c5156499a7/6526ea99/-cpid/b1b8f543577775ea
An interesting opinion piece about our collective disgust and relative need for the various bailouts. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/opinion/20brooks.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper)
What our corporate HQ has been through only 50 days into 2009:
-- approximately 50 layoffs, followed by 10-15 people that left for new jobs on their own
-- everyone at VP level and above had their salaries cut by 10% this year
-- nobody gets a raise this year
-- no matching contributions to 401K this year
-- 25 cent raises on all vending machine items
...and now we're told at 4pm on a Friday that the free coffee and chocolate will be changed to 50-cent pay machines. Riots almost started because people would have to pay for their styrofoam cups...
Quote from: BigEd76 on February 20, 2009, 04:32:06 PM
-- 25 cent raises on all vending machine items
Not sure why, but this cracked me up.
Quote from: BigEd76 on February 20, 2009, 04:32:06 PM
...and now we're told at 4pm on a Friday that the free coffee and chocolate will be changed to 50-cent pay machines. Riots almost started because people would have to pay for their styrofoam cups...
Be green and bring a regular cup from home for fargs sake.
Quote from: BigEd76 on February 20, 2009, 04:32:06 PM
What our corporate HQ has been through only 50 days into 2009:
-- approximately 50 layoffs, followed by 10-15 people that left for new jobs on their own
-- everyone at VP level and above had their salaries cut by 10% this year
-- nobody gets a raise this year
-- no matching contributions to 401K this year
-- 25 cent raises on all vending machine items
...and now we're told at 4pm on a Friday that the free coffee and chocolate will be changed to 50-cent pay machines. Riots almost started because people would have to pay for their styrofoam cups...
we had the cups change last year at my work, same thing with people being pissed off. Now we get charged for plasticware and napkins if you dont order food. Its 1.50 for a farging soda at my work, so i avoid buying them.
Same deal for raises and people getting the axe
stop workng in middle america and you can go outside your building and buy a soda for 50 cents at a hotdog cart
or better still, pick a few oysters out of the surf and eat them raw
My new job here in middle America has 50 cent sodas in the break room.
My last recent past job in middle America had a stocked free soda fridge that was taken away for the $1.50 machine. They also told all the contracting firms that they would be paying the salaries of their workers 4 months late. Firms have backed out and contractors are being told to find a new firm or see ya later. They're also getting a 10% pay cut across the board. The hourly workers also used to handle all the overtime. They get paid for it. No more overtime so all the salaried workers are putting in 70 hour work weeks to keep things running. I got out just in time.
Quote from: ice grillin you on February 21, 2009, 07:36:59 AM
stop workng in middle america and you can go outside your building and buy a soda for 50 cents at a hotdog cart
i work from my home office 4 days a week now, life is good
QuoteObama promises bipartisan action on deficits
By Edward Luce in Washington
Barack Obama on Monday launched what he promised would be an enduring bipartisan process to bring down the fiscal deficits that have started to explode under his watch.
Mr Obama, who called 130 lawmakers and members of think-tanks to the White House for what he described as a "fiscal sustainability summit", added that by the end of his first term, he would halve the budget deficit he inherited from George W. Bush.
He also promised to deliver a more transparent budget that would factor in the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, natural disasters and the likelihood that Mr Bush's tax cuts would expire in 2010. Mr Obama's headline budget is due to be announced on Thursday.
"In order to address our fiscal crisis, we have to be candid about its scope," Mr Obama said. "For too long, our budget process in Washington has been an exercise in deception, a series of accounting tricks to hide the extent of our spending and the shortfalls in our revenue."
Some critics dismissed the half-day gathering as a public relations stunt in the midst of galloping budget deficits. Last week saw the signing of the $787bn fiscal stimulus package, while this year's budget deficit is expected to exceed $1,500bn.
But participants said the event charted a course that could result in bipartisan action to rein in the sharply rising costs of entitlements, particularly on healthcare. Although Mr Obama denied suffering from "summititis", he promised another summit next week on healthcare reform.
"To devote this much time to long-term fiscal discipline in the middle of everything else that is on is plate is a very encouraging sign," said Maya MacGuineas, head of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, who attended the sustainability summit. "He has planted a clear flag in the ground for fiscal discipline."
Analysts said the meeting could result in the creation of a bipartisan commission that would work to a deadline later this year. "It might sound odd to be spending like a drunken sailor and holding meetings about fiscal discipline, but it does make sense," said Norm Ornstein, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
Although Lawrence Summers, head of the National Economic Council, fell asleep on the podium, most attendees, including Republicans, appear to have appreciated the exercise. There was even some light-heartedness.
John McCain, the former presidential candidate, recommended Mr Obama get rid of his planned new presidential helicopter, the cost of which now equals that of Air Force One. Mr Obama said the existing chopper was adequate, but added that he had no experience of personal helicopters.
Well, I hope so. They are a long way off from anything resembling responsibility right now.
AND YES, BEFORE YOU iceholeS SEE THE NEED TO POINT IT OUT FOR THE GAZILLIONTH TIME, THE REPUBLICANS (REAGAN, W, DOUCHES IN CONGRESS) ARE JUST AS MUCH TO BLAME, IF NOT MORE, THAN THE DEMOCRATS.
does no one else think that one of obama's top money guys falling asleep at the podium of the fiscal summit is hilarious? who the farg does that?
His wife is probably a cvnt.
Roman bitches. We've all been there.
I find it hilarious. But come on, I slept through all of my economics classes in college which is why I couldn't get get my business minor. That shtein is fall asleep with your dick in a bitch boring.
Quote from: phattymatty on February 24, 2009, 01:28:57 PM
does no one else think that one of obama's top money guys falling asleep at the podium of the fiscal summit is hilarious? who the farg does that?
dick cheney used to fall asleep on the regular during hearings and speeches
Quote from: rjs246 on February 24, 2009, 01:37:32 PM
That shtein is fall asleep with your dick in a bitch boring.
I cant tell you how opposite I feel about this statement
there is nothing more comfortable after laying pipe
Quote from: reese125 on February 24, 2009, 01:53:25 PM
Quote from: rjs246 on February 24, 2009, 01:37:32 PM
That shtein is fall asleep with your dick in a bitch boring.
I cant tell you how opposite I feel about this statement
there is nothing more comfortable after laying pipe
I was trying to say that economics was boring enough to put me to sleep even if I were mid-coitus.
jon stewart ass pillages cnbc
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=220252&title=cnbc-gives-financial-advice
Quote from: ice grillin you on March 05, 2009, 10:43:47 PM
jon stewart ass pillages cnbc
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=220252&title=cnbc-gives-financial-advice
holy crap that's awesome!
That is gold.
So the FDIC might become insolvent. Time for a RUN
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_h5ZMZ8QQtfk/SZq9GJGlsFI/AAAAAAAAAjU/6jQOfajA8h8/s400/Kevin_Bacon_Animal_House.jpg)
Steve Forbes. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123630304198047321.html)
Seems like a reasonable criticism to me.
Indubitably.
What is the argument for using these accounting rules?
A I understand it, mark-to-market improves the perception of transparency by forcing a constant value be assigned to assets.
The original short-sell rule was in place to curb, but not eliminate, short selling which can drive public companies into insolvency very quickly. It was removed because short-selling is a tool that many traders use to make fast money on sinking stocks. Naked short selling, where the trader doesn't even own the stocks that they are selling, can easily compound legit problems by artificially driving a company's price even lower than the market would normally dictate, which is why Forbes argues that the original rule should be put back into place.
Hippy crap mixed with financial talk. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/08/opinion/08friedman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion)
Quote from: Diomedes on March 06, 2009, 09:03:16 AM
What is the argument for using these accounting rules?
Mark to market is great when you have a commonly traded, easily valued asset such as a US Treasury, or even a exchange traded stock like GM, GE, Microsoft, etc.
The problem is a lot of these banks were using mark to market on things that either couldn't be valued (financial derivatives) or had questionable values (CDO's, CMO,s, CMBS, etc.) The overall purpose of MtM is transparency but with all the crap that has been created over the last 20 or so years, it became a vehicle for fraud.
Jim Cramer hits back (http://www.mainstreet.com/article/moneyinvesting/news/cramer-takes-white-house-frank-rich-and-jon-stewart?page=1)
QuoteJim Cramer hits back
Nobody cares.
By the way, don't move your money from Bear.
What an ass
Stewart destroyed Cramer for his response tonight.
daily show has been killing it the last few weeks...i was a little worried they would lose their edge when the criminal organization that was the bush admin left office but hes as good as ever...and as much as he has buried cramer for good if you wanna the real in depth story on cramer and his corrupt ilk check this very long but excelelnt read
http://www.deepcapture.com/the-story-of-deep-capture-by-mark-mitchell/
Obama could be bad for business? NO WAI! (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_hassett&sid=amhpOT5rlR1Y)
Quote from: FastFreddie on March 10, 2009, 09:20:27 AM
Obama could be bad for business? NO WAI! (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_hassett&sid=amhpOT5rlR1Y)
Quote
Kevin Hassett is senior fellow at the neoconservative think tank American Enterprise Institute where he directs economic policy studies. He regularly appears on Bloomberg Television. He was an economic adviser to the campaign of President Bush in the 2004 presidential election, and he was as a senior economic adviser to John McCain's presidential campaign in 2008. administrations.
Quote
Hasset also writes for the AEI magazine The American.
Quote
The American: A Magazine of Ideas is a magazine published six times per year by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C. The magazine's primary focus is the intersection of American business and politics.
Liberal writer Jonathan Chait remarked in The New Republic (which Glassman had published from 1981 to 1984) that The American, in replacing The American Enterprise, "seems less dewy-eyed about the virtues of democracy and far more dewy-eyed about the virtues of the bottom line.
Right, so because he's a neo-con, he's automatically wrong about this. Making it more expensive to do business when American business is already crippled by the financial crisis is obviously good policy.
I read an article yesterday by a member of the Obama administration talking about how great the new rules and budget proposals will be for the country. Both that article and the one above deserve the same amount of credit. Which is to say, none.
he might be wrong he might be right but you could post an op ed by geithner saying how the plan will work and youd be just as valid (or invalid)
but we both know why you wont and this is because you agree with the neocon
especially this part
dewy-eyed about the virtues of the bottom line
Some suggestions for bringing the Republican party back into relevance. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/opinion/10brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion)
Don't worry. Pelosi is open to more stimuli. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19835.html)
Economists have known from the beginning that $800Bil wasn't enough to actually stimulate the economy fully. So, like it or not, more money is likely to be dumped into the problem.
Like your article said, "dumping" money might be necessary, but the long-term spending needs to be curtailed immediately. Stimulus for the sake of actual economy stimulation is a good idea. Long-term spending bills disguised as "stimulus" is a fat load of horseshtein.
There is a Democratic congress and a Democratic president. Long term spending on things they deem worthy is going to happen one way or another. Like you, I disagree with the method of delivery, the projects belong in their own bill(s), but in the end it will all be the same.
Sweet. I guess I'll just have to continue to invest in melee weapons for use in the bread lines.
Quote from: ice grillin you on March 10, 2009, 08:31:11 AM
daily show has been killing it the last few weeks...i was a little worried they would lose their edge when the criminal organization that was the bush admin left office but hes as good as ever...and as much as he has buried cramer for good if you wanna the real in depth story on cramer and his corrupt ilk check this very long but excelelnt read
http://www.deepcapture.com/the-story-of-deep-capture-by-mark-mitchell/
ha, fab five freddy shows up in that story.
Quote from: rjs246 on March 06, 2009, 09:50:25 AM
A I understand it, mark-to-market improves the perception of transparency by forcing a constant value be assigned to assets.
The original short-sell rule was in place to curb, but not eliminate, short selling which can drive public companies into insolvency very quickly. It was removed because short-selling is a tool that many traders use to make fast money on sinking stocks. Naked short selling, where the trader doesn't even own the stocks that they are selling, can easily compound legit problems by artificially driving a company's price even lower than the market would normally dictate, which is why Forbes argues that the original rule should be put back into place.
Looks like the second of these two rules may be put back into place. (http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/10/markets/markets_newyork/index.htm?postversion=2009031011)
Quote"Citigroup got us started but then Barney Frank came out and said that the uptick rule could be reinstated and that helped a lot too," said Tom Schrader, managing director at Stifel Nicolaus.
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., the head of the U.S. House Financial Services Committee told reporters Tuesday that the Securities and Exchange Commission would restore the "uptick rule."
The uptick rule -- which was in place until July 2007 -- limits short sellers from adding to the downward momentum of a stock that is already plunging. In short selling, traders make money when the price of a stock falls.
Critics say the ending of the uptick rule has added to the selling in the financial sector stocks over the last year and a half.
QuoteI guess I'll just have to continue to invest in melee weapons for use in the bread lines.
You should spend more time playing Warcraft and less time watching Fox "News".
Quote from: FastFreddie on March 10, 2009, 01:31:14 PM
Sweet. I guess I'll just have to continue to invest in melee weapons for use in the bread lines.
LOL..I just bought ammo ($700+) from Cabelas. "Word" has it that it will become rare (as it will become very expensive) soon. And I'm gonna start reloading my own ;D
Quote from: ATV on March 10, 2009, 03:32:10 PM
QuoteI guess I'll just have to continue to invest in melee weapons for use in the bread lines.
You should spend more time playing Warcraft and less time watching Fox "News".
No point in playing WoW until 3.1 goes live.
this thread has taken a sinister turn towards MA
Quote from: General_Failure on March 10, 2009, 04:46:30 PM
Quote from: ATV on March 10, 2009, 03:32:10 PM
QuoteI guess I'll just have to continue to invest in melee weapons for use in the bread lines.
You should spend more time playing Warcraft and less time watching Fox "News".
No point in playing WoW until 3.1 goes live.
Wow, indeed.
WoW?
Nope.
The Stewart Cramer feud is still going.
Stewart keeps winning. i kinda feel bad for cramer.
here was last nights raping...cant wait to see if he has anything tonight
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=220288&title=in-cramer-we-trust
according to some random blog a comedy central exec said that Stewart is planning to blast him again tonight
What? They're going to stick with an easy target? That's crazy!
generally the easier they are the more deserving they are
normally no one tries to fight back. most people know they really can't win.
he's a comedian thats been mocking and humiliating people since he was 8 with writers that have been mocking people for 10 years with Stewart.
jim cramer is....jim cramer. uphill battle.
cramer is gonna be on the daily show tonight
Quote from: ice grillin you on March 12, 2009, 01:06:03 PM
cramer is gonna be on the daily show tonight
Yep. Already used the DirecTV DVR scheduler to set that up. Should be good TV.
Has Stewart ever asked a tough question on his show? If he has, has he done it without giggling afterwards?
lol...the show is on COMEDY central
Yeah, and they've got rasslin on the Sci Fi channel. So I'll rephrase my question. How entertaining will the interview be if he lobs the guy softball after softball question?
no one watches the show for hard hitting interviews...they watch it to laugh thier ass off and see stewart urinate on people
sounds like youre looking for charlie rose
For just being on comedy central it's amazing how far reaching it is. It's very clever left leaning political banter.
Great show. Louis Black segmants are awesome when he shows up.
Cramer vs. Creamer...
http://crooksandliars.com/media/play/wmv/7552/26630
i actually felt uncomfotable watching it it was such a massacre...it made stewarts destruction of crossfire seem like a love tap
Quote from: ice grillin you on March 12, 2009, 01:16:45 PM
lol...the show is on COMEDY central
There was nothing funny about it last night. Stewart was going for the jugular, not for laughs.
The clips of Cramer talking about his hedge fund were pretty damning.
Reaction to Buffet. (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/jamessurowiecki/2009/03/is-warren-buffe.html)
Explaining why Nationalizition may not be necessary and why bank are not likely to go out of business, even with no further intervention from the government.
Basically a 'wah wah lay off of Obama' article. (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=81aaa5ed-2c51-4595-b2e4-71dc7d8c88d4)
But I found this nugget interesting and insightful:
QuoteThe larger fallacy here is to assume that the stock market is a proxy for the entire economy. Many people realize that the stock market is an imperfect gauge. But it's not just an imperfect gauge of the economy-it doesn't even attempt to measure the economy. Stock prices represent the market's guess at the profitability of corporations. While that's related to the health of the overall economy, it's not the same thing, and sometimes the two diverge sharply. During the Bush administration, for instance, corporate profits soared while wages for most families flatlined.
worse still, most people think the dow is the stock market
Quote from: Diomedes on March 13, 2009, 05:55:49 PM
worse still, most people think the dow is the stock market
It's funny because it's true.
Stewart ate Cramer's babies last night.
According to one respected economist this will become the "Greatest Depression".
http://www.abc6.com/news/41131932.html
I happen to think he is correct, but opinions vary.
We got letters from three credit card companies this week all reducing our credit limit on the cards. Keep in mind I've been late exactly once in 15 years on one card, never late on another and twice on the other one because of a mix-up when we refinanced our house and paid it off (for some reason it didn't pay off the entire amount, I never knew about it and got hit with two late charges as a result).
They said my credit rating was at fault. My credit rating is 734 right now. Seven Hundred Thirty Four.
And these bastiches are getting bailed out by the government still.
Here's hoping they all die screaming.
Is it the principle the thing, or were actually planning to run up your cards near the limit?
I guess I should have posted it in the Bacon thread instead.
Quote from: Rome on March 15, 2009, 02:12:07 PM
We got letters from three credit card companies this week all reducing our credit limit on the cards. Keep in mind I've been late exactly once in 15 years on one card, never late on another and twice on the other one because of a mix-up when we refinanced our house and paid it off (for some reason it didn't pay off the entire amount, I never knew about it and got hit with two late charges as a result).
They said my credit rating was at fault. My credit rating is 734 right now. Seven Hundred Thirty Four.
And these bastiches are getting bailed out by the government still.
Here's hoping they all die screaming.
Our interest rates are being jacked up. I think one's going to 12.9 or 13.9% interest. We've never been late. We try not to use them much, but have used them occasionally just to keep them active.
Oh well, more incentive to live within or means.
The gubament told them to shore up credit lines
Quote from: ice grillin you on March 13, 2009, 07:02:32 AM
i actually felt uncomfotable watching it it was such a massacre...it made stewarts destruction of crossfire seem like a love tap
This.
I almost felt bad for the guy watching this.
CIO of the new company I work for came in and gave us a scary speach saying this economy will be talked about in schools for years to come and that things are going to get real bad. What a bundle of joy he was.
Looks like i wont be moving any time soon based on where things are heading. I need to buy some metal grates for the windows.
The company I work for creates software for financial institutes. We went through about 6 months of no new business but have pulled out of that and now have a pretty normal steady stream of new business coming in. If this is any indicator, and I have no idea if it is, our country's major financial institutes are starting to spend money again and we may be pulling out of this. I might be making a big jump in logic there, though so take it for what it's worth.
Quote from: rjs246 on March 15, 2009, 06:56:39 PM
The company I work for creates software for financial institutes. We went through about 6 months of no new business but have pulled out of that and now have a pretty normal steady stream of new business coming in. If this is any indicator, and I have no idea if it is, our country's major financial institutes are starting to spend money again and we may be pulling out of this. I might be making a big jump in logic there, though so take it for what it's worth.
we've seen upticks on some of our stuff at work, which i think is a good sign. At the same time, the new stuff coming about about this being the next great depression scares the poo out of me
I had four days worth of work last week for the first time in forever. It's the Turnaround! Praise Obama!
My wife found out officially last week - 20% cut effective immediately. Roughly $500 per month after taxes.
Add that to the extra $250 per month I'm shelling out in added insurance costs (same coverage as last year, just way more expensive), and we're in a bit of a fix. Lots of fat to be trimmed from the budget.
At least we still have jobs.
Quote from: Diomedes on March 15, 2009, 08:32:04 PM
I had four days worth of work last week for the first time in forever. It's the Turnaround! Praise Obama!
:-D
http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/15/news/economy/bernanke_60minutes/index.htm?postversion=2009031518 (http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/15/news/economy/bernanke_60minutes/index.htm?postversion=2009031518)
Does this mean we can cancel the majority of the first stimulus package that doesn't kick in until 2011?
I don't get it. How is this supposed to be funny?
Quote from: ATV on March 16, 2009, 02:49:20 AM
I don't get it.
Shocking. I'm shocked.
"Stimulus" should, in theory, be legislation to help prevent the current economy from sinking into depression. However, it is clear that the administration and the congress used their mandate to make the definition of "stimulus" quite a bit broader.
Basically, all new government programs and spending, short term and long term, are now "stimulus."
EDIT
This is what I'm talking about, for those of you that are slow. (http://biz.yahoo.com/cnbc/090316/29678280.html)
That's farging hilarious.
Share more of your knowledge, right-leaning wise ones.
Why bother? You'll see the final result of this.
So Obama is a polictician.
Who knew? I thought he was christ.
"Trickle up economics doesn't work. We know that."
Yeah, we also know that trickle down hasn't worked a damn bit.
But yes let's stick with that!
Quote"Trickle up economics doesn't work. We know that."
I'm not sure if it does, but who says it doesn't?
I think the AIG bonuses should be paid. A contract is a contract.
Quote from: Diomedes on March 17, 2009, 08:56:13 AM
I think the AIG bonuses should be paid. A contract is a contract.
Only if the people receiving the bonus had nothing to do with the current crisis. If an individual is due a bonus in the contract, but caused significant damage to the firm through negligence, the individual should be terminated for cause. Of course, the contract should be reviewed to see which is cheaper...firing them or paying the bonus.
I heard an argument today that Police, Fire, and Public employees all over the country are having their contracts essentially voided to take pay cuts and/or furlough days, so why should AIG not alter their contracts? I agree that it's a slippery slope. In addition the lawsuits stemming from such an action may cost the government more money than the bonuses themselves. After all, contracts are the basis of many of our laws so if you start saying they are only applicable in good times then what good are they?
the little guys should get their bonus, the douches who made the shots to defraud the company should be broke.
why should ANYONE get a bonus when a company essentially went bankrupt...its not like these people arent being paid a salary...we are talking about bonuses...farg them
It sets a dangerous precedent to void a legal agreement, though. Those guys should burn in hell, but they'll take their millions with them.
Quote from: Butchers Bill on March 17, 2009, 09:06:26 AMI heard an argument today that Police, Fire, and Public employees all over the country are having their contracts essentially voided to take pay cuts and/or furlough days, so why should AIG not alter their contracts?
I too have heard that argument and it sounds to me like justifying a bad move by saying see, we're doing the same bad move elsewhere.
Quote from: FastFreddie on March 17, 2009, 10:45:52 AMIt sets a dangerous precedent to void a legal agreement, though.
This is what bothers me.
I don't think these people should get their bonuses for any reason other than the rule of law, but that's a big reason. If the contracts call for the bonuses to be paid regardless of company performance, then I don't see how they can be prevented from being paid without doing some serious damage to the concept of the contact, upon which our entire legal system is founded.
Plus, what's a few hundred million when the total bailout money is in the hundreds of billions? This is akin to Obama signing off on a budget with some "pork" earmarks on it. The public outrage and unrest is only being diverted from the true (and harder to understand) underlying issues.
Quote
This is what bothers me.
I don't think these people should get their bonuses for any reason other than the rule of law, but that's a big reason. If the contracts call for the bonuses to be paid regardless of company performance, then I don't see how they can be prevented from being paid without doing some serious damage to the concept of the contact, upon which our entire legal system is founded.
how can any agency, especially the size of AIG have that kind of loophole in the contract without covering their ass--especially knowing that any business could fail at any time as soon as you open the doors?
if they do then high fives for the guys seeking the bonus
without govt bailout money the company would have went under and many of these people wouldnt have had a job much less gotten these bonuses...bankruptcy combined with a govt bailout more than supercedes some stupid legal agreement for these clowns to get bonus money in this scenario
It should, but the legal precedent it sets is still very dangerous.
its not like we are talking about the constitution here...the precedent sent here would be that if your company goes bankrupt and needs a govt bailout youre not paying out bonuses...nothing dangerous about that at all much less very dangerous...in fact its the opposite of dangerous and would be an excellent precedent to set
Counter-point (http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/article/106755/The-Case-for-Paying-Out-Bonuses-at-AIG)
Quotewhy should ANYONE get a bonus when a company essentially went bankrupt...its not like these people arent being paid a salary...we are talking about bonuses...farg them
I agree. farg em. We own their shtein.
AIG execs got bonuses and left, official says
AIG paid 73 employees bonuses of more than $1 million, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo told Congress in a letter today. Cuomo wrote that 11 of the employees no longer work for the company. The largest bonus paid was $6.4 million, and seven more people received more than $4 million each. AIG has been under fire for awarding huge bonuses after getting a $170 billion government bailout.
appreciate it......pfffffffffttttttttttttttttt!
you gotta love the fact that these bonuses were signed and distributed to keep the proper talent on board and now they are gone
what a horrendous joke that is
seriously that is a joke....one of the completely bogus reasons to give them bonus money is so that they they dont leave...and they are gone anyway...
the reasons to not give them money remind me of all the dire y2k warnings...all these completely made up and hypotheitcal doomsday scenarios none of which ever happened....which is exactly what would happen if these people didnt get bonus money...absolutely nothing
Well, more of them might have left, but would the company be any worse off?
Still, this issue is clouding much more important issues surrounding the AIG bailout, including it being basically a front for Hank Paulsen to bail out his buddies at Goldman.
Yes, it probably is clouding bigger issues, but this is simply the sort of thing that the governement used to be able to watch over on a daily basis, without nearly as much media attention. At the very least I'm happy to have a government that's on top of this.
you also have a govt that is crying up a storm about AIG "wasting tax payers dollars"
all a bunch of two-face, hypocritical crackheads
Quote from: FastFreddie on March 17, 2009, 03:00:49 PM
Well, more of them might have left, but would the company be any worse off?
Still, this issue is clouding much more important issues surrounding the AIG bailout, including it being basically a front for Hank Paulsen to bail out his buddies at Goldman.
why is hank paulson bailing out his buddies any better or worse than all these aig guys getting ridiculous bonuses...i dont care about either...but its laughable how you treat these guys bonus clauses as sacred and yet the govt bailing out goldman sachs or aig is a huge issue
It's worse because of the sheer volume of money.
If you weren't upset about Obama with the earmarks, you shouldn't care about these bonuses.
i dont care about either....i just like to laugh at you defending bonuses for rich guys but being pissed at govt bailouts
Quote from: ATV on March 17, 2009, 03:12:20 PM
Yes, it probably is clouding bigger issues, but this is simply the sort of thing that the governement used to be able to watch over on a daily basis, without nearly as much media attention. At the very least I'm happy to have a government that's on top of this.
LOL, on top of it? Gimmie a break
RE: AIG
The very fact that they are contractually obligated to pay 'bonuses' means that they aren't really bonuses in the first place. They are a part of the salary.
Now, the UAW renegotiated their contracts down, and something like that might be appropriate, but breaking a legal contract is bad news.
They're not on top of it? I think one could argue they're ridiculously on top of this particular one. As is the media.
On top of other similar sorts of giveaways? No, not yet at least. I'm sure all sorts of this stuff has been going on. I'm hoping it will expand. We'll see.
The Media, yes. The government is not sir. Are they moreso than the past 8 years yes. But no where near where they should be. That said, i love Bernake.
Quote from: ice grillin you on March 17, 2009, 03:47:50 PM
i dont care about either....i just like to laugh at you defending bonuses for rich guys but being pissed at govt bailouts
I'm not defending the bonuses. I'm saying that fighting them at this point is a waste of resources.
QuoteBut no where near where they should be.
I don't disagree, sir.
Quote from: rjs246 on March 17, 2009, 04:32:46 PMNow, the UAW renegotiated their contracts down, and something like that might be appropriate, but breaking a legal contract is bad news.
You bring up a key point here. The bulk of union contracts that are being "broken" are actually being renegotiated willingly by both parties. That's very different than stripping citizens of their legal contractual rights, as odious as the contracts may be, which is what people are now calling for with these AIG dirtbags.
Another way to look at the bonus thing is that there are salespeople who actually do a great job and earn them. If they don't get the bonuses they've earned they'll simply go to a foreign company who does provide them. The remaining scrubs will pull the company down further and then we'll be faced with an even bigger mess this time next year.
Paying bonuses might not be politically correct right now, but from a business standpoint, it does make sense especially if they've earned it.
thats some high quality analysis right there.
I pushed my chair out and pulled it back in to get a closer look at Romes analysis on my screen and I still dont know what the farg hes talking about
something about sales people who earn their 6 million dollar bonuses each year, I gather
My bro recently left AIG. He wasn't an exec and he got escorted out for his trouble...
QuoteObama Received a $101,332 Bonus from AIG
Senator Barack Obama received a $101,332 bonus from American International Group in the form of political contributions according to Opensecrets.org. The two biggest Congressional recipients of bonuses from the A.I.G. are - Senators Chris Dodd and Senator Barack Obama.
The A.I.G. Financial Products affiliate of A.I.G. gave out $136,928, the most of any AIG affiliate, in the 2008 cycle. I would note that A.I.G.'s financial products division is the unit that wrote trillions of dollars' worth of credit-default swaps and "misjudged" the risk.
The Washington Post reports a "mob effect" at A.I.G financial products division:
A tidal wave of public outrage over bonus payments swamped American International Group yesterday. Hired guards stood watch outside the suburban Connecticut offices of AIG Financial Products, the division whose exotic derivatives brought the insurance giant to the brink of collapse last year. Inside, death threats and angry letters flooded e-mail inboxes. Irate callers lit up the phone lines. Senior managers submitted their resignations. Some employees didn't show up at all.
With the anger and rage that is being exhibited against A.I.G., perhaps the bonuses Obama received from A.I.G. explain Obama's A.I.G crocodile tears.
Now that the Wall street Journal has revealed that A.I.G. paid bonuses of $1 million or more to 73 employees, it's time to ask if recipients of A.I.G. "bonuses," including President Obama, will give what now ought to be taxpayer money back?
bush got over 200k....mccain and hillary 75k....ect..ect...ect...if you dont think every major politician in the country gets money from companies like aig you dont know the game
Seriously. Plus, getting a 75-100K from a company that big is hardly news and doesn't represent motivation to sponsor its survival.
Something more topical and not AIG related...
Talking about cutting the payroll tax. (http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2009/03/23/090323taco_talk_hertzberg)
Quote from: ice grillin you on March 18, 2009, 08:51:39 AM
bush got over 200k....mccain and hillary 75k....ect..ect...ect...if you dont think every major politician in the country gets money from companies like aig you dont know the game
You wanted to be in the game
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/0a/The_Wire_Levy.jpg/250px-The_Wire_Levy.jpg)
Well now you're in the game
An alternative to Geithner's meandering, and one that has been successfully used before. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/lifting-the-tarp-will-pre_b_175149.html)
The FED is going to buy up a ton of long-term treasuries and mortgage-backed securities - markets way up, but dollar way down.
who knew what (and when) about the AIG bonuses (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_bs262)
Chris Dodd is a douche.
UPDATE: Even Democrats should think Chris Dodd is a douche. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aT_tMXRy2vDs)
Dodd has been in the chair for all of this crap, and somehow has avoided scrutiny
I just want them to pass this stupid 90% tax and get it over with at this point. The issue is so meaningless in actuality, and it's just giving a bunch of people a chance to grandstand.
Unfortunately, the line between "salary" and "bonus" is very vague here, so they will now be challenging whether or not people at these companies should be getting paid at all - especially Seabiscuit.
Amazingly the creditcard side where i'm at is still very profitable. Its certain acquisitions that farged us.
Countrywide and Merrill, to name a couple...
By the way, this guy is talking my language (http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/106769/Do-the-Rich-Really-Deserve-Such-a-Bad-Rap?). The current anti-wealth wave cannot be sustained long-term, if of course you like the government to actually get any money.
The oversimplification is driving me crazy. The current mindset is not 'anti-wealth'. No one is anti-wealth.
The mentality is two-fold:
1. 'Anti-wealth-in-the-face-of-obvious-corporate-failure'. People getting rich through methods that led directly to our country's (and the world's) financial collapse.
2. 'Anti-massive-wealth-gaps'. Over the past 8 years the gap in wealth has expanded enormously. Income for middle class families stagnated while the upper class expanded their wealth. That is going to breed resentment 100% of the time.
No one is anti-wealth and the knee-jerk labeling of what's happening as an anti-wealth movement is farging idiotic.
You're wrong. You don't even have to leave this board to find people that are anti-wealth. People who make less money are entitled to things they cannot afford, and people who make more money are obliged to pay for them. That is the new American way.
Quote from: FastFreddie on March 19, 2009, 10:25:02 AM
You're wrong. You don't even have to leave this board to find people that are anti-wealth. People who make less money are entitled to things they cannot afford, and people who make more money are obliged to pay for them. That is the new American way.
Example: Jeff Lurie is obliged to pay any amount to keep players that are likable but past their prime so we can watch them do crazy things before the game starts.
Quote from: FastFreddie on March 19, 2009, 10:25:02 AM
You're wrong. You don't even have to leave this board to find people that are anti-wealth. People who make less money are entitled to things they cannot afford, and people who make more money are obliged to pay for them. That is the new American way.
Expiring the tax break on the wealthy (bringing tax levels to exactly the same levels they were at in the 90s) was a provision put in place by a Republican President and a Republican congress because they knew that it couldn't last forever. We have a tiered tax system and it has been in place in this country and most others for a very long goddamned time. The wealthy pay more and always have to help provide everyone with certain services.
If you consider this to be wildly unfair I don't know what to tell you. The majority of rest of the planet finds it fair and has repeatedly implemented it as the standard tax format...
wealthy should actually pay more than they do...with loopholes that only they can jump thru and write offs they dont pay shtein
theres a reason the rich get richer and the poor get poorer
CEO's wife divorcing him, says $53,000 a WEEK isn't enough for her (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29760888/)
wah. f'ing b***h
Quote from: ice grillin you on March 19, 2009, 10:55:05 AM
wealthy should actually pay more than they do.
True. The tax brackets need to be adjusted since the top bracket is the same as it was in 1940.
Quote from: ice grillin you on March 19, 2009, 10:55:05 AM
with loopholes that only they can jump thru and write offs they dont pay shtein
False. The "rich" already pay a ton in taxes and are the reason why we have the services we do.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_percent_of_taxes_does_the_top.html
Quote from: Butchers Bill on March 19, 2009, 11:04:27 AM
Quote from: ice grillin you on March 19, 2009, 10:55:05 AM
wealthy should actually pay more than they do.
True. The tax brackets need to be adjusted since the top bracket is the same as it was in 1940.
Quote from: ice grillin you on March 19, 2009, 10:55:05 AM
with loopholes that only they can jump thru and write offs they dont pay shtein
False. The "rich" already pay a ton in taxes and are the reason why we have the services we do.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_percent_of_taxes_does_the_top.html
Ding a ling ding.
i know people who fully admit that they dont pay shtein compared to what they could or should because of all the write offs and such
but if you disagree i would try and prevent yourself from making 300k plus...its gotta be a terrible place to be
You would know, moneybags.
im rich im not wealthy
Speaking of money, holy shtein with the mortgage rates.
I can do the following:
--reduce rate by .375% without paying fees
--reduce rate by .75% by paying regular fees (~$1900 all in)
--reduce rate by .875% by paying fees plus 0.5 points
--reduce rate by 1.125% by paying fees plus 1 point
We will likely be in our house for at least five more years, let alone 2-3. Thoughts?
From what I gather from office banter, it's not worth it to refi unless your going to drop the rate by at least 1%, but I'm not sure how that extra point plays out. To summarize, I got nothing for you. Pad
That is pretty standard thinking on a normal refi. But, when I say NO fees, I mean NO fees. Pad.
wow....4.50% at Wachovia today on a 30-yr fixed
i just finished a re fi last nite...no fees no pts @ 4.775
the rates are really low right now but theres always a catch....in this case watch out for ltv and credit score as they are huge drivers on rates
hurry up and then be prepared to probably wait...most lenders were caught off guard by the sudden drop in rates and have fired a large amount its support staff....thus the new staff is overwhelmed...get your rate quote fast and get your application in quick.....even if you dont lock get your application in quick....and find a good lender as good lenders will allow you to lock and lower your rate if the market moves like it did yesterday....also dont have the lowest rates anymore banks do....try and go with a bank that dont have the negative exposure to the mortgage market
imo its crazy not to re fi as fast as you can if not sooner
Any chance it hits 4.0% or will it shoot back up all of a sudden?
thats the chance you take. rates change every day
there was a day about a month and a half ago it went down to 4.75 and shot right back up to 5.2 the next day. I couldnt even get through on the phones--can only imagine how it would be a 4.0% but that chance is highly unlikely imo
Quote from: BigEd76 on March 19, 2009, 04:22:03 PM
Any chance it hits 4.0% or will it shoot back up all of a sudden?
i would say no...not because i know but because i just cant fathom it going down to four...but really wny take the chance...what is the difference btwn 4.5 and 4 on a 300k loan...1000 bucks a year?...is that worth the risk of waiting when rates are already super low?
Quote from: ice grillin you on March 19, 2009, 04:29:17 PM
Quote from: BigEd76 on March 19, 2009, 04:22:03 PM
Any chance it hits 4.0% or will it shoot back up all of a sudden?
i would say no...not because i know but because i just cant fathom it going down to four...but really wny take the chance...what is the difference btwn 4.5 and 4 on a 300k loan...1000 bucks a year?...is that worth the risk of waiting when rates are already super low?
Not bad, guy. $1053.72, give or take a few cents.
hey guy
lemme get an allabash lambic chief
Don't drink and post.
Why AIG was too big to fail and who is truly to blame...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_EXt086A0w
grumpy economist with bad combover speaks the unfortunate truth about Geithner's new plan (http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/216311/Part-I-Geithner%27s-Plan-%22Extremely-Dangerous%22-Economist-Galbraith-Says?tickers=%5Egspc,%5Edji,c,bac,jpm,WFC?sec=topStories&pos=2&asset=TBD&ccode=TBD)
^
http://polipundit.com/wp-comments-popup.php?p=20721&c=1#comments
LOL.
And 1.
Competency presiding. Bank it.
Bad news on Obama's budget plan. (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1887073,00.html)
I enjoy Time articles because they are concise, generally impartial and well written. Unlike 90% of the political writing out there.
Counter-point on big deficits from a moderate-left Economist (http://finance.yahoo.com/loans/article/106789/When-%27Deficit%27-Isn%27t-a-Dirty-Word)
keep linking unreadable articles by people who have absolutely no idea whatsoever what is going to happen next year much less in 2019...its exciting stuff
As long as you promise to keep whining about it.
so umm the dow went up a shteinload
which means our economy is better now
im rich again
Apparently the stock market is only indicative of our economy when it's going down.
Wrong. It's indicative of our economy when it's going up during a Democratic Presidency or down during a Republican one.
http://polipundit.com/wp-comments-popup.php?p=20721&c=1#comments
^ Ok. I knew these guys were full of it.
China's Oil Needs (http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/files/Chinas%20Insatiable%20Energy%20Needs.pdf)
(http://pcd.dreamhosters.com/538/images/finpay2.PNG)
From http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/03/two-birds-one-stone-regulation-and.html
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/05/business/congress-passes-wide-ranging-bill-easing-bank-laws.html
''The world changes, and we have to change with it,'' said Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, who wrote the law that will bear his name along with the two other main Republican sponsors, Representative Jim Leach of Iowa and Representative Thomas J. Bliley Jr. of Virginia. ''We have a new century coming, and we have an opportunity to dominate that century the same way we dominated this century. Glass-Steagall, in the midst of the Great Depression, came at a time when the thinking was that the government was the answer. In this era of economic prosperity, we have decided that freedom is the answer.''
''I think we will look back in 10 years' time and say we should not have done this but we did because we forgot the lessons of the past, and that that which is true in the 1930's is true in 2010,'' said Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota. ''I wasn't around during the 1930's or the debate over Glass-Steagall. But I was here in the early 1980's when it was decided to allow the expansion of savings and loans. We have now decided in the name of modernization to forget the lessons of the past, of safety and of soundness.''
Senator Paul Wellstone, Democrat of Minnesota, said that Congress had ''seemed determined to unlearn the lessons from our past mistakes.''
that article is pretty rich.
I was recently sent an article from 1999 predicting the perils that would result from repealing Glass-Steagall. Maybe I'll dig it up and grace all of your faces with its beauty.
An international angle. Blabbity blabbity blah. (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=694235dc-12f9-4e4d-8007-63bad0b6a35b)
Nucular energy is zero carbon but the hippies hate it anyway. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123819777143661833.html)
We should have ended our dubious flirtation with nuclear power a generation ago. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island were warning signs that have been blissfully ignored. Sooner or later one of those plants is either going to melt down or be deliberately attacked by terrorists and we're going to have destruction and death on a scale that will make Hiroshima & Nagasaki look like back yard brush fires.
Ah farg it... who wants pie?
I'm all about some nuclear power and realistically there is no way to move from where we are to a low-carbon-consumption energy plan without it.
Building new plants is the height of insanity especially considering we don't have any sort of plan to deal with the waste that we've already produced and continue to produce each day.
Not to mention the damn things run on what amounts to fossil fuel. There's only so much of the stuff in the ground to extract and refine.
Nuclear power is not the way to go.
Wind, solar and tidal power...combined with drastically improved efficiency in buildings and machines and power delivery grids...this is how we'll survive the end of oil and climate change, if we do.
Ignoring the role that nuclear can play in bridging that gap is laughable.
It's simply not necessary to bridge the gap. We have plenty enough oil, natural gas, and coal to bridge the gap, assuming we get serious about it.
Improved efficiency and reduction of waste alone would make a huge dent, and we can do that immediately.
Quote from: rjs246 on March 29, 2009, 10:10:34 AM
Ignoring the role that nuclear can play in bridging that gap is laughable.
Your face is laughable!
The reason rjs is so high on nuclear power is because of the potential for accidents to create zombies.
I really wish you'd stop exposing my ulterior motives. Ass.
Nuclear power is an inevitable part of our future. Entire European countries are run on Nuke power. Bring on the zombie apocalypse!
(http://blog.wired.com/games/images/2007/09/28/zombiemassacre.jpg)
IMO nuclear power is a better option than most, but something a distant relative of mine pointed out is that every dollar that is invested in nuclear is one more dollar that's not being invested in solar, wind, etc.
Quote from: rjs246 on March 29, 2009, 10:41:00 AM
I really wish you'd stop exposing my ulterior motives. Ass.
lolerkins
Quote from: ATV on March 29, 2009, 02:46:52 PM
IMO nuclear power is a better option than most, but something a distant relative of mine pointed out is that every dollar that is invested in nuclear is one more dollar that's not being invested in solar, wind, etc.
Aw come on, if this financial crises has shown us anything it's that money can be printed as needed to bail out or spend money on whatever!
I'm all for Nuclear power, and i grew up next door to a Nuke plant with one of the worst records
Isn't it nuc-U-ler?
I'll nuke your ler!
Obama to Wagoner: Get the farg out...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20625.html
Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_pesek&sid=aEysvvZ.71H0)
QuoteThere's no doubt the world that Reagan envisioned didn't work out. The "Washington Consensus" of free markets, small government and unfettered globalization that characterized the 1990s also is over. China knows it, and it's speaking out more confidently -- and rightly so.
Capitalism isn't dead; it lost its way. Expect a more sensible version than the one that just crashed in which capital flows freely and regulations see that markets don't go off the rails. As perverse as it sounds, a touch of socialism is needed to resuscitate capitalism.
^ :yay
Quote from: rjs246 on March 30, 2009, 03:11:29 PM
Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_pesek&sid=aEysvvZ.71H0)
QuoteThere's no doubt the world that Reagan envisioned didn't work out. The "Washington Consensus" of free markets, small government and unfettered globalization that characterized the 1990s also is over. China knows it, and it's speaking out more confidently -- and rightly so.
Capitalism isn't dead; it lost its way. Expect a more sensible version than the one that just crashed in which capital flows freely and regulations see that markets don't go off the rails. As perverse as it sounds, a touch of socialism is needed to resuscitate capitalism.
Counter argument would be the Liberals got in the way preventing Reagan's true vision. I don't agree or disagree... just sayin
Reagan had about as much vision as one of his chimp co-stars.
The fact that anyone agrees with what China is doing scares the living shtein out of me. What the farg :o
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Prc1952-2005gdp.gif)
Quote from: phillymic2000 on March 30, 2009, 11:19:34 PM
The fact that anyone agrees with what China is doing scares the living shtein out of me. What the farg
Did you even read the article? It doesn't agree with what China is doing as a viable long-term economic plan. It simply says that introducing some regulation and socialist principles to American capitalism should provide us with a stronger version of our economic model moving forward.
Is there a more boring topic than the G-20 meeting? (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123852774130074841.html)
Probably not, but that's all any of the news outlets are talking about these days.
i thought you only posted interesting and insightful links.
The protestors are making a good show of it. NPR just reported that bankers were taunting protesters carrying signs like "capitalism isn't working" by waiving cash money at them on their way into work.
Quote from: phattymatty on April 01, 2009, 10:01:49 AM
i thought you only posted interesting and insightful links.
Good point.
Here's something far more interesting and insightful and throbbing and veiny. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123854083982575457.html)
Mark-to-market rules being relaxed after every economist everywhere called for it. (http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/02/news/fair.value.fortune/index.htm?cnn=yes)
Really good news and the Dow is coming all over itself in response.
You know who's coming all over themselves?
taterskins fans. They're getting Cutler by tomorrow. It's a good thing too, because he wouldn't amount to shtein in Philadelphia.
I see what you did there, fella.
Slick economic politics on an international level. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/02/AR2009040203743.html?hpid=topnews)
QuoteAll in all, a pretty successful opening-night performance for President Obama on the international economic stage. He achieved most of what he wanted while allowing others to claim victory and allowing the United States to shed its Bush-era reputation for inflexibility and heavy-handedness. And by the standards of past summits, this one was full of accomplishment.
Why is Obama refusing to let TARP money be repaid? (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html)
Instructions for ATV or IGY:
1. Only semi-read the article at most.
2. Slam it as partisan opinion.
3. Post rebuttal from DailyKOS.
That article is basically spot on but written from an obviously negative point of view.
The administration is leaving the door open for bank nationalization and is smart to do it. Many many economists have said that it will be the fastest and most effective way out of this mess. The administration is saying they don't want to do it. In fact they've said it over and over and over again despite the conservative hysteria trying to convince everyone otherwise.
Obama and his administration are leaving their options open on this, which is very much his MO, and the right is predictably working themselves into a lather over it because they don't know how it's going to turn out and want to get a leg up on the criticism no matter what happens. If the banks are nationalized they'll say 'we told you so'. If they aren't they'll say that Obama caved to right-thinking populist pressure. Either way waiting a bit to start receiving payments makes sense.
Now if this waiting period drags on...
Do we really want the government to control the banks too?! Were is the line going to be drawn as to what is too much friggen' government??
This thread should be renamed The Ongoing financial crisis.
Quote from: shorebird on April 05, 2009, 10:39:18 AM
Do we really want the government to control the banks too?! Were is the line going to be drawn as to what is too much friggen' government??
I'm just regurgitating what economists have been calling for as a way to fix the economic crises. They know a hell of a lot more about it than I do.
Quote from: rjs246 on April 05, 2009, 10:46:29 AM
Quote from: shorebird on April 05, 2009, 10:39:18 AM
Do we really want the government to control the banks too?! Were is the line going to be drawn as to what is too much friggen' government??
I'm just regurgitating what economists have been calling for as a way to fix the economic crises. They know a hell of a lot more about it than I do.
Without question, me too. It's just the thought of the government controlling the money that scares me.
Why does it scare you, they are printing and borrowing money, you and I will never be able to repay. Our kids, kids will be picking up this tab, yay enjoy the ride.
Quote from: phillymic2000 on April 05, 2009, 07:17:12 PM
Why does it scare you, they are printing and borrowing money, you and I will never be able to repay. Our kids, kids will be picking up this tab, yay enjoy the ride.
Thats if the dollar doesn't collapse into nothing and our whole financial system doesn't go belly up.
end of the the world definitely
Las Vegas CityCenter project failing (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE53800Q20090409)
I love this douchebag:
Quote"The events of the last six months have been our Pearl Harbor, economically," said Bill Thompson, gaming expert and professor of public administration at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. "CityCenter might be too big to fail. If it opens, it's a dramatic gesture that says we're winning, we're not defeated, we're on the way back."
"If it fails, it would be like a second Pearl Harbor."
the government is borrowing over 40% of all money it spends this year. the interest payments alone is going to sink this ship
no problem, your kids and theirs can pay it off dicksucker
We're paying off the debt from our fore fathers so why should our kids get a free pass. But really Andrew Jackson was the only president I think to pay of the national debt. Modern age? Carter had the best debt to GDP ratio at 32%. Financially the country was in the crapper then so I'm not sure what relevance the debt is as long as your not over 100% debt to the GDP. From LBJ to Carter the ratio was in the 30's as a percentage. Bush will have left us with the highest since the great depression projected at 68%.
During the great depression we were at 93%. So there is a precidence for increasing the debt to GDP ratio in tough fincancial times I suppose. As long as it can be I reduced in the out years.
Either way I attack the national debt premise as a true indicator. I think it is more of a reaction to what is going on then actually a cause...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms)
I've been drinking and think I'm really smart right now... Least till I wake up tomorrow morning and read this ish... Jackson's Paying off the national debt in 1835...
QuoteOn January 1, 1835, the United States paid off entirely its longstanding public debt. For that year and the next the nation enjoyed debt-freedom, the only two years in its entire history when it held no obligation to creditors.
http://www.business.auburn.edu/~whittdo/THE%20ELIMINATION%20OF%20THE%20NATIONAL%20DEBT%20IN%201835.htm (http://www.business.auburn.edu/~whittdo/THE%20ELIMINATION%20OF%20THE%20NATIONAL%20DEBT%20IN%201835.htm)
the ole US of farging A went BK in 1933, or was it 1935? The world bank has owned all of our working asses since then. So whatever happens all of the social security plus all of your bank accounts are free game. In 7-10 years when this pyramid scheme finally collapses, we're all farged. welcome to being a 3rd world country.
So don't be so cocky you primos.
from your Holy Father
Looks like I'm safe, my bank account is already empty!
Quote from: holyman on April 09, 2009, 09:17:03 PM
the ole US of farging A went BK in 1933, or was it 1935? The world bank has owned all of our working asses since then. So whatever happens all of the social security plus all of your bank accounts are free game. In 7-10 years when this pyramid scheme finally collapses, we're all farged. welcome to being a 3rd world country.
So don't be so cocky you primos.
i know im constantly up at night worrying about it
The old USA has been owned by someone since 1776 outside of 2 years of temporary insanity under Andrew Jackson if that's the theory. Guess we've never truly been a country of our own then. Carry on.
Phanatic injecting some rational thought into this whole Republican panic nonsense. Well done.
There is no spoon. (http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/09/mortgage-bankruptcy-foreclosure-opinions-columnists-zywicki.html)
as long as you have the strongest military and 50 thousand nukes you will always be your own country
So the whole economical decline leading to Obama's presidency was largely an aberration?
Ok. Well then I'm glad that's over with.
Quote from: Phanatic on April 09, 2009, 08:35:51 PM
We're paying off the debt from our fore fathers so why should our kids get a free pass. But really Andrew Jackson was the only president I think to pay of the national debt. Modern age? Carter had the best debt to GDP ratio at 32%. Financially the country was in the crapper then so I'm not sure what relevance the debt is as long as your not over 100% debt to the GDP. From LBJ to Carter the ratio was in the 30's as a percentage. Bush will have left us with the highest since the great depression projected at 68%.
During the great depression we were at 93%. So there is a precidence for increasing the debt to GDP ratio in tough fincancial times I suppose. As long as it can be I reduced in the out years.
Either way I attack the national debt premise as a true indicator. I think it is more of a reaction to what is going on then actually a cause...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms)
I've been drinking and think I'm really smart right now... Least till I wake up tomorrow morning and read this ish...
Jackson's Paying off the national debt in 1835...
QuoteOn January 1, 1835, the United States paid off entirely its longstanding public debt. For that year and the next the nation enjoyed debt-freedom, the only two years in its entire history when it held no obligation to creditors.
http://www.business.auburn.edu/~whittdo/THE%20ELIMINATION%20OF%20THE%20NATIONAL%20DEBT%20IN%201835.htm (http://www.business.auburn.edu/~whittdo/THE%20ELIMINATION%20OF%20THE%20NATIONAL%20DEBT%20IN%201835.htm)
I modified this somewhat and replied to my GOP senator who had sent me something related to the Tea Bagging thing that was going on this week.
A very brief overview of our country's tax system with relation to the concept of a flat tax. (http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/04/my-tax-day-post)
Note that we are exceptionally close to employing a flat tax already...
a flat tax would be a tax increase for 98% of americans...would be a crush to the real estate industry....and charitable organizations all in one....but it makes for great soundbytes for politicians looking to win over intellectually lazy americans...
im not even a money guy and i know this...how hard is it to look up your tax rate...yet most americans are to stpuid or lazy to do it...arguing about getting rid of certain deductions or not...or debating the tax code in general is legit...but it has nothing to do with the merits of a flat tax
My point was simply that compared to most developed countries, we already employ a fairly 'flat' tax structure.
Regardless, the tax code needs to be scrapped and rewritten. The fact that there are a million different taxes on a million different things and ways to avoid paying so many of them is more than a little ridiculous.
well i guess i disagree that we are anywhere close to a flat tax
8% 20% 20% 24% 28% is pretty friggin flat.
i have a pretty weak grasp on large scale economics. hell, i can barely balance my check book. so i'm probably asking a very uneducated question here, but when it comes to taxes, why isn't everyone just taxed the same percentage of their income rather than having all these different tax brackets?
Income tax is tiered, but every other tax (alcohol, cigarette, sales, property, etc) is the same for everyone.
That means that people with lower incomes pay a significantly higher % of their income on the 'other' taxes. As such, almost all western countries have a 'progressive' income tax that is tiered so that lower income people pay less while higher income people pay more in order to provide fairness.
The problem is that most people only think about income taxes when the topic comes up. They completely ignore the fact that the government brings in money from all sorts of other taxes that are not so fairly distributed.
Tax my weed
Quote from: rjs246 on April 16, 2009, 11:49:15 AM
8% 20% 20% 24% 28% is pretty friggin flat.
those are tax brackets...to have a true flat tax you would have to eliminate all deductions and write offs...bascially youd have to tear up the entire united states tax code
Quote from: rjs246 on April 16, 2009, 12:03:19 PM
Income tax is tiered, but every other tax (alcohol, cigarette, sales, property, etc) is the same for everyone.
That means that people with lower incomes pay a significantly higher % of their income on the 'other' taxes. As such, almost all western countries have a 'progressive' income tax that is tiered so that lower income people pay less while higher income people pay more in order to provide fairness.
The problem is that most people only think about income taxes when the topic comes up. They completely ignore the fact that the government brings in money from all sorts of other taxes that are not so fairly distributed.
So, the lower 50% of tax payers should get alcohol and cigarettes for free?
Those aren't tax brackets, they're 'quintiles' and you obviously didn't read the article.
Either way, the entire US tax code should be torn up.
Quote from: fansince61 on April 16, 2009, 12:13:44 PM
Quote from: rjs246 on April 16, 2009, 12:03:19 PM
Income tax is tiered, but every other tax (alcohol, cigarette, sales, property, etc) is the same for everyone.
That means that people with lower incomes pay a significantly higher % of their income on the 'other' taxes. As such, almost all western countries have a 'progressive' income tax that is tiered so that lower income people pay less while higher income people pay more in order to provide fairness.
The problem is that most people only think about income taxes when the topic comes up. They completely ignore the fact that the government brings in money from all sorts of other taxes that are not so fairly distributed.
So, the lower 50% of tax payers should get alcohol and cigarettes for free?
Is that really what you took from that?
Quote from: rjs246 on April 16, 2009, 12:14:56 PM
Quote from: fansince61 on April 16, 2009, 12:13:44 PM
Quote from: rjs246 on April 16, 2009, 12:03:19 PM
Income tax is tiered, but every other tax (alcohol, cigarette, sales, property, etc) is the same for everyone.
That means that people with lower incomes pay a significantly higher % of their income on the 'other' taxes. As such, almost all western countries have a 'progressive' income tax that is tiered so that lower income people pay less while higher income people pay more in order to provide fairness.
The problem is that most people only think about income taxes when the topic comes up. They completely ignore the fact that the government brings in money from all sorts of other taxes that are not so fairly distributed.
So, the lower 50% of tax payers should get alcohol and cigarettes for free?
Is that really what you took from that?
No. I'd like to see a new tax sustem to but there are too many "winners" with the current system (Congress loves to change the tax code for donations :fire)
Quote from: fansince61 on April 16, 2009, 12:13:44 PM
Quote from: rjs246 on April 16, 2009, 12:03:19 PM
Income tax is tiered, but every other tax (alcohol, cigarette, sales, property, etc) is the same for everyone.
That means that people with lower incomes pay a significantly higher % of their income on the 'other' taxes. As such, almost all western countries have a 'progressive' income tax that is tiered so that lower income people pay less while higher income people pay more in order to provide fairness.
The problem is that most people only think about income taxes when the topic comes up. They completely ignore the fact that the government brings in money from all sorts of other taxes that are not so fairly distributed.
So, the lower 50% of tax payers should get alcohol and cigarettes for free?
i fall in the lower 50% of tax payers.
i spend a lot of money on smokes and bourbon.
you have my full attention.
the winners have always been and always will be rich white people
ask the indians
hopefully barry can at least inch it a little in the other direction
Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman, ladies and gentlemen. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/opinion/17krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion)
It's all sunshine and bunnies with this guy, isn't it?
Quote from: rjs246 on April 17, 2009, 12:05:40 PM
Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman, ladies and gentlemen. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/opinion/17krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion)
It's all sunshine and bunnies with this guy, isn't it?
Haha, indeed. Rays of hope everywhere!
I cant wait to see the Stress test results
Predictably, TARP funds have resulted in a clusterfarg criminal cases against certain recipients. (http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/21/news/economy/tarp_cop_barofsky/index.htm?postversion=2009042103)
This ought to be interesting...
Freddie Mac CFO offs himself (http://www.wtopnews.com/?sid=1657033&nid=25)
Following in the footsteps of J. Clifford Baxter
Quote from: FastFreddie on April 22, 2009, 09:47:20 AM
Freddie Mac CFO offs himself (http://www.wtopnews.com/?sid=1657033&nid=25)
Maybe "they" threatened his family if "they" thought he'd testify :paranoid
Can someone please explain refusal to allow banks to pay TARP money back and/or preferred to common stock conversions? (http://thehill.com/dick-morris/obamas-leap-to-socialism-2009-04-21.html)
The U.S. banking system is a confidence game. For the same reason the government forced healthy banks to take TARP money, they will prevent healthy banks from paying it back quickly: the stigmatization that would attend either scenario might corrode confidence to such a degree that it would cause the whole banking scam to collapse like a deck of cards.
That's the reasoning anyway, not that I buy it.
That actually isn't completely crazy. I don't really buy it either, but it doesn't offend me as much as I would think it would.
The whole "crises" is reactionary.
Pontiac is done (http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/24/autos/pontiac_obit/index.htm?postversion=2009042414)
That sucks. My last two cars have been Grand Prixs.
A Sammy Hagar fan driving a Grand Prix? No way!
That does suck. Pontiac was the only division still trying to make cool cars like the G8. I wonder if that made the value of my dream car, 1969 GTO Judge, skyrocket
for no reason other than pure boredom, i wanted to see what the first page of this thread looked like and i found this.
Quote from: ice grillin you on August 09, 2007, 08:42:47 PM
with all due respect this sounds like some y2k ish to me
igy gets +1 for pimping rajon rondo. but gets -5 for his fiscal forecasting skillz.
Quote from: ice grillin you on August 09, 2007, 09:24:05 PM
when the market hits rock bottom and if you have top notch credit would that be the ultimate time to buy a house (like romey said in like six months)
But he hit on this one. +2?
no, because he was asking a question. E
Quote from: FastFreddie on April 29, 2009, 03:00:05 PM
Quote from: ice grillin you on August 09, 2007, 09:24:05 PM
when the market hits rock bottom and if you have top notch credit would that be the ultimate time to buy a house (like romey said in like six months)
But he hit on this one. +2?
Bottom would have been Feb 2008 in that "prediction". Still a wee bit off.
since we're reminiscing.
Quote from: Butchers Bill on August 09, 2007, 09:27:55 PM
Quote from: ice grillin you on August 09, 2007, 09:24:05 PM
when the market hits rock bottom and if you have top notch credit would that be the ultimate time to buy a house (like romey said in like six months)
Assuming you know when rock bottom is, yes. Many a person have lost fortunes guessing the wrong rock bottom.
I think the bottom in real estate won't come for another 24-36 months though. This whole thing has to play itself out first. I personally feel there will have to be a homeowner bail-out at some point (similar to the S&L's of the 1980's). Bush actually mentioned the word bail-out today for the first time, saying he wouldn't support one, but he'll be gone when one becomes necessary.
out here, the market is pretty much at rock bottom right now.....about 4 months earlier than your prediction. not too shabby. of course, the market in the california desert is probably a lot different than in the northeast which is different than the gulf coast, etc, etc, etc. but i've got friends and family all over and i hear mostly the same thing from everyone, that their real estate market has gone about as low as it's going to.
i do think that it will be a while though until we see any significant increases in the real estate market though. so if you're looking to buy a house and get in on it while prices are low, there's no need to rush. that 200k house you're looking at today isn't going to sell for 275k six months from now. people are starting to buy again but it's going to be a few years for those homes to start accumulating any real value.
Gonna stand by my prediction...we have not seen the bottom yet, and will not until unemployment stabilizes and wages recover. Even though there are some people finding jobs, there is incredible downward pressure on wages right now, further exacerbating the housing mess.
This winter will be the time to buy, unless something unforeseen happens (another financial "surprise", international incident, war, etc.).
Dec 2010 is the end
I thought it was 2012?
Quote from: Butchers Bill on April 29, 2009, 03:08:51 PM
Quote from: FastFreddie on April 29, 2009, 03:00:05 PM
Quote from: ice grillin you on August 09, 2007, 09:24:05 PM
when the market hits rock bottom and if you have top notch credit would that be the ultimate time to buy a house (like romey said in like six months)
But he hit on this one. +2?
Bottom would have been Feb 2008 in that "prediction". Still a wee bit off.
But still not a bad time to buy. If you keep waiting for the bottom, you'll miss it
Quote from: Tomahawk on April 30, 2009, 11:23:30 AM
Quote from: Butchers Bill on April 29, 2009, 03:08:51 PM
Quote from: FastFreddie on April 29, 2009, 03:00:05 PM
Quote from: ice grillin you on August 09, 2007, 09:24:05 PM
when the market hits rock bottom and if you have top notch credit would that be the ultimate time to buy a house (like romey said in like six months)
But he hit on this one. +2?
Bottom would have been Feb 2008 in that "prediction". Still a wee bit off.
But still not a bad time to buy. If you keep waiting for the bottom, you'll miss it
Very true. With interest rates near all time lows and prices depressed it is a good time to buy without a doubt...as long as you plan on staying for 5-10 years. I still think there is a little room for prices to go lower, but opinions vary.
Quote from: Butchers Bill on April 29, 2009, 04:12:14 PM
I thought it was 2012?
According to the Mayans, it is.
REPENT!
Quote from: Butchers Bill on April 29, 2009, 04:12:14 PM
I thought it was 2012?
No, that's when Sheldon's contract is up.
So it is the end of the world, then.
The US is in the best position dominate puny international naysayers once this crisis has ended. (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4848)
Quote
There will be no winners from the prolonged and painful economic emergency. But some countries will lose more than others. The United States is likely to emerge less damaged than most, as unfair as that will seem to a world that blames it for triggering the crisis. For one thing, it is much easier for a chronic trade-deficit country such as the United States to rebuild its battered export sector than it is for export-oriented countries like China and Japan to rebalance their economies toward more consumption and social insurance. For another, the United States, alone among the world's leaders, is potentially an industrial superpower, a commodity superpower, and an energy superpower at the same time.
The United States will also continue to benefit from the inward flow of foreign money, talent, and labor. Others may grumble about the creditworthiness of Uncle Sam in light of emergency-driven deficits, but in the foreseeable future what places will be a safer haven for investments? A fragile and politically unstable China? Japan, with a shaky economy and aging population? A Europe of squabbling nation-states, riven by cleavages between natives and Muslim immigrants? Authoritarian petrostates where assets can be confiscated without warning?
The crisis has reduced the flow of immigrants into the United States along with the demand for their labor, but both should recover, putting the country back on its pre-crisis path of immigration-fed population growth and leading to a population of 400 to 500 million by 2050 and as many as a billion people by 2100. Whether the U.S. economy can grow rapidly enough to maintain a high standard of living for all those people remains to be seen (though prophets of Malthusian gloom about alleged U.S. overpopulation have been refuted many times before). The bottom line is: The populations of Europe, Russia, and Japan are declining, and those of China and India are leveling off. The United States alone among great powers will be increasing its share of world population over time.
Interesting stuff.
seems logical enough though. the strongest often get hit the hardest, but the impact is usually for a shorter term which enables faster recovery.
a pro football player gets hit and breaks his leg. i get hit the exact same way playing rec football and break my leg twice as bad. even though the pro got hit harder, buy a much bigger person than i did, he suffers less injury and will still recover quicker and get back on the field long before i do because his body is so fine tuned, it's not only more durable but it will heal faster as well. meanwhile, my bourbon and cheeseburger filled insides will totally crumble and will require complete and total reconstruction. actually, if i ever break my leg it would probably be easier and better for all involved if i was just put down.
Stop comparing professional athletes to the real world. It's just ridiculous.
its an analogy, not a comparison. putz.
haha anal
Everything in this article points to very positive signs in the economy. (http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/447xmcme.asp?pg=2)
But since it's being published by The Weekly Standard it slides in snide remarks about the current administration, despite the fact that it outlines how some of the policies are directly helping. 'Things are turning around and some of the policies are leading directly to these turnarounds. But we still don't like it!'
Clowns.
Remember the "Obama Bear Market"?
http://mediamatters.org/research/200903100036
Now that the market looks to have turned around I'm just sure Fox "News" will call it the Obama bull market.
If I weren't ignoring your posts I would remind you that the major stock market indexes are still lower (or right at) the levels that they were when Obama took office. Financial and housing reports are mixed from week to week and major companies are still on the verge of (or in the process of filing for) bankruptcy.
So let's not get all excited just yet. The economy is turning around, but the stock market isn't the only indicator of the economy's health as is evidenced by the fact that the Dow was never higher than when Bush was in office.
After laying in to ATV above, maybe it's contradictory to post some potentially good news, (http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/06/news/economy/job_cuts/index.htm?cnn=yes) but I'm gonna do it anyway.
I really thought America was going to turn into Cinderella Man and I might have to box my way out, so this is definitely good news
I don't understand why bac stock is up
Mostly because people are idiots.
Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on May 06, 2009, 11:21:04 AM
I don't understand why bac stock is up
traders thought B of A's capital shortfall was about $70 billion, but it was reported only $35 billion.... so they rejoiced
my g/f was just cut back to 32 hrs a week. next step is layoffs which i'm sure will happen over the summer unless business picks up.
Quote from: reese125 on May 06, 2009, 11:47:25 AM
Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on May 06, 2009, 11:21:04 AM
I don't understand why bac stock is up
traders thought B of A's capital shortfall was about $70 billion, but it was reported only $35 billion.... so they rejoiced
Werd. I got in at $4.76/share so my IRA is happy.
Quote from: Sgt PSN on May 06, 2009, 12:33:00 PM
my g/f was just cut back to 32 hrs a week. next step is layoffs which i'm sure will happen over the summer unless business picks up.
Maybe she can add some moves to her repertoire and start getting some 5's and 10's from her customers instead of the usual 1's.
If my parents try to move in with me I am going to be very farging displeased. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/06/AR2009050603322.html)
Ban Metamucil, make it a felony possession punishable by death. Boomer problem solved.
http://www.storyofstuff.com/
20 minute video worth watching
A succinct explanation of why the Auto bailouts were not only a bad idea, but borderline illegal. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/13/AR2009051303014.html)
Krugman lights up Reaganomics. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/opinion/01krugman.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper)
Reagan shot down the fundamentals of fiscal conservativism, and Dubya kicked dirt on its grave.
More from Krugman (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/15/opinion/15krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion)
This dude has a douchey tone, but he's a nobel prize winner so I guess that's something.
Politics and Unions standing in the way of a common sense component of Health Care reform. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/23/opinion/23brooks.html?_r=2&ref=opinion)
A VERY long New Yorker article on Health Care (written by a surgeon) and the factors that have led to such inflation of cost. (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande)
It also uses examples of several hospital centers around the country that are following a design of efficiency that has improved medical care and reduced costs drastically (the Mayo Clinics, Geisinger, etc.).
None of you illiterate monkeys will read an article this long, but it was fascinating.
a well-written article indeed
Ive been in the medical arena for years and have spoken to many surgeons who would rather prescribe every precaution necessary to avoid the rigors of a malpractice suit. Not to mention that advancement in medical technology has been used more as an unnecessary crutch than whats actually "supposed" to be prescribed to the patient
On one side I cant say that I blame them, but I agree with the author that too many medical based decisions are levied toward whats goes into their pocket and its crushing
Quote from: reese125 on June 30, 2009, 10:46:42 AM
Ive been in the medical arena for years
getting monthly shots for fire crotch at the free clinic doesn't count.
Quoteand have spoken to many surgeons who would rather prescribe every precaution necessary to avoid the rigors of a malpractice suit. Not to mention that advancement in medical technology has been used more as an unnecessary crutch than whats actually "supposed" to be prescribed to the patient
On one side I cant say that I blame them, but I agree with the author that too many medical based decisions are levied toward whats goes into their pocket and its crushing
suprisingly, i agree with all of this. well said.
A slightly right-leaning, but basically middle of the road, quick-hitter on government expansion. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/12/AR2009071201533.html)
Talking about Health Insurance Exchanges. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/28/AR2009072802114.html)
The super-leftist, sarcastic tone of this article is annoying and condescending and childish, but the actual content is spot on. (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/the-war-on-philanthropy-15190)
Nobel winning economist Paul Krugman weighs in again. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/10/opinion/10krugman.html?_r=2&ref=opinion)
Brief analysis of the conflicting Republican arguments against Health Care Reform. (http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_treatment/archive/2009/08/11/squeeze-play.aspx)
Health care whistle blower talks about how super duper the insurance companies are (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/12/health.industry.whistleblower/index.html)
QuoteNow a senior fellow on health care for the watchdog group Center for Media and Democracy, Potter writes a blog on health care reform. He is focusing on efforts to defeat legislation supporting a government health care plan -- something he supports.
In early July, Potter testified before the Senate Commerce Committee, telling senators that "I know from personal experience that members of Congress and the public have good reason to question the honesty and trustworthiness of the insurance industry."
Potter described how underwriters at his former company would drive small businesses with expensive insurance claims to dump their Cigna policies. Industry executives refer to the practice as "purging," Potter said.
"When that business comes up for renewal, the underwriters jack the rates up so much, the employer has no choice but to drop insurance," Potter had said.
Recipe for a ten year recovery. (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=222ee1ec-a3d9-4474-9ac1-b6a824f2a546)
QuotePretty much everything we know about the recessions that follow financial crises suggests that they last for an exceptionally long time. The reason has to do with a distinctive feature of these recessions: vast oceans of debt. During boom times, as a recent IMF report explains, people save less and borrow more, leading to a surge of consumer spending. But once the crisis hits, overextended households abruptly retrench. Saving shoots up as they pay down their debts; consumption plummets and can languish for years.[/url]
Are people finally starting to realize that 'rationing' of health care is already happening by insurance companies? (http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/19/prof-health-care-rationing-not-as-scary-as-it-sounds/)
QuoteRoberts: Kathleen Sebelius, the current HHS secretary, before she was the governor of Kansas was the state insurance commissioner. Talking about rationing, she says she "...saw [rationing] on a regular basis by private insurers, who often made decisions overruling suggestions that doctors would make for their patients." We talk about rationing potentially in the framework of a public option when it comes to health insurance, but is it not true that rationing is already taking place?
Singer: Oh definitely it is. After I wrote the New York Times article, I had a letter from someone who had multiple sclerosis. And he was both a British citizen, but living in America. And he was saying there were treatments like physical therapy that he was denied by his private insurance company, which were very effective and helpful, that he could get for free on the British National Health Service.
5 more posts you'll cover a full page
One does what one can.
OK so after reading all of the articles that I've posted in this thread, here's how I understand the Health Care issue at the moment:
- Economists all agree that the best way to bring costs down on a national scale would be to tax employee provided health insurance. Failing that, a small reduction or reasonable ceiling on benefits would save money. Based on this article (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4049dac4-8d05-11de-a540-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1) either of these options would save trillions. The White House won't consider this because the unions oppose it.
- A public option would provide a lot of leverage in terms of driving costs downs. Insurance companies are huge and negotiating with them from a position of weakness does not inspire confidence that they will be compelled to lower prices. A government run option has the size and strength to compete on a more level playing field. The alternative to a public option, not-for-profit co-operatives have proven to work on a small scale, but are likely to have trouble competing on a national, or even regional, scale. However, they do provide a good model and are probably a good starting point/stepping stone.
There. I'll stop now.
I completely support taxation of employer provided heath care, for what it's worth.
why?
im a union guy but in this case farg the unions....this is to important
I don't have much time right now to organize thoughts well, but here goes a quick rant:
Employees receive for free a service which costs money, which has real value. That value is quite high. Easily eight grand a year for a single employee, 15 for a spouse, and more for kids, etc. For the employee, it's a great deal...get thousands of dollars worth of services for free (less your few hundred a year on co-pays, etc.) and pay no taxes on that value.
But at the end of the day, it's income. Just like having an employer provided limo service is actually income. Had the employer not provided the health care, they'd have to pay the employee a similar quantity in salarly to keep him. And that would be taxed as income. So why isn't it taxed now?
The exemption from taxing health care as in come favors the rich: The higher the position, the greater the value of the health care plan offered. Executives get truly awesome, extremely expensive plans. I've seen this first hand. Private doctor visits to your office with no time limit, etc.
The exemption has the affect of shielding (or at best, obscuring) from the employee the actual cost of the health care. That's bad. People need to know that MRIs cost thousands each time, just like they know how much it costs to get the brakes fixed on your car. Without any idea how expensive this shtein is, and with someone else picking up the tab, irresponsible behavior is encouraged. Overuse of services, etc.
So what you've got is millions of people getting thousands of dollars each in services they don't have to pay for, or be taxed on. Great for them, but what about everyone else? The self employed? The part time employed? The unemployed? There's no money in any budget to offer them a similar sweetheart deal....they're farged.
That needs to end.
I'm sure I'm leaving out some points, but I gotta run.
Mind you, I'm advocating for taxing my own family. Our health care is provided through my hot nurse wife's job.
Quote from: ice grillin you on August 20, 2009, 04:26:46 PM
im a union guy but in this case farg the unions....this is to important
Unions have given up a lot to keep their health care. Instead of wage increases, they've fought to protect the health care plans. Why? Because they know damn well that the health care is way more important than some more dollars. I don't blame them at all, but times are changing. We can no longer have only corporate employees, union and government workers, and the independently rich rolling around as the only people who can afford health care.
QuoteOur health care is provided through my hot nurse wife's job
pics?
in your dreams hippy
Disney bought Marvel for $4 billion. Mickey Mouse and X-Men....a perfect team
Stan Lee has sold out??
Pretty soon the Repubelicans are going to have to find some new talking points...
"government efforts to funnel hundreds of billions of dollars into the U.S. economy appear to be helping the U.S. climb out of the worst recession in decades."
Says the Wall Streel Journal
http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/wall-street-journal-debunks-gop-on-stimulus
So what do you financial gurus recommend as an investment for the emergency fund? It seems most say bank account or money market mutual fund. Pretty low return these days but I know that at least you get the liquidity. Anything better out there?
yeah, should have bought in when the banks were at 3bucks.
Populist messages in my inbox! Yippee skippee!
QuoteChase is giving out $27 billion in bonuses. Goldman Sachs is expected to declare $23 billion and Citibank -- which lost over $7.5 billion last quarter -- is expected to dish out $24.9 billion.
The numbers are mind boggling. To put that into some context, just six banks are giving out enough in bonuses to nearly cover every state's estimated budget shortfall this year. In BONUSES!
Yikes.
and whats even sadder is the payout will be in the form of stock incentives which will be more lucrative than cash in the long-term
thank the unwillingness of the govt to, still after this debacle, not imposing any reforms and restrictions on the industry. shtein never changes.
I just bought a Lambo
GDP is up way above what was expected out of the 4th q-which is a very good sign.... but not a set in stone indicator that we are hitting a turning point. Still, this is a nice start.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/business/economy/30econ.html?hp (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/business/economy/30econ.html?hp)
Good news, but nothing to get excited about...yet.
Most of the increase came from decreasing inventories and gubmint spending. The decreasing inventories may be a good sign if factory orders pick up in February because if they don't it just means companies were clearing shtein out of their warehouses.
Oh yeah, and unemployment being under 9.75% would be a good indicator as well.
good signs, but definitely not gonna see true improvement till 2011
Gutless politicians on parade. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/31/AR2010013101837.html?hpid=opinionsbox1)
Obama's budget proposal. (http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/01/news/economy/Obama_budget/index.htm?hpt=T2)
Buried at the bottom despite its obvious importance:
QuoteIf Congress passed the budget, the deficit in 2011 would reach 8.3% of the U.S. gross domestic product -- down from a high this year of 10.6%. By 2014, it would drop to 3.9%.
The long-term goal is for the deficit to reach 3% of GDP, which many economists consider sustainable.
Progress.
Broken down further... (http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/01/news/economy/obama_budget_deficits/index.htm?hpt=T1)
Quote from: Seabiscuit36 on January 29, 2010, 11:31:29 AM
good signs, but definitely not gonna see true improvement till 2011
Another good sign is Catepillar has been re-hiring engineers and my old company called me back to start work next week. Also, word on the street says the housing market is slowly starting to turn around. I agree we won't see true improvement untill 2011 at the earliest, but it's nice to see we're headed in the right direction
getting us pointed in the right direction is really about all that i think we can reasonably expect the gov't to do. it's still up to consumers to spend their money wisely and also save wisely, businesses to provide a good product/service and run themselves efficiently, but not thin themselves out so much that increasing the bottom line risks faulty products/services and banks to lend fairly and responsibly.
of course, there will always be the naysayers out there who think that the turn around isn't fast enough or that it's the super wealthy who are footing the bill. but the truth is, the super wealthy are as much to blame for the down economy as anyone else because they were the ones turning the biggest profit while not really providing anything substantial in return to the consumer.
example: cheap, put together furniture at wal mart. great because it's highly affordable. bad because it's not durable. so what makes more sense? spend $50 on a dresser that's going to fall apart in a couple years, or spend $500 on a dresser that's going to last a lifetime? the $50 dresser is the cheapest way to solve the problem today but it's going to cost you more in the long term.
it's a loose analogy but i think it fits. some of the biggest, most profitable companies out there are raking in bags and bags of cash for crappy products. imo, that's exactly what our economy has turned into. it's like printing money on cheap toilet paper....not very durable. obviously, there's so much more that plays a part in the recession, but i think this is one of the bigger reasons.
The question becomes, what is 'the right direction'? All of the talk of regulation and reform is purely reactive and pointing us in a direction to avoid the problems we've already encountered. Worse it may just be, and probably is, heading us towards a new disaster.
Capitalism has unquestioningly raised the standard of living across the globe. It has brought countless nations and people out of poverty. It has by extension contributed to a decrease in war, a decrease in slavery and oppression, an increase in democracy, an increase in technological advancements and an ever-extending life expectancy.
But Capitalism has negative side effects too. It relies, by definition, on greed and self-interest. It relies on the homo-econimus model of human behavior that says that man acts in his own best interest and makes decisions rationally based on what is best for them (a model which dis-counts panic, mis-information, ignorance, snap-decisions... essentially it dis-counts human nature outside of a rational, well-informed vacuum and is being seriously challenged by congitive scientists). In other words, it's an imperfect model and the negative side effects are all around us in the form of globalization and consolidation.
For example...
I work with investment banks. 50 years ago these banks had a limited number of things that they were allowed to do. These rules were in place to reduce risk to the populations that rely on these banks to protect their hard-earned money. Fast forward to an era of deregulation and suddenly banks can accept deposits, create investment strategies, own hedge funds, run trading desks, run proporietary brokerage firms, create new kinds of securities to trade and act as custodian for their investment transactions... one company can essentially trade their clients' money within its own walls. This helped create the current mess, obviously.
Now let's take a hypothetical scenario. The US has anti-monopoly laws, but as Microsoft has proven repeatedly, those laws only apply if there is actual competition available. So let's say that Target decides to buy out Wal-Mart. Then let's say that Tar-Mart buys out Best Buy and K-Mart. In court Best-Tar-Mart-K can argue that Mom-and-Pop Incorporated sell boom boxes and cell phones and represent competition, but for all intents and purposes, they control the market. They can set prices at whatever level they want. And drive all competition out of business. (The first steps in this scenario are already happening of course.) So then we have one-stop shopping for all consumer goods, but what incentive is there for them to lower prices now? They've lowered prices over and over to drive out competition, but now there is no competition. Time to drive up prices. Now the government has to step in because we have boom box price inflation the likes of which we've never seen.
Now imagine that the exotic security or the boombox is actually the national food supply. This consolidation is happening there too.
My rambling point is this, reactive regulation is fine and necessary, but it doesn't address the bigger picture which is that we need to look forward for the important issues of the future. The brand of capitalism that we have right now leads necessarily to monopolies and massive, all-encompassing, all-powerful corporations that wield un-balanced control over our lives and our political structures. We can choose to accept that because we want to see our 401(k)s grow and we want one-stop shopping and steroids in our beef and air-conditioning in our Grand Cherokees, but we shouldn't pretend that slapping the financial industry on the wrist and cutting/raising taxes and whatever else people are suggesting is going to prevent the next crisis. Whatever the next crisis is, its already in motion and it isn't the housing bubble or mortgage backed securities or a 10% unemployment rate...
Rusty's a socialist! rabble rabble rabble rabble rabble
I really hate that no matter how much sense that makes, if I were to send that to a staunch Republican, he'd shoo it off and tell me that it's the American way and any other way is communist.
I don't think it's socialist. I think it's realistic.
Capitalism works, but may only be a stepping stone rather than the end-all be-all of our economic understanding. It's a relatively young concept, after all, and some cracks are starting to show. So it needs to be monitored and tweaked to make sure that we're not just handing control of our lives and governments over to corporations. I mean, that's just royalty (and a tiny elite ruling class) by a different name. In fact it's even worse because ruling humans are capable of human decisions. Ruling corporations would be ruled by one unwavering force, ever-increasing quantities of money.
As you pointed out, assuming people won't shtein on your head because it isn't nice has not been effective government strategy.
Quote from: rjs246 on February 01, 2010, 07:17:42 PM
I don't think it's socialist. I think it's realistic.
Capitalism works, but may only be a stepping stone rather than the end-all be-all of our economic understanding. It's a relatively young concept, after all, and some cracks are starting to show. So it needs to be monitored and tweaked to make sure that we're not just handing control of our lives and governments over to corporations. I mean, that's just royalty (and a tiny elite ruling class) by a different name. In fact it's even worse because ruling humans are capable of human decisions. Ruling corporations would be ruled by one unwavering force, ever-increasing quantities of money.
Oh of course. It's just frustrating seeing a guy like Obama get painted as a "socialist" by the fear mongering right when he's actually just a Keynesian. And why doesn't it make sense that it should fall somewhere in the middle of capitalism and communism. But common sense seems to elude a good chunk of politicians these days.
Also, I wasn't touting or berating Obama's view of the economy. In fact, nothing I said had anything to do with Obama. I agree that its frustrating to see Obama or anyone painted as a socialist when clearly he is not, but that has less than nothing to do with what I was talking about.
Further, I'm not even sure that the economic steps I'm talking about are 'between' capitalism and communism. Maybe it's the next step in capitalism. Or a step back. Or a step sideways. Or maybe it has nothing to do with either economic theory. I really don't know.
Quote from: rjs246 on February 01, 2010, 05:11:25 PM
The question becomes, what is 'the right direction'? All of the talk of regulation and reform is purely reactive and pointing us in a direction to avoid the problems we've already encountered. Worse it may just be, and probably is, heading us towards a new disaster.
Capitalism has unquestioningly raised the standard of living across the globe. It has brought countless nations and people out of poverty. It has by extension contributed to a decrease in war, a decrease in slavery and oppression, an increase in democracy, an increase in technological advancements and an ever-extending life expectancy.
But Capitalism has negative side effects too. It relies, by definition, on greed and self-interest. It relies on the homo-econimus model of human behavior that says that man acts in his own best interest and makes decisions rationally based on what is best for them (a model which dis-counts panic, mis-information, ignorance, snap-decisions... essentially it dis-counts human nature outside of a rational, well-informed vacuum and is being seriously challenged by congitive scientists). In other words, it's an imperfect model and the negative side effects are all around us in the form of globalization and consolidation.
For example...
I work with investment banks. 50 years ago these banks had a limited number of things that they were allowed to do. These rules were in place to reduce risk to the populations that rely on these banks to protect their hard-earned money. Fast forward to an era of deregulation and suddenly banks can accept deposits, create investment strategies, own hedge funds, run trading desks, run proporietary brokerage firms, create new kinds of securities to trade and act as custodian for their investment transactions... one company can essentially trade their clients' money within its own walls. This helped create the current mess, obviously.
Now let's take a hypothetical scenario. The US has anti-monopoly laws, but as Microsoft has proven repeatedly, those laws only apply if there is actual competition available. So let's say that Target decides to buy out Wal-Mart. Then let's say that Tar-Mart buys out Best Buy and K-Mart. In court Best-Tar-Mart-K can argue that Mom-and-Pop Incorporated sell boom boxes and cell phones and represent competition, but for all intents and purposes, they control the market. They can set prices at whatever level they want. And drive all competition out of business. (The first steps in this scenario are already happening of course.) So then we have one-stop shopping for all consumer goods, but what incentive is there for them to lower prices now? They've lowered prices over and over to drive out competition, but now there is no competition. Time to drive up prices. Now the government has to step in because we have boom box price inflation the likes of which we've never seen.
Now imagine that the exotic security or the boombox is actually the national food supply. This consolidation is happening there too.
My rambling point is this, reactive regulation is fine and necessary, but it doesn't address the bigger picture which is that we need to look forward for the important issues of the future. The brand of capitalism that we have right now leads necessarily to monopolies and massive, all-encompassing, all-powerful corporations that wield un-balanced control over our lives and our political structures. We can choose to accept that because we want to see our 401(k)s grow and we want one-stop shopping and steroids in our beef and air-conditioning in our Grand Cherokees, but we shouldn't pretend that slapping the financial industry on the wrist and cutting/raising taxes and whatever else people are suggesting is going to prevent the next crisis. Whatever the next crisis is, its already in motion and it isn't the housing bubble or mortgage backed securities or a 10% unemployment rate...
I seriously picture you in a boston corner coffee house, wth a black J-Crew turtleneck, smoking massive amounts of indian butts, talking with your cronies at all hours about this shtein...except youre not drinking coffee...youre drinking black tea with honey with both hands wrapped around the cup. Am I way off?
I know it's not what YOU were talking about. I read what you said, agreed with it, then talked about what I wanted to talk about.
Carry on.
Quote from: reese125 on February 01, 2010, 09:26:44 PM
I seriously picture you in a boston corner coffee house, wth a black J-Crew turtleneck, smoking massive amounts of indian butts, talking with your cronies at all hours about this shtein...except youre not drinking coffee...youre drinking black tea with honey with both hands wrapped around the cup. Am I way off?
I don't live in Boston any more.
I have no idea what indian butts are unless you're talking about anal with squaws. In which case, sure.
I don't own any turtle necks.
I don't go to coffee houses, starbucks or any other place that doesn't serve alcohol.
I don't talk about politics with my friends, only with you idiots. Why do you think I feel the need to brain dump like that? I would never bore my actual friends with my political thoughts.
So yes, you were spot on.
Economy is getting better, im rich
Krugman once again tries to put the deficit into perspective. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/opinion/05krugman.html)
QuoteConsider, for example, what the latest budget proposal from the Obama administration says about interest payments on federal debt; according to the projections, a decade from now they'll have risen to 3.5 percent of G.D.P. How scary is that? It's about the same as interest costs under the first President Bush.
Why, then, all the hysteria? The answer is politics.
The main difference between last summer, when we were mostly (and appropriately) taking deficits in stride, and the current sense of panic is that deficit fear-mongering has become a key part of Republican political strategy, doing double duty: it damages President Obama's image even as it cripples his policy agenda. And if the hypocrisy is breathtaking — politicians who voted for budget-busting tax cuts posing as apostles of fiscal rectitude, politicians demonizing attempts to rein in Medicare costs one day (death panels!), then denouncing excessive government spending the next — well, what else is new?
The problem with Krugmans analysis is that he expects a return to "normal" GDP growth. By that I mean non-manipulated economic growth...exports, wages, and productivity rising. GDP can so easily be manipulated that is almost means nothing anymore; for example in the 3rd quarter of 2004 (if I remember correctly) the annualized rate of growth was something like 9%, but it was based on mortgage refinancing and all of this "new" money being pushed into the economy. Not real growth, but fake paper.
Is it your opinion that exports and productivity are certainly not going to return to normal? It seems to me (at least in theory) that with a renewed focus on producing and exporting goods some of the problems around the service-based nature of our economy can be mitigated, but I have no idea what that would entail, whether it's feasible or even possible. Sounds like you have a hell of a lot more economic training and background than I do so I'm curious...
Some ideas that will never happen because they rely on political cooperation. (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1959029,00.html)
What the farg does this country even export aside from food and weapons these days? And more to the point, everyone around the world is ass deep in debt and can't afford the shtein we'd sell them anyway, so really, what's the point of cranking up an economy to produce shtein no one can afford now?
Quote from: Rome on February 05, 2010, 07:03:09 PM
What the farg does this country even export aside from food and weapons these days?
Intellectual properties.
We export a lot of bombs one way or another.
i export pain and suffering
Quote from: rjs246 on February 05, 2010, 12:26:50 PM
Is it your opinion that exports and productivity are certainly not going to return to normal? It seems to me (at least in theory) that with a renewed focus on producing and exporting goods some of the problems around the service-based nature of our economy can be mitigated, but I have no idea what that would entail, whether it's feasible or even possible. Sounds like you have a hell of a lot more economic training and background than I do so I'm curious...
There is a phrase thats been beaten to death the past couple years, the "New Normal". Bill Gross (who I consider the best investor ever...Buffett can suck it) coined it and everyone else has essentially stolen it. The New Normal for the US is essentially little to zero real growth, with inflation and a weakening dollar halting any substantial gains.
Producing and exporting should (theoretically) increase as the dollar weakens because foreign currencies will be able to purchase more of our junk. The problem is we have no manufacturing base left and its virtually impossible to open a factory of any kind in the US due to environmental regulations and the cost of labor. Also consider that as our dollar weakens its less likely that other countries will be willing to finance our over exuberance. The cost of labor is only an issue because our government as re-established the slave trade of the 1600-1700's except this time is Asians instead of Africans.
The best case scenario would be a return to a more balanced economy where we actually MAKE stuff (Bill Gross said in 2004 that we need to export more than Krispy Kremes and Treasury Bills), but that would take concessions from the G.O.P. on the whole slave labor thing, and the Dems on the environment and labor costs. We have become so polarized politically that I am afraid its a lost cause.
TARP is getting closer to breaking even for taxpayers. (http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/03/news/companies/warrants.tarp.fortune/index.htm)
I'm amazed, frankly. I was completely apalled by the bailout when it happened but lo and behold it looks like it might have saved the financial system AND not cost the country that much. Pretty remarkable.
Along the same lines...
AIG is about halfway to paying back its loan to the taxpayers... (http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/08/news/companies/aig_payback/index.htm)
Again, amazed.
i'm not amazed that they're repaying their loan but i'll be amazed if they incorporate better business practices, especially in regards to their frivilous spendings.
America's workers don't have enough in their retirement funds. (http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/09/pf/retirement_confidence/index.htm)
I think this is going to be the key to the next huge national issue. Social Security is a disaster. Companies don't offer pensions anymore. The cost of living and healthcare has outpaced the increase in salaries by a wide margin and everyone's 401(k) took a massive hit last year and made it all too apparent that the stock market is not necessarily the guaranteed safety blanket that we had been told it was. All of this leads me to think that the flood of retirement aged people in the population are going to be shocked into action when they realize that they can't retire.
Oh I think they already hit that point about a year ago
Quote from: Rome on February 05, 2010, 07:03:09 PM
What the farg does this country even export aside from food and weapons these days? And more to the point, everyone around the world is ass deep in debt and can't afford the shtein we'd sell them anyway, so really, what's the point of cranking up an economy to produce shtein no one can afford now?
Lots of research and medical equipment for sure
Quote from: rjs246 on March 09, 2010, 09:50:20 AM
America's workers don't have enough in their retirement funds. (http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/09/pf/retirement_confidence/index.htm)
I think this is going to be the key to the next huge national issue. Social Security is a disaster. Companies don't offer pensions anymore. The cost of living and healthcare has outpaced the increase in salaries by a wide margin and everyone's 401(k) took a massive hit last year and made it all too apparent that the stock market is not necessarily the guaranteed safety blanket that we had been told it was. All of this leads me to think that the flood of retirement aged people in the population are going to be shocked into action when they realize that they can't retire.
I agree with you. I'm amazed that so many of the people I know - smart people with good jobs - that have somewhere between $10K and $50K in their 401(k). I obviously don't know about any other retirement accounts, but I have to assume that many of them don't have them. These are people in their 30's and 40's that have decided it's better to spend everything (and then some) on cool cars, houses that are too big for their families, 4 plasma TVs and home theatre rooms, etc. I feel for them as they begin to realize - shtein, I only have 20 years to retirement, and I'm going to be lucky to have $100K or so then, and I'll have to keep working.
As a country, the recession has had one positive effect - the population as a whole is saving more:
http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/saving.gif
Of course, if you extrapolate that the average worker in the US earns $58K (as reported in 2006, last figure I can find), then 4 to 5% of that is not much. And that's assuming that 100% of that extra money is being saved and/or invested.
Worried about Government spending?
12 steps to saving $1 Trillion. (http://www.uspirg.org/first-trillion?id4=EM)
Really good stuff right here.
I listen to a lot of NPR, read a lot of NYTimes and Baltimore Sun. I read some of rusty's links and all kinds of other hit or miss crap from different news sites on the internet. I talk to people about politics and current events. My old lady is no dummy, and has her own perspective.
All of which is to say, I'm paying attention. I'm not an expert, but I'm listening and thinking about this stuff.
I have one thought that I don't here very much. It might help to say what I hear a lot of: it's going to take a long time to get back to normal. it's a long road back to financial health. Obama is ruining the economy. Bush ruined the economy and Obama is doing as well as can be expected. Etc. Etc.
What I don't here is anyone pointing out that the economic growth and wealth to which everyone is referring was FAKE.
Fake through and through.
The jobs aren't coming back this year or next or the year after or the year after that. They are gone. Obama cannot resurrect the economy of 2006, neither could McCain, nor could anyone. I'm tired of hearing all these talking heads, from politicians to news pundits to the average dude on the street rambling on about getting back to the impossible, etc.
Thanks.
Agree completely. And instead of turning things around by funding innovation and small business, the government (first with Bush and now with Obama) is dumping money into the industries that are being run into the ground with fake money. Additionally, the fuel behind all the growth was debt and more debt, and instead of offering more ways to get out of debt, the government is making sure people stay in it... while doing the same in their own budgeting.
And as most of us have agreed, the real solutions are not going to happen, because they aren't immediately politically expedient. Politicians care about getting re-elected and couldn't give a rat's ass about "doing the right thing."
Quote from: Butchers Bill on August 09, 2007, 09:27:55 PM
Quote from: ice grillin you on August 09, 2007, 09:24:05 PM
when the market hits rock bottom and if you have top notch credit would that be the ultimate time to buy a house (like romey said in like six months)
Assuming you know when rock bottom is, yes. Many a person have lost fortunes guessing the wrong rock bottom.
I think the bottom in real estate won't come for another 24-36 months though. This whole thing has to play itself out first. I personally feel there will have to be a homeowner bail-out at some point (similar to the S&L's of the 1980's). Bush actually mentioned the word bail-out today for the first time, saying he wouldn't support one, but he'll be gone when one becomes necessary.
Not that I am Nostradomus or anything, but I hit those well.
Not to be an alarmist, but we are entering part two of this farging disaster.
Short, but interesting article (http://www.cnbc.com/id/38930268)
The stimulus was short-sighted and wasteful, and the core problems still remain. So, yeah, it's going to have to get worse before it gets better.
The economy is so farging terrible right now. My cousin had an exorcism 6 months ago, but she hasn't been able to make her payments so they repossessed her.
Your lesbian cousin?
I get the feeling that people with a view behind the curtain into some of our country's biggest financial institutions are way more terrified of the future than the general population are. I couldn't speculate about timelines, but I get the serious impression that we are in a bad spot.
I was originally stridently opposed to the bailout, but eventually came to see that it was necessary to stave off complete collaspe. In the aftermath, however, seeing how the Financial Reform bill has been neutered I wonder if we shouldn't have just let the system fall in on itself. Do you know that the assets and accounts of the massive banks that went under (Lehman, Bear) were simply bought by other massive banks? Meaning that there are now even less 'too big to fail banks' with even more consolidated power. The next crises will be way worse than the last one.
Break the big five banks up. Now. This is not the kneejerk reaction of someone who lost some money in their 401(k). There are serious systemic problems that are perpetuated by and cannot be fixed within these massive financial corporations. Continue to cater to them at your peril.
Also, Sarge, please kill yourself.
I think we're farged for the better part of a decade. Great Depression II stuff.
And it seems like we've learned nothing.
Quote from: rjs246 on September 30, 2011, 06:38:03 PM
I get the feeling that people with a view behind the curtain into some of our country's biggest financial institutions are way more terrified of the future than the general population are.
Insider selling outpaced insider buying 19 to 1 in October. (http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/06/markets/insider_selling/index.htm?iid=Lead)
7.23% of the population in MD are millionaires....tops in the country
hawaii is second with 7.21
#golfclap
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-last-mystery-of-the-financial-crisis-154447818.html?page=all
Matt Taibbi is going to get himself assassinated one of these days. The big boys don't like him.
QuoteWhat about the ratings agencies?
That's what "they" always say about the financial crisis and the teeming rat's nest of corruption it left behind. Everybody else got plenty of blame: the greed-fattened banks, the sleeping regulators, the unscrupulous mortgage hucksters like spray-tanned Countrywide ex-CEO Angelo Mozilo.
But what about the ratings agencies? Isn't it true that almost none of the fraud that's swallowed Wall Street in the past decade could have taken place without companies like Moody's and Standard & Poor's rubber-stamping it? Aren't they guilty, too?
Man, are they ever. And a lot more than even the least generous of us suspected.
He's my journalistic hero at the moment. It was Michael Hastings but look how that turned out.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/24/journalist-michael-hastings-sends-chilling-e-mail-to-colleagues-before-death/
Taibbi is a god. Journalism has been swallowed up by the corporatization of the country and there are very few in the field who actually go digging for non-sanctioned, uncomfortable truths any more. The Post's research into the gigantic and dysfunctional intelligence complex that arose out of 9/11 is the last piece I remember that was done by a major publication that really took guts... But even that was just reporting on what we already suspected and had little cultural impact.
Taibbi by himself does more hard investigative work about more critically important topics than every other major news source combined.
Former Goldman Sachs Trader Suing Because He "Only" Got An $8mil Bonus (http://nypost.com/2014/06/19/ex-goldman-trader-says-8-25m-bonus-fell-short/)
this is insane
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-11-14/guess-how-much-money-bill-gross-made-last-year
Insane isn't the right word.
Nauseating would do, though.
It's dangerous for society. No one earns that kind of money. Some get it, legally, because our system lets them, but can't we just be honest and call it what it is: graft.
The natural conclusion of this trend is guys like Gross having their heads chopped off...and then more and less justifiable murders to follow.
T Minus 4 minutes till explosion
BOOM
Oh artificially inflated stock prices are taking a long-overdue hit? Yawn. We're down like 15% from the market top, right? Big whoop.
The start was entertaining to say the least, shades of '08. The clawing back though seems completely artificial, it'll be interesting to see what happens at close.
Agreed. Looks very much like a dead cat bounce. I think there are more losses to come, but as the best performing economy in the developed world, the long-term implications of this are minimal and 9-5 suckers like me with 20 years left til cash-out time can use it as a buying opportunity.
exactly, unless you have one foot in the grave like rome, this is an awesome time to buy, buy, buy.
Put the, uh, Duke brothers' seats on the exchange up for sale at once. Seize all assets of Duke & Duke Commodities Brokers, as well as all personal holdings of Randolph and Mortimer Duke.
awesome reference. now I need to watch that movie.
Look out below bitches. Brexit is happening.
They had to know the financial and economical trade ramifications but yet this is still gonna go down. I don't get it.
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on June 23, 2016, 11:38:24 PM
They had to know the financial and economical trade ramifications but yet this is still gonna go down. I don't get it.
Sometimes you gotta burn it all down to keep those sand stillupfronts from moving in and taking it.
lol is that really a reason?!
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on June 23, 2016, 11:41:16 PM
lol is that really a reason?!
https://twitter.com/AmyMek/status/746186153334812672
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on June 23, 2016, 11:38:24 PM
They had to know the financial and economical trade ramifications but yet this is still gonna go down. I don't get it.
My opinion, as I am not a British political analyst, is that there is a significant portion of the population there that feels completely left out economically. We are seeing this phenomena globally. Italy had a very close election a few years ago, Greece voted in economic "rebels". Spain and France have really interesting elections coming up too with the same dynamic. Oh, and then there is our shtein show of an election.
That being said, the global economy which I actually do know a lot about, has become far too complicated and intertwined for the average Joe to understand. Voters will make mistakes simply because they do not understand the downstream consequences.
Going to be a rough ride.
the good news america isnt the only first world nation with a bunch of dumb, racist white people
the bad news is we still have to vote
But the good news is we don't get to vote on anything important.
The pound is down to $1.33
Gold is up 5.6%
Pound is the lowest it's been since 1985. farging Marion Campbell was still the coach then.
xe.com is being crushed tonight, or some of its tools are at least.
Japan has halted trading reportedly
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on June 24, 2016, 12:20:34 AM
Japan has halted trading reportedly
Hearing some rumors from friends in Asia and Europe that there is no liquidity, no buyers and markets are struggling to find a bottom. Even to open. Bigger banks like Goldman are on the sidelines and not providing liquidity to markets.
farg me. Tomorrow is going to suck major ass.
This is legit crazy. My SPXS is gonna rule tomorrow tho. People don't realize how racist this is but the Racist Trump wave is affecting the world.
Quote from: General_Failure on June 23, 2016, 11:50:56 PM
But the good news is we don't get to vote on anything important.
lol...so true
say what you want about politicians or bankers or lawyers or any of these people that joe the plumber thinks should be exterminated...the fact is the majority of them are really smart informed people who know what the farg they are talking about...i have no idea how a country could put something this big and this important up for a farging referendum
this idea in the us especially a few years ago where the right led by people like sara palin made dumb being a good thing drives me farging crazy
I work for a dutch bank subsidiary. could be a fun ride today.
QuoteThe decision by the United Kingdom to leave the European Union is having a ripple effect around the world Friday, with British Prime Minister David Cameron announcing his resignation and global markets tumbling.
Here's the latest:
Cameron, who opposed the Brexit, says he will step down -- but didn't give an exact timetable for his departure. And who might replace him? Maybe Boris Johnson, the former mayor of London who was a leading proponent of the move to leave the EU. Johnson is one of the country's most popular and eccentric politicians. But he's gone from a figure of fun to a serious contender to replace Cameron.
MARKETS PLUNGE
The news is crushing global financial markets. The pound plunged to its lowest level in more than 30 years before recovering a bit.
Stocks in London and Europe took one of their biggest falls in years. London's FTSE 100 index plunged as much as 8% at one point. The FTSE 250 index dropped 7.5%. Many analysts see the FTSE 250 as a more accurate reflection of the British economy.
• Germany's DAX is down 7%
• The French CAC is plunging 8%
• Stocks in Ireland are down nearly 10%
Dow futures, which indicate how shares in the U.S. will open at 9:30 a.m. ET, dropped 500 points.
Asian investors panicked as well. Japan's benchmark Nikkei closed down 7.9%, with shares in Hong Kong and Australia slumping about 3%.
BANKS REEL
The global banking industry also is reeling. But the Bank of England expressed confidence in the resilience of the UK's financial sector, and said it was ready to provide support if needed.
WHAT DOES BREXIT MEAN FOR THE BRITISH?
It could affect everything from home prices, to tourism, universities and EU citizens living in Britain.
WHAT DOES BREXIT MEAN FOR THE UK?
Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said that the option for a second independence referendum is being considered. "Scotland voted to stay in the EU. It is democratically unacceptable to be taken out of EU against our will."
AND WHAT ABOUT THE REST OF THE EUROPEAN UNION?
There are 27 countries still in the EU. The decision by the UK to go it alone leaves the jilted European Union with some tough soul-searching of its own as it contemplates a new future.
well
if only I had some extra cash floating around...in a couple days I'll be able to buy three or four times the stock as I could have done last week
https://apple.news/AzCgbs2JARp-a-9UHBmGpOA
Thanks, Cheeto Dick.
His two BFFs have farged him. Vlad and MBS.
Another bloodbath
Glad we can be confident in Cheeto Dick and his minions to help stave this off.
Lose your retirement to own the libs.
Maybe in a cruel twist we'd lose a chunk to own the MAGAts
If this continues and he no longer has the market to lean on and gets him and his disgusting crew gone...cool
Delivery companies will only grow as a result. Think of all those cranky boomers and older who have so far refused to learn how to order shtein from Amazon, all having their kids and grandkids over to be taught how to get Giant to send the groceries to the doorstep.
A bunch of them will survive, and of those, few will go back to Shop Rite ever again.
Dow futures down over 1000 right now
Buy the dips!
I taught myself options trading earlier this year and it has really come in handy lately. have made bank riding the volatility the last two weeks. mostly playing SPY and betting against the airlines and cruise lines. shtein will go up or down 400-500% overnight. with no sports to gamble on i've been a bit addicted the last few weeks. obviously some luck involved but easy money. things are gonna get a lot worse before they get better.
I need to learn this.
I've been making watch lists of stocks that have been in the shteinter and are mainly hospitality/travel/oil based
I'm still a newb but know enough to do some damage. feels a bit unamerican making money off the market tanking but meh, it's going to happen regardless. last two weeks have actually been quite a rush - i've made more in two weeks than my boring portfolio has made in the last two years.
It might be the most American thing, second to making money off war.
Quote from: General_Failure on March 17, 2020, 02:19:04 PM
It might be the most American thing, second to making money off war.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoOXlVBlFRA
Down 3k Monday
Up 1k yesterday
Down 1300 so far today
WTF - why the extreme swings?
That's sarcasm, right? A snarky rhetorical question?
Extreme swings are occuring because people are people and times are wildly unpredictable.
Half rhetorical and half serious.
Monday was brutal. The news yesterday about the economic stimulus calmed things down and it rose. I'm curious as to what drives that optimism at market close yesterday into a losing the 1k they gained yesterday plus an additional (thus far) 500 points.
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on March 18, 2020, 12:42:48 PM
Half rhetorical and half serious.
Monday was brutal. The news yesterday about the economic stimulus calmed things down and it rose. I'm curious as to what drives that optimism at market close yesterday into a losing the 1k they gained yesterday plus an additional (thus far) 500 points.
Uncertainty. Rumors of an extended (18 month) quarantine. Continued expansion and extension of current limits/closings. Lack of faith in leadership.
Did I miss anything?
That about covers it I suppose!
this is brutal. But then again its likely going to doom Cheeto Dick in November so minor victory
By November the older voters might actually be dead, so mail in ballots will actually get counted this year.
So do we think the cruise liners go completely under? Got an etrade account but held off on buying for more lows, but now they're all in/near single dollars. If they don't get bailed out are they done?
They'll get bailed out.
You think a global industry of floating malls will be allowed to perish? Come now. Fat stupid people rule the world and they demand their comforts.
No they won't go under.
Royal, Norwegian and Carnival will all rebound.
So will the airlines.
From up 500 to down 900.
JFC
And the Fed keeps trying to fix it and it only makes it worse.
Soo like a legit week at this point before it drops to triple digits?
Pretty much.
Worst week since 1931.
Print that out and autograph it, Cheeto Dick.
I don't think anyone else calls him Cheeto Dick but you say it so f'n often I've actually repeated it IRL.
Congrats.
Lol you made my day
I don't even if I remember if I heard someone else say or if I just said it one day but here we are.
I could go for watching some stock brokers take a header out a window.
As long as they're following Cheeto Dick out of the window
When I saw the clip where he called the State Dept the deep State Dept that caused Fauci to face palm and the market was at -198. That clown kept talking and it started dropping harder.
farg that guy
Putin must be loving this sitcom.
No doubt. He's probably watching the pee tape on a loop
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on August 04, 2019, 12:15:47 PM
I'm sure the thoughts and prayers corksuckers will be out in full force today.
Two in one day? Targeting brown people in El Paso because Cheeto dick encourages it. Wonder what the shteinbag in Ohio reason was.
Sickening.
First appearance of "Cheeto Dick."
Yes. I'm that farging bored. I actually searched for it.
lol my sister will be proud I started it on her birthday
https://twitter.com/LeftAtLondon/status/1241211280926466049
Eat the rich.
id like to believe that the one good thing that could come from corona is that people wake up and realize we have more than enough money to pay for things that people always tell us we cant afford but i dont believe in anything anymore
Cheeto Dick is doing his magic on the markets again. The Dow futures have hit limit down already. Implied open of -964 tomorrow.
They need to pass this stimulus bill tonight or the bloodbath continues.
The GOP version of the bill is ugly and bad. At least they got rid of the phase ins.
Good news is, Dems have a lot of leverage here. Hopefully they use it.
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/03/22/coronavirus-stimulus-congress-struggles-to-reach-a-deal.html?__twitter_impression=true
God
farging
Dammit
I wouldn't give the airlines a cent. I'd pay the regular employees and tell the CEO's to eat shtein. They're not going to go out of business because some other rich jerkoff will buy them. They won't jack prices up because people are afraid to travel. You live by Capitalism you can die by Capitalism.
Yep.
They all poured money into stock buybacks. farg them. They can borrow money and use their assets as leverage.
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on March 22, 2020, 07:36:15 PM
Yep.
They all poured money into stock buybacks. farg them. They can borrow money and use their assets as leverage.
Supposedly the bill they're proposing restricts stock buy backs. My issue with that is rich folk know how to play the game and exploit loopholes.
The problem was the bill basically gave the Treasury Secretary to waive any of those rules meant to reign in corporations as he sees fit.
I don't trust these people for a second to give them that power.
This farging woman here has earth sized balls to post this
https://twitter.com/senatorloeffler/status/1241861479692992512 21
Lindsay Graham's lousy ass is holding up the stimulus because he believes unemployed payments are too high.
Market was soaring yesterday and today and then when that little weasel farg stepped in the slid back. And no shock that a GOP boot licker wants to hurt the regular person while sucking off corporations.
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a31932185/lindsey-graham-block-coronavirus-stimulus-bill-republicans/
I hope he dies screaming in agony.
Yesterday was nice in the market. I last checked today was +900...and ended -26
Wild swings.