In article
<0e5a42af-a728-4ad6-a1cb-9b25a66aa3fe@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
kujebak <kujebak@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Apr 12, 4:44 pm, Karel Kriz <ka...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > In article
> > <5b0b13fb-4967-4341-a405-e98876eff...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > kujebak <kuje...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > Stan R wrote:
> > > > kujebak contributed these words of wisdom on 11/04/08 07:33:
> >
> > > > <...>
> >
> > > > > The only two remarkable aspects of the current financial
> > > > > crisis are its root cause,
> >
> > > > You mean government-inspired political correctness? Or the
Fed-inspired
> > > > credit bubble, caused by what can be termed a criminally loose
monetary
> > > > policy under the Chairman****p of Mr Irrational Exuberance?
> >
> > > Greenspan, and his monetary policy is what's responsible
> > > for this country's current economic woes. He killed the eco-
> > > nomic expansion (often credited to Clinton by left wing dema-
> > > gogues) brought about by demilitarization of the U.S. econo-
> > > my at end of the Cold War. For what he (Greenspan) did sub-
> > > sequent to that, in order to save the economy from complete
> > > collapse, he should be in jail today. Never mind his age.
> > > Where is the indignation over the Federal Reserve's handling
> > > of the economy in '99 - 2001? Why are we instead preoccupied
> > > with scapegoats, like Bears and Stern and Exxon Mobil?
> > > Because it's the election year. Economic misery always sells
> > > at the polls.
> >
> > What happened to the economy in 1999-2001? I don't remember any major
> > issues then...except that we had a balanced budget and a surplus. It
is
> > unrealistic to expect anyone to get upset over some economy hiccup
that
> > happened 8 years ago, so this blatant attempt to hang something on
> > Clinton is destined to fail. Bear Stearns and Exxon Mobil are not
> > scapegoats. How can a company making obscene profits quarter after
> > quarter be a scapegoat for anything? Sounds like you want to turn
clock
> > back to pre-Bush time...I'm with you on that one, but it ain't gonna
> > happen...
>
> What happened in 2001? I was the beginning of the most
> significant economic correction ending the most significant
> period of economic growth we've had since the end of WW2,
> if not the entire 20th century. Of course there have been
> other factors that played into the epidemic of economic pes-
> simism, from which we have yet to recover, like 9/11, but
> there is no denying this pessimism was engendered by Green-
> span and the Fed in the late 90's. How could you not be aware
> of this "economic hiccup" in your line of business? I almost
> lost my own job in 2002, not to mention my 6-digit losses
> in the stock market in the two prior years. And this Roose-
> velt-era economics you keep touting? Had it not been for
> Pearl Harbor, and America's heavy deficit spending to finance
> the war effort, which basically replaced the New Deal social
> programs, it is difficult to imagine what this country would
> be today. It wouldn't certainly be something that would inspire
> me enough to leave my own homeland for. Which brings me
> to the question that always comes to mind after reading
> every one of your replies - why the hell didn't you stay in
> Sweden?
Ah, you are talking about the Internet crash. That left us unscathed as
we did not subscribe to the shares madness assuming that every Internet
startup will go from nothing to an IPO and everyone will get rich. I am
sorry to hear that you had some losses. Maybe if you didn't vote in a
Republican President, you'd have received a bailout of sorts. But I am
being fascecious. That happens every time someone asks me why I am here
and not in some other place. Usually a swift kick in the backside stops
any further questions, but I'll answer you.
The only reason why I came to the US is with the purpose of being able
to keep an eye on you and your ilk, who have some odd ideas about what
this country is and what it should be. Since you are unable to
distinguish shades between black and white, I doubt that I will ever
show you the error of your rotten-to-the-core conservative views and
values. But I will try because I lived for 18 years and 3 days in a
totalitarian regime and I pledged to myself that that will never happen
again.
So you can arm yourself to the teeth and have the NRA at your back and
you can yearn for the the golden days when you could whip your slave to
within inches of his life and no one could do anything about that. But I
guarantee you, that every time your let that bile forth, I;ll be there
to remind you what this country is actually about and how badly you are
missing the boat and that it is time for you to stand up and smell the
****ing roses. That is why I am here. And a few other reasons THAT ARE
NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
K
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > and the way it's being ****trayed
> > > > > in the media. It is quite astoni****ng to compare present
> > > > > day perception of how capitalism is supposed to work to
> > > > > the way Americans used to think 40 years ago.
> >
> > > > That does not apply just to America. All over the western world
more and
> > > > more people believe it is the government's job to look after them
and to
> > > > ensure they are happy and their needs are met. If they screw up,
then
> > > > why - it's the government's job to bail them out!
> >
> > > > Painlessly, of course.
> >
> > > > > To most
> > > > > people today, when one makes a profit from an investment,
> > > > > that's capitalism, but when one loses money in a risky,
> > > > > or ill-conceived economic venture, that's not capitalism.
> >
> > > > The trouble is, George, that while you are correct in principle, a
large
> > > > part of the current problem has been caused also by financial
gurus with
> > > > black box modelling systems, who believed they were bullet proof
and
> > > > that that the concept of black swans was no more than an academic
> > > > economists' fairy tale.
> >
> > > > The sheer complexity of many of the products that are now going
bad,
> > > > coupled with what can only be termed greed and short-termism (best
seen
> > > > in the amount of leverage some of these "experts" have been
using), has
> > > > made sure that even the wonder boys now don't know what the extent
of
> > > > their liabilities really is. Creative accounting can only help up
to a
> > > > point in such cases. Ultimately insolvency cannot be avoided.
> >
> > > > This is the main reason for the credit crunch - counterparty risk.
This
> > > > is also why the CDS implosion, coupled with bankruptcy of one or
more
> > > > major banks is rather likely.
> >
> > > I must disagree with you there, Stan. I don't think it was
> > > what you say that *caused* the so-called credit crunch.
> > > All of what you mention were merely byproducts of the un-
> > > derlying financial disturbance in our economy - too much idle
> > > cash, and ridiculously low interest rates for too long a period
> > > of time, which drove the long term rates (and the cost of home
> > > owner****p) to unprecedented lows. The fixed mortgage rates
> > > bottomed out at well below 5% here on the West Coast. The
> > > creative mortgage products (like negative amort. loans) that
> > > eventually replaced conventional mortgages after initial re-
> > > financing frenzy (I personally refied my own house three times
> > > since the mid 90's) were merely a means to continue selling
> > > overinflated real estate to people who couldn't afford it, and
> > > shouldn't really have been in the market. Speculators, house
> > > flippers, and those like the immature couple in the article.
> >
> > > > > That is some sort of foul play, and a reason for government
> > > > > involvement (i.e. socialism). When people sign one of these
> > > > > newfangled mortgage contracts knowing full well they could
> > > > > not get into the housing market any other way,
> >
> > > > Many of them could, though. As I said in my reply to Karel, many
of
> > > > those now defaulting are in fact quite well off in income terms.
> >
> > > > But they just had to have the extra 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms, in
the
> > > > better suburb. They also had to have that pool and all new
fittings and
> > > > whitegoods.
> >
> > > > I am of course not excusing those people. To the contrary.
> >
> > > > > and that they
> > > > > quite likely are not going to be able to make payments
> > > > > two or three years down the road, they deserve what they
> > > > > get, which is not necessarily and immediate foreclosure
> > > > > followed by an eviction, as in the case of this young Stock-
> > > > > ton couple, which decided to squat in their own home,
> > > > > waiting for a government bailout:
> >
> > > > >http://tinyurl.com/3vhw94
> >
> > > > <...>
> >
> > > > That is rather disgusting what these people are on about. And so
brazen
> > > > about it - they bought a house they knew they could barely afford;
now
> > > > life got too hard, so they stopped paying the loan - even though
they
> > > > still had the means to continue - and, oh, how wonderful; they now
have
> > > > spare cash to eat out and get a babysitter!
> >
> > > > They could not get away with this here in Australia. Their bank
would
> > > > evict them within weeks and if they could not pay the loan out or
did
> > > > not have insurance to cover the shortfall between the sale price
and the
> > > > loan balance, it would bankrupt them and take whatever else they
had of
> > > > any value.
> >
> > > > No wonder the concept of jingle mail is proving so popular even
amongst
> > > > those Americans who can very much afford to cover the mortgage
payments.
> > > > Why would you if you can live in the house for free, without any
fear of
> > > > repercussions?
> >
> > > > Sheer lunacy.
> >
> > > > S
> >
> > > The current federal legislative proposal to spend $20 billion
> > > of taxpayers' money to bail out 2 million irresponsible home
> > > owners is wrong. Why? Because it ushers a mentality of
> > > of victimization, and entitlement into a segment of popula-
> > > tion heretofore unaffected by this disease - the young, married
> > > couples. Potential home owners. The next generation of up-
> > > standing Americans. This is just as immoral as the business
> > > schemes that prey on the financial deabeats:
> >
> > >http://tinyurl.com/6rv4k8
> >
> > > I am just sick of hearing it all. It's everywhere.
> > > Do you have ad(vert)s like these in Australia?
> >
> > >http://www.nomoremortgage.com/-
Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
|
