[ebuddy]

I say "Blob" because I can't for the life of me tell what they're protesting. I mean... other than everything.





I was just getting ready to bail when all of a sudden...



Good thing we have absolutely nothing in common I'll tell ya that!

[CreepDogg]

Liberals saw how much fun y'all were having with the Tea Party, and decided to create their own platform for unfocused rants with no discernible action plan.

[Big Mac]

So you're with the great unwashed hippy scum, CreepDogg? You think they're great representatives of your kind?

I just wish all the hippy scum would go live in one of the Communist paradises they so love, like Cuba or Venezuela.

[subego]

That cop's totally trying to see her boobs.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

So you're with the great unwashed hippy scum, CreepDogg? You think they're great representatives of your kind?

I just wish all the hippy scum would go live in one of the Communist paradises they so love, like Cuba or Venezuela.

Whores, skunk pussies, buggers, queens, fairies, dopers, junkies, sick, venal. Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Check the trim on your sarcasm meter.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

So you're with the great unwashed hippy scum, CreepDogg? You think they're great representatives of your kind?

I just wish all the hippy scum would go live in one of the Communist paradises they so love, like Cuba or Venezuela.

Yes, as I said, I'm into angry ranting about nothing in particular with no discernible action plan. It's one of my hobbies. I like it so much, I'll join in whether it's a bunch of lazy hippies or angry racists.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I just wish all the hippy scum would go live in one of the Communist paradises they so love, like Cuba or Venezuela.

INSKEEP: What do people want? If people could just dictate the kind of country they had, what would it be?

Mr. NORTON: If you think again in percentage terms, so the top 20 percent, as I said, have 85 percent of the wealth, most Americans want them to have roughly 35 percent of the wealth. You're talking about 50 percent of all the wealth in the United States, which as you can imagine is a very, very large number. People would like that to be more evenly distributed across people with less income.

INSKEEP: That's a colossal change.

Mr. NORTON: That's exactly right, and I think one of the reasons that we see people having a disconnect between understanding how much wealth inequality there really is, is this very strong American belief in the ability to be socially mobile and to be mobile with your wealth. So people have very strong beliefs that across generations and even in their own life they can go from rags to riches.

And it's certainly possible. I mean one of the fantastic things about America is that that is in fact possible. But it's much, much rarer than people believe, and especially wealth transmission, so money that goes from generation to generation to generation is very flat. So it tends to perpetuate a great deal over time.

INSKEEP: Is there any country that looks like the more equal country than Americans told you they wanted?

Mr. NORTON: The closer countries to what our respondents wanted are countries that are amusingly dissimilar to us, such as countries like Sweden. But for example, even Sweden has a much more unequal distribution of wealth than our respondents told us they would like the United States to have. And I should say, the other thing that we found is not just that people think things should be fairer in some sense than they are, but that there's wide agreement about that. So if we look at very rich people and very poor people, or if we look at Republicans and Democrats, all of these groups think that wealth should be more equally distributed when we asked them these questions than it actually is.

Americans Underestimate U.S. Wealth Inequality : NPR

[screener]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I say "Blob" because I can't for the life of me tell what they're protesting.

Not surprising.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Americans Underestimate U.S. Wealth Inequality : NPR

I think this just shows that there's an identity crisis in the US or worse, an inferiority complex. People define themselves by the amount of money they possess yet apparently feel someone else is responsible for attaining that identity for them. Yes the top 20% own 85% of the wealth, but they also pay 86% of all Federal Income taxes with nearly half paying nothing. There is a fundamental naiveté with regard to human nature; an obligation to overlook the simple fact that in society there are overachievers and underachievers. Should the overachievers reap less of the reward associated with that effort and risk in the interest of fairness or is this not in itself unfair? And how many of those with less would all of a sudden feel differently upon having more?

Do you have a billion dollars? No. Have you ever lost several million in a failed venture or declining market? No. There is the prevailing myth that the haves and have-nots are static, but the reality is that most are moving in and out of wealth all the time. Reward begets risk. You cannot have one without the other and achieve any real progress.

The "what" is equitable wealth distribution; people are convinced that there are those with too much who should have less and there are those with too little who should have more, but they neither explain how to create such a utopian environment nor offer any ideas of how much less the rich should have, how much more the poor should have, or who would arbitrate the distribution. If you put the question to the poor of how much wealth should be distributed to them, they would likely say more. But the same question to the rich might be addressed by saying that prosperity is more than simply how fat one's wallet is; that it cannot merely be distributed because it is the shared burden of investment and subsequent reward that define success and true fulfillment. They are then derided for saying the poor should not be given handouts. Should the poor have more by virtue of the fact that they exist or is there some factor for ensuring the resource is distributed effectively? Humans function under incentive. Complaints of how little the poor have compared to the rich will continue to fall on deaf ears until some goal is defined and a means for achieving it without destroying the source. The only "solutions" I see when this question is posed are those that would just distort the money supply downward. Yes, rich people would have less, but what good is that unless poor people have more? Is there any evidence, anywhere that would substantiate the notion that the poor will have more when the rich have less?

You might say; "what of those who've inherited wealth? They haven't earned a dime!" Being born in the US, we've all inherited a great deal of wealth. Make no mistake, it doesn't matter how little you think you have, there will always be those with less and what have you been doing for them? Our wallets do not define who we are. What we do with the wealth is what defines us. People want more money, I get that. They see others with more money and that's what they want. So how do we get the money from the hands of the rich into the hands of the poor without distorting the money supply downward altogether and failing to acknowledge the fundamental drivers of human behavior?

For whatever reason, The Little Red Hen can make perfect sense to a child in elementary school not unlike the "teach a man to fish" principle, but add a few more years of education, the fodder of political expedience, some complicated math with decimal points and dollar signs, and all of a sudden we're entirely confounded and in need of some paradigm shift.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I think this just shows that there's an identity crisis in the US or worse, an inferiority complex. People define themselves by the amount of money they possess yet apparently feel someone else is responsible for attaining that identity for them. Yes the top 20% own 85% of the wealth, but they also pay 86% of all Federal Income taxes with nearly half paying nothing. There is a fundamental naiveté with regard to human nature; an obligation to overlook the simple fact that in society there are overachievers and underachievers. Should the overachievers reap less of the reward associated with that effort and risk in the interest of fairness or is this not in itself unfair? And how many of those with less would all of a sudden feel differently upon having more?

Why do you make these giants leaps?

Because there is a huge income disparity doesn't mean that SpaceMonkey is asserting that there shouldn't be over and underachievers, that we should become a socialist country, or something crazy and extreme. He is saying that the balance between rewarding achievement and hard work with making it possible for others to achieve this same success has gotten out-of-hand, because the wealthy have too much power and too much control when they can devise these bad mortgages, derivative trading, short selling, and all of these other gimicky things that they do that your lay person can potentially suffer from.

Have you not ever complained about the bank bailouts? At the core of this lies the same basic underlying frustration being expressed at these protests, despite it possibly manifesting differently or being expressed differently.

That's what the protest is about. Sure, there are a lot of idiotic protesters out there, but like the tea party, their core message has some value and validity to it.

I miss the old ebuddy that would pick his battles a little more objectively, and wouldn't just argue and pick a side and stick to it for sport. Lately you seem to be just arguing for sport.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Because there is a huge income disparity doesn't mean that SpaceMonkey is asserting that there shouldn't be over and underachievers, that we should become a socialist country, or something crazy and extreme. He is saying that the balance between rewarding achievement and hard work with making it possible for others to achieve this same success has gotten out-of-hand, because the wealthy have too much power and too much control when they can devise these bad mortgages, derivative trading, short selling, and all of these other gimicky things that they do that your lay person can potentially suffer from.

I'm actually saying none of those things. I was responding to Big Mac's post about "the hippy scum" to demonstrate, from the NPR piece, that apparently a sizable number of people from across the ideological spectrum find common concern with the distribution of wealth in the U.S., and their "ideal" distribution is apparently more of the "hippy scum" variety than I'm guessing Big Mac would like.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I'm actually saying none of those things. I was responding to Big Mac's post about "the hippy scum" to demonstrate, from the NPR piece, that apparently a sizable number of people from across the ideological spectrum find common concern with the distribution of wealth in the U.S., and their "ideal" distribution is apparently more of the "hippy scum" variety than I'm guessing Big Mac would like.

Sorry for putting words in your mouth.

I remember hearing that poll that supports your point here. It was something like over 80% of people being in support of raising tax for incomes over a million dollars?

[Athens]

Map of People Occupying Wall Street | OccupyWallSt.org

[Athens]

The problem isn't with individual wealth but with corporate wealth. Companies get richer yet pay people less and pay less people.

60 years ago it would be common for a company of 10 000 people to have hired 200 people alone just to work on pay roll. Another 400-800 as clerks. Computers replaced those 600-1000 jobs down to maybe 50 people. That's just one area of employment. Manufacturing same story what took lots of people takes less. So instead of a company providing well for a large work force its pocketing a TON of money. Consumers don't get a break on the goods being sold either. So a lot of frustration with fewer jobs, lessor pay yet sky rocketing profits on the backs of the employees and consumers has resulted in a lot of people being out right pissed off at corporations.

Whats amazing is how a business had to contend with 500% larger work force at lessor prices yet still made a profit 60 years ago but today they consider themselves in trouble if the profit they make is less then the year before even though they are making profits in the billions. Corporations have gotten out of control. They are more powerful then the government. And corporate greed will continue to go unchecked making people the losers.

Im pretty sure im going to http://occupyvancouver.com/ next week.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Just using the term 'the wealth' means pure nonsense is about to follow.

A belief in 'the wealth' (as some sort of finite, and therefore distributable thing) is like believing in 'the fire'.

Did you know that there's an unequal distribution of the fire?

Some people have too much fire, others have too little. What we need to do is go to all the people with too much fire, and take it from them using torches. Then we can carry those torches to those with too little fire, and give them a bigger share of the fire.

If the fire were to ever burn out, that's it. We're all finished. It's not like we could ever make more.


This is exactly how stupid someone's belief in the wealth is. Wealth is nothing more than the value of human ideas, human commerce, and human effort. It's endless.

It's only people who don't have any real ideas of their own that can't seem to fathom this. You're doing the equivalent of trying to steal someone else's fire, rather than figure out how to rub two sticks together, or better yet, go buy a match.

[subego]

All throughout history, we've been using up our finite resources, and increasing the number of people amongst whom those dwindling resources need to be spread.

One would think the result of this should be obvious:

Less Stuff divided by More People equals Less for Everyone. That's basic common sense, right?

Well, it is common sense, and that's the problem. It's a very seductive equation because it seems so obvious.

However, even the most cursory glance at history shows the exact opposite is true. Things have been getting cheaper and more plentiful. If the above equation is true, why do we keep getting more stuff for cheaper?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Just using the term 'the wealth' means pure nonsense is about to follow.

A belief in 'the wealth' (as some sort of finite, and therefore distributable thing) is like believing in 'the fire'.

Did you know that there's an unequal distribution of the fire?

Some people have too much fire, others have too little. What we need to do is go to all the people with too much fire, and take it from them using torches. Then we can carry those torches to those with too little fire, and give them a bigger share of the fire.

If the fire were to ever burn out, that's it. We're all finished. It's not like we could ever make more.


This is exactly how stupid someone's belief in the wealth is. Wealth is nothing more than the value of human ideas, human commerce, and human effort. It's endless.

It's only people who don't have any real ideas of their own that can't seem to fathom this. You're doing the equivalent of trying to steal someone else's fire, rather than figure out how to rub two sticks together, or better yet, go buy a match.

Really so you think its possible for every single person to be a billionaire? They just have to have the right idea?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Ironically, I'd say it's exactly a lot of that 'more stuff' that's convinced people that they are much 'poorer' than they really are.

On even meager resources today, one can eek out the 'basics' that in the past were seen as luxuries, even science fiction fantasies. Do people think early pioneers considered themselves 'poor' because they didn't have running water, energy/heating/cooling/communications/entertainment piped straight into their log cabins, and a grocery store full of cheap stuff right around the corner, etc. etc? There simply wasn't the expectation and feeling of entitlement to all that shit in past generations.

And I don't believe the average schmuck that spends an inordinate amount of time tallying up what their share of 'the wealth' supposedly should be, is really counting the basics, (food, shelter, clothing) so much as all the shiny, plastic laze-on-the-sofa and veg bullshit that they don't have.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Really so you think its possible for every single person to be a billionaire? They just have to have the right idea?

No, I'm saying that it's an insane notion that every single person should even feel the need to be a billionaire, and especially without having the ideas that others seek out and find valuable enough to make them into a billionaire. All such things are ridiculously false goalposts.

[ironknee]

steve jobs is with us ...here's to the crazy ones...#OWS!

[Athens]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

No, I'm saying that it's an insane notion that every single person should even feel the need to be a billionaire, and especially without having the ideas that others seek out and find valuable enough to make them into a billionaire. All such things are ridiculously false goalposts.

Ok so what about just making enough money for what is marketed as the typical middle class family, is that to much to ask for then?

[The Emperor of Ice Cream]

Originally Posted by subego 

Whores, skunk pussies, buggers, queens, fairies, dopers, junkies, sick, venal. Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets.

You forgot to mention Jews, cripples and n*****s.

Wow. I hope this is sarcasm.

[subego]

Source:

[subego]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Ok so what about just making enough money for what is marketed as the typical middle class family, is that to much to ask for then?

For everyone? Yes.

Certainly not for the laborers in China who are working for so low of a wage the stuff they're making is affordable to you, Middle class or not.

Hey, why not? If nobody can afford anything, then we're all middle class, right?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Why do you make these giants leaps?

Because there is a huge income disparity doesn't mean that SpaceMonkey is asserting that there shouldn't be over and underachievers, that we should become a socialist country, or something crazy and extreme.

I wasn't directing anything specifically at SpaceMonkey. He provided the article I was responding to.

He is saying that the balance between rewarding achievement and hard work with making it possible for others to achieve this same success has gotten out-of-hand, because the wealthy have too much power and too much control when they can devise these bad mortgages, derivative trading, short selling, and all of these other gimicky things that they do that your lay person can potentially suffer from.

Talk about gigantic leaps, but now that we know what you think...

No one in the private financial sector devised bad mortgages. When tycoons begin seeing opportunities in something as nonsensical as bad mortgages, you can bet a government bureaucracy is involved, requiring a certain number of risky loans to show a rise in home ownership under their watch. The wealthy have no power in this system without the help of government, it's as simple as that. The concerns expressed over short-selling are overblown and eliminating several hundred of them in 2008 has done nothing positive for the market. There is no evidence of the "bear raids" supposedly leading to our meltdown. Truth be told, when you make it more difficult to make a simple buck, the models for making it get more complicated. Again, all examples of the government distorting the market. No matter the vehicle for making money, it is a gamble; an educated gamble, but a gamble none the less. Think of it as playing blackjack at a casino. Should all gambling be made illegal or should people be able to feel the loss of being on the wrong end of bad speculation? A: the latter as this is the only thing that will discourage the behavior.

Have you not ever complained about the bank bailouts? At the core of this lies the same basic underlying frustration being expressed at these protests, despite it possibly manifesting differently or being expressed differently. That's what the protest is about. Sure, there are a lot of idiotic protesters out there, but like the tea party, their core message has some value and validity to it.

My point is it's fashionably misdirected. They should be protesting the source of Wall St; Washington DC. When you're ready, we can talk about the real problems with our market starting with horrible Fed monetary policy, but since this is the guy you voted for... we'll likely watch you defend the fashionably misdirected Wall St Flash Blob. I'll bet when that iPhone 4S hits the Apple Store on Oct 14th, a bunch of them will bail to keep the capitalist dream alive.

I miss the old ebuddy that would pick his battles a little more objectively, and wouldn't just argue and pick a side and stick to it for sport. Lately you seem to be just arguing for sport.

Coming from you, I'll take this as a compliment. My complaints about this blob are not me "choosing a side" as good luck finding what "side" these folks are on. You just used my post to springboard into your own rant... for sport. Quit projecting.

[The Emperor of Ice Cream]

I see subego. All is well.

[screener]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No one in the private financial sector devised bad mortgages.

A fine example of a post that deserves

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I wasn't directing anything specifically at SpaceMonkey. He provided the article I was responding to.


Talk about gigantic leaps, but now that we know what you think...

No one in the private financial sector devised bad mortgages. When tycoons begin seeing opportunities in something as nonsensical as bad mortgages, you can bet a government bureaucracy is involved, requiring a certain number of risky loans to show a rise in home ownership under their watch. The wealthy have no power in this system without the help of government, it's as simple as that. The concerns expressed over short-selling are overblown and eliminating several hundred of them in 2008 has done nothing positive for the market. There is no evidence of the "bear raids" supposedly leading to our meltdown. Truth be told, when you make it more difficult to make a simple buck, the models for making it get more complicated. Again, all examples of the government distorting the market. No matter the vehicle for making money, it is a gamble; an educated gamble, but a gamble none the less. Think of it as playing blackjack at a casino. Should all gambling be made illegal or should people be able to feel the loss of being on the wrong end of bad speculation? A: the latter as this is the only thing that will discourage the behavior.


My point is it's fashionably misdirected. They should be protesting the source of Wall St; Washington DC. When you're ready, we can talk about the real problems with our market starting with horrible Fed monetary policy, but since this is the guy you voted for...

So, your argument is that these bad mortgages existed because companies had to get creative with their means to make money and feed their families because of too much, or badly devised government regulation?

we'll likely watch you defend the fashionably misdirected Wall St Flash Blob. I'll bet when that iPhone 4S hits the Apple Store on Oct 14th, a bunch of them will bail to keep the capitalist dream alive.

If you dislike retarded protesting, I'm assuming that you were rolling your eyes in the same way over the tea party protesters saying stuff like "get the government's hands off my Medicare"?

[screener]

http://politicalhumor.about.com/libr...arty-signs.htm

[besson3c]

ebuddy,

Your whole argument about government and government regulation being the problem with the financial markets seems to be a mirror image to the arguments made about stimulus spending.

With stimulus spending people like yourself and turtle77777 argue that spending more when the fundamental problem is over-spending is counter-intuitive and asinine. With the financial markets the fundamental problem is greed - these same companies were among the most wealthy in this country before the phrase "subprime mortgage" was even uttered. These mortgages were allowed to exist because these companies deemed the liability of relying on payback as viable given the long term gains of controlling this debt. This was another way to make more money, their survival and health was not dependent on these mortgages - they were not forced to offer them.

For some reason I can't comprehend though, either you see the fundamental problem otherwise, or else the most intuitive solution that would parallel the most intuitive solution of addressing our debt being reducing spending, namely regulate the market to prevent a particular form of greed that jeopardizes the stability of our markets, seems counter-intuitive to you.

I don't get it.

[screener]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I don't get it.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I miss the old ebuddy that would pick his battles a little more objectively, and wouldn't just argue and pick a side and stick to it for sport. Lately you seem to be just arguing for sport.

I think he just sees what he believes to be the truth and ignores everything contrary to that with a, nonetheless dismissal.

Mockery for that type of attitude is well deserved.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

ebuddy,

Your whole argument about government and government regulation being the problem with the financial markets seems to be a mirror image to the arguments made about stimulus spending.

With stimulus spending people like yourself and turtle77777 argue that spending more when the fundamental problem is over-spending is counter-intuitive and asinine.

Just to add what your saying, the argument about government regulation is bogus, one of the few Countries in the world that didn't have any banking problems was also very tightly regulated and controlled. Even members of the US government have commented on this fact. And there is a good example of proper stimulus spending which was quick and appeared to work with a economy that recovered faster then any one else and is already exceeding 2008 in economic activity and recovered all jobs lost.

[screener]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Just to add what your saying, the argument about government regulation is bogus, one of the few Countries in the world that didn't have any banking problems was also very tightly regulated and controlled. Even members of the US government have commented on this fact. And there is a good example of proper stimulus spending which was quick and appeared to work with a economy that recovered faster then any one else and is already exceeding 2008 in economic activity and recovered all jobs lost.

I know, but tell our brothers to the south what country that is.

[Athens]

Population: 308,745,538
Cut in in half to represent working class to exclude children, and retired people its now 154,372,769

Now cut this in half to represent all married couples 77,186,384

That means only 77 Million jobs are required to be paying $80 000 a year for a family to be doing well as a single income family so one parent can also take care of the family.

That represents $6,174,910,760,000

[screener]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Population: 308,745,538
Cut in in half to represent working class to exclude children, and retired people its now 154,372,769

Now cut this in half to represent all married couples 77,186,384

That means only 77 Million jobs are required to be paying $80 000 a year for a family to be doing well as a single income family so one parent can also take care of the family.

That represents $6,174,910,760,000

Ya' lost me.

[Athens]

It would take 6 trillion in wages to make for a overall middle class society in the US with a family home with a single working parent. About 77 Million job's.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So, your argument is that these bad mortgages existed because companies had to get creative with their means to make money and feed their families because of too much, or badly devised government regulation?

I don't know if the good people of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were trying to feed their families, but I do know that granting loans to unworthy credit risks will lead to bad paper, yes. This, but one example of the government meddling in business ventures it has no business meddling in. Then, to tout increased home ownership, the government mandated this failed lending model for the financial sector and is obligated to bail them out when the idea goes belly-up, which then exacerbates the risky behavior. Yes. All of these things distort the market.

If you dislike retarded protesting, I'm assuming that you were rolling your eyes in the same way over the tea party protesters saying stuff like "get the government's hands off my Medicare"?

I don't know what "retarded protesting" is, but in the context of this Wall St. blob of miscreants believe it to be offensive to retarded people. To answer your question: I would certainly think that protester is stupid. If this disconnectedness were more pervasive, I'd likely just lump them in with this flash blob bunch.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I don't know if the good people of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were trying to feed their families, but I do know that granting loans to unworthy credit risks will lead to bad paper, yes. This, but one example of the government meddling in business ventures it has no business meddling in. Then, to tout increased home ownership, the government mandated this failed lending model for the financial sector and is obligated to bail them out when the idea goes belly-up, which then exacerbates the risky behavior. Yes. All of these things distort the market.

It is no secret that Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae screwed up, but again, these private institutions did not have to buy the mortgages from these federal organizations. As I understand it, Freddie/Fannie and many private institutions tapped into the subprime market. Freddie/Fannie presumably because the market was deemed as safe and secure, and the private institutions because of money making opportunities. That Freddie/Fannie bought into this market too doesn't make jumping on the bandwagon about anything but greed, or at best the misguided notion that these mortgages were secure. Either way, there is a lot of reason for people to feel cheated or at least intensely frustrated about the whole mess - private institutions and Freddie/Fannie alike.

I realize that getting to bitch about Freddie/Fannie suits your narrative and bias a little better, but the private financial institutions were not unsusceptible to poor judgement and/or greed as well. It's not like the big banks in this country have ever been run terribly well, even before this crisis.

I don't know what "retarded protesting" is, but in the context of this Wall St. blob of miscreants believe it to be offensive to retarded people. To answer your question: I would certainly think that protester is stupid. If this disconnectedness were more pervasive, I'd likely just lump them in with this flash blob bunch.

It just seems like you are far more anxious to generalize these protesters than you are the tea party protesters.

News flash: people are stupid - tea party and wall st. protesters alike.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

ebuddy,

Your whole argument about government and government regulation being the problem with the financial markets seems to be a mirror image to the arguments made about stimulus spending.

With stimulus spending people like yourself and turtle77777 argue that spending more when the fundamental problem is over-spending is counter-intuitive and asinine. With the financial markets the fundamental problem is greed - these same companies were among the most wealthy in this country before the phrase "subprime mortgage" was even uttered.

Who were the poster-children of sub-prime lending besson? *Hint: they were Washington-based. Those are your real, cigar-chomping greedy people in this scenario besson. Unless you're just going to pretend the government has some business meddling in the private financial sector with the money you and I pay in taxes based on some, yet undefined constitutional principle. I mean, does that seem "fair" to you? Would such a government-based business that is backed by the full faith and credit of the American taxpayer have to concern itself with solvency or profit? Of course not. Enter problem. The good news is home ownership increased... for a little while.

These mortgages were allowed to exist because these companies deemed the liability of relying on payback as viable given the long term gains of controlling this debt. This was another way to make more money, their survival and health was not dependent on these mortgages - they were not forced to offer them.

Why was the government obligated to offer them then??? Besides, all of these market principles were already regulated. Did you know that? The factors such as credit default swaps and the like all blamed for the recession were all regulated transactions since at least 2000. How did this happen?

Answer: No company wields the power you claim it does without the help of government. Period.

For some reason I can't comprehend though, either you see the fundamental problem otherwise, or else the most intuitive solution that would parallel the most intuitive solution of addressing our debt being reducing spending, namely regulate the market to prevent a particular form of greed that jeopardizes the stability of our markets, seems counter-intuitive to you.

The greed starts with the hunger for power in Washington. These are the ones who tell you to pay your taxes while cheating on their own. These are the ones burning the midnight oil in back-rooms making promises to one another we can't pay for. These are the ones giving you the false sense of security afforded by wink-nod regulation with the winners they've chosen and they are the ones who need to be regulated.

[subego]

Quick aside.

The first sign reads like it says "don't be a douchie".

Carry on.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I realize that getting to bitch about Freddie/Fannie suits your narrative and bias a little better, but the private financial institutions were not unsusceptible to poor judgement and/or greed as well. It's not like the big banks in this country have ever been run terribly well, even before this crisis.

They were all regulated transactions besson, every last one. The poor judgements you cite were all regulated. The problem was the backing of the home ownership venture with US taxpayer money to achieve a political goal for government.

It just seems like you are far more anxious to generalize these protesters than you are the tea party protesters.

News flash: people are stupid - tea party and wall st. protesters alike.

You seemed far less anxious to indict these folks of the stupidity you've been railing on Tea Partiers now for over a year at least.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Just to add what your saying, the argument about government regulation is bogus, one of the few Countries in the world that didn't have any banking problems was also very tightly regulated and controlled. Even members of the US government have commented on this fact. And there is a good example of proper stimulus spending which was quick and appeared to work with a economy that recovered faster then any one else and is already exceeding 2008 in economic activity and recovered all jobs lost.

Link please?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Athens 

It would take 6 trillion in wages to make for a overall middle class society in the US with a family home with a single working parent. About 77 Million job's.

Where did you see that $6 trillion coming from? $6 trillion in Fed Funny Money?

[screener]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Besides, all of these market principles were already regulated. Did you know that? The factors such as credit default swaps and the like all blamed for the recession were all regulated transactions since at least 2000. How did this happen?

It didn't.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Who were the poster-children of sub-prime lending besson? *Hint: they were Washington-based. Those are your real, cigar-chomping greedy people in this scenario besson. Unless you're just going to pretend the government has some business meddling in the private financial sector with the money you and I pay in taxes based on some, yet undefined constitutional principle. I mean, does that seem "fair" to you? Would such a government-based business that is backed by the full faith and credit of the American taxpayer have to concern itself with solvency or profit? Of course not. Enter problem. The good news is home ownership increased... for a little while.


Why was the government obligated to offer them then??? Besides, all of these market principles were already regulated. Did you know that? The factors such as credit default swaps and the like all blamed for the recession were all regulated transactions since at least 2000. How did this happen?

You are adopting the playbook of other PWL members here now... Rant and rave about how lousy government as at regulating things, without an actionable alternative. Government is so lousy at regulating the free market so therefore there should be little to no regulation? That's like saying that smoke detectors in a house don't always work, so therefore they should never be installed. I hope I'm not straw-manning, but AFAIK this seems to be your argument?

Answer: No company wields the power you claim it does without the help of government. Period.

Being allowed to do stuff because the undesirable stuff that is taking place hasn't been properly accounted for is the same as being "helped" to do these things?

The greed starts with the hunger for power in Washington. These are the ones who tell you to pay your taxes while cheating on their own. These are the ones burning the midnight oil in back-rooms making promises to one another we can't pay for. These are the ones giving you the false sense of security afforded by wink-nod regulation with the winners they've chosen and they are the ones who need to be regulated.

Of course relying on the government to regulate is imperfect, but saying that we'd be better off with no regulation or regulation with less teeth seems highly illogical to me. Again, you are glazing over the fundamental issue here, and that is no matter what financial technique we are talking about, it is driven by the same fundamentally reckless and careless drive to make money in the short term regardless of risk. This does not go away with no regulation, in fact it probably only worsens. That it would go away is an interesting leap of faith, but I think you are blinded by your ideology here.

Yes, regulation is imperfect, yes Fannie and Freddie failed, and yes there is corruption among the regulators and those enacting financial legislation, but the solution is to fix each of these things, not throw in the towel and hope that your ideology of benevolent financial industry leaders acting in the best interest of the American people principle holds true. I get that you may distrust the government more than you do the financial industry leaders, but given that we have a part in this legislation with who we decide to elect, I'll take my chance on the possibility that maybe someday we'll build better smoke detectors as opposed to someday there being no fires or fire starters.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Link please?

Canada's coming housing bust - Nov. 12, 2010 2010 US Source (out of date our unemployment is now 6.8% not 8%

Canada's banks: Admired worldwide for their management - and cash - Business - CBC News 2009 Canadian Story

How our banking system works in relation to the US Canadian Banking System: Regulating Funding, Finance and Securities

The stimulus package
Canada News: Stimulus package worth $35B - thestar.com

The actual projects
Projects Map - Canada's Economic Action Plan (Zoom into any area to see how varied it was from $5000 to $Millions, just a insane amount of projects over the last couple years to inject money and jobs into the economy.

Current Economics as of this month
Canada Unemployment Rate Falls as Economy Adds 60,900 Jobs - Businessweek

May 2011 report on housing Canadian Housing Market Stabilizing in 2011 | CMHC

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Where did you see that $6 trillion coming from? $6 trillion in Fed Funny Money?

Business already spends 3 Trillion on wages, whats another 3 Trillion of out there insane profits to bring up the living wage to the point that only a single member of a family needs to work, and its enough to live a decent middle class life. Business will still have insane profits even after that.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You seemed far less anxious to indict these folks of the stupidity you've been railing on Tea Partiers now for over a year at least.

This tired game of hypocrisy detection, or making sure I do the right song and dance the way you expect to see it to make my opinions known? What do I have to do to make it clear that I'm not a fan of protesters of any kind, draw arrows?

My point in participating in this thread was simply to illustrate to you the underlying point of these protests, because there is one and it is valid, just like the underlying point for the tea party is valid.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You are adopting the playbook of other PWL members here now... Rant and rave about how lousy government as at regulating things, without an actionable alternative. Government is so lousy at regulating the free market so therefore there should be little to no regulation?

Yes and with the removal of the regulation, remove the backing of the US government should the business model fail. There should be very little regulation. Simply put, remove any regulations that have no direct bearing on life or death. For example, do you really care if the QuickMart down the street is using low-E windows? We have laws for egregious offenses.

That's like saying that smoke detectors in a house don't always work, so therefore they should never be installed. I hope I'm not straw-manning, but AFAIK this seems to be your argument?

By your logic, we should keep smoke detectors in our pockets at all times for any circumstance... just in case. Regulation creates a corruptible relationship between government and corporation which inevitably leads to abuses. That's my problem with them and with protests against "Wall Street".

Being allowed to do stuff because the undesirable stuff that is taking place hasn't been properly accounted for is the same as being "helped" to do these things?

It's not about whether or not an offense is accounted for. It is about additional little relationships developed between government and business that chooses winners and losers; economic death by a thousand cuts. Let's take pharmaceuticals for example; the FDA may ensure no drugs are marketed in the US that would kill someone. (suspending the fact that this absolutely isn't true for the sake of point), is it possible life-saving drugs are being delayed from market? Do you know if the regulation is even doing you any good at all? No? Well then what on earth are you defending?

Of course relying on the government to regulate is imperfect, but saying that we'd be better off with no regulation or regulation with less teeth seems highly illogical to me. Again, you are glazing over the fundamental issue here, and that is no matter what financial technique we are talking about, it is driven by the same fundamentally reckless and careless drive to make money in the short term regardless of risk. This does not go away with no regulation, in fact it probably only worsens. That it would go away is an interesting leap of faith, but I think you are blinded by your ideology here. Yes, regulation is imperfect, yes Fannie and Freddie failed, and yes there is corruption among the regulators and those enacting financial legislation, but the solution is to fix each of these things, not throw in the towel and hope that your ideology of benevolent financial industry leaders acting in the best interest of the American people principle holds true. I get that you may distrust the government more than you do the financial industry leaders, but given that we have a part in this legislation with who we decide to elect, I'll take my chance on the possibility that maybe someday we'll build better smoke detectors as opposed to someday there being no fires or fire starters.

Were you thankful for all the SEC regulations ensuring there were no shenanigans with mortgage-backed securities? Credit default swaps? How much did these bureaucracies cost you? Do you think changing your Senator or even the President of the US is enough? What is it you're afraid of that you would have no control over anyway? Greed? Who protects us from government greed? Your senator? If you're a discriminating buyer and a studious investor, what is it you're afraid of that the government should be taking care of for you? Like I've said for a long time, the days of Upton Sinclair have come and gone.

The reason you don't need a smoke detector in your pocket at all times is because it's not in anyone's best interest to start fires everywhere.