Not with the first round.
|
|
|
Occupy Bay street
- Thread starter thebigwoof
- Start date
Not with the first round.
so the "sub prime mess" is all on the people who took the mortgages? really? no culpability on the part of the financial institutions that made the decision to put that money out there? imho, you're putting the cart before the horse.
as for the cds, "work within the regulations"?
lol, what regulations would you be talking about?
Read again mr.magoo, they shouldn't have taken them or been approved fo those mortgages. But yes I blame them. If I put big line of coke on your wifes tits does that mean my wife has to snort it? Even though the banking was deregulated there were still some rules and the people who came up wi the CDS worked in those rules.
A lot of sides were to blame for the subprime mortgage mess:
1. The lenders for their predatory tactics to get people to sign mortgages knowing that they can't afford them - including preying on the naive and ignorant. They would then get crazy interest rates of return, and should the mortgagees not be able to pay, the lender can foreclose and the cycle starts again.
2. People who signed up for mortgages knowing they couldn't afford them.
3. Security raters for making some of the subprime mortgage backed securities bonded AAA status, even though their true rating should have been junk bond
4. Investors for buying them by the bucketload, and not diversifying enough to stave off bankruptcy when they imploded.
The people who I do feel sorry for are people who bought houses that they can afford, did everything properly, and then their property value becomes worth much less than the value of the mortgage, because all of their neighbours' houses were foreclosed on. Ironically, some of those people simply handed their keys back to the mortgager, further exacerbating the situation.
1. The lenders for their predatory tactics to get people to sign mortgages knowing that they can't afford them - including preying on the naive and ignorant. They would then get crazy interest rates of return, and should the mortgagees not be able to pay, the lender can foreclose and the cycle starts again.
2. People who signed up for mortgages knowing they couldn't afford them.
3. Security raters for making some of the subprime mortgage backed securities bonded AAA status, even though their true rating should have been junk bond
4. Investors for buying them by the bucketload, and not diversifying enough to stave off bankruptcy when they imploded.
The people who I do feel sorry for are people who bought houses that they can afford, did everything properly, and then their property value becomes worth much less than the value of the mortgage, because all of their neighbours' houses were foreclosed on. Ironically, some of those people simply handed their keys back to the mortgager, further exacerbating the situation.
congrats for the most specious analogy ever. not even worth commenting on due to its inaccuracy and inappropriateness.
in my world, the gatekeepers for those loans are the banks. they had the final decision on whether loans were to be approved or not. the buck stops there.
let's use a (less) specious analogy so perhaps you'd understand my pov: i own a gun store. a dude walks in and asks for a gun. i sell it to him without doing any due diligence and background checks and that guy walks out with the gun, sees you on the street and shoots you in the face. who do you think your widow is going to go after? the scumbag, or me for not doing my job in protecting the interests of all law-abiding gun owners, and society itself? the subprime mortgages were a loaded gun, waiting to go off. as the gun store owner, i am the bank that instead of doing my duty, saw dollar signs. you are the sucker that paid for my greed, like the entire economy did when the ***** hit the fan.
as for the credit default swaps, one of the main problems afaik was that they didn't operate within a regulatory or oversight process/mechanism/rules. . .again, i stand to be corrected, but just exactly what oversight do you think governed cds from their inception to 2008?
thoughts?
All true
I generally agree with it as well, but I do take some exception to the Obama and the Democrats are going to knock them off the top. I think reinstating the the taxes to their original levels (prior to Bush's cuts) won't hurt the top all that much. Also, the US has a huge huge debt, so I don't think any decision on tax can be looked at so narrowly.
You use a lot of big words and I remember a psychiatrist once told me that people who do that are generally not very smart. Why are you so against personal responsibility? I like your example because I was president of a gun club that has a gunstore sold a gun to someone who went out and killed a guy even after all the proper checks. No one sued and he's in jail. Know why? Because he was responsible not the gun seller or manufacturer, stop looking for others to blame all the time.. That is why people fail. As for the CDS they operated in the open and within the rules because they were a NEW idea like I said before. You can't regulate new ideas that a genius comes up with until the problems start and somebody realizes it needs to be controlled. That was the beauty of it. Ok Bang afong get it on.?
agreed. especially with the last part. i have relatives in the u.s. who are wrecked because of it. they will be retiring when they die.
my response to the author of that rant:
i think whoever wrote that diatribe has an overvalued sense of self, and furthermore has been on wall street too long to realize how the working world has changed. some of the displaced wall streeters will find their niche in the real world, but most won't. they don't have as much transferable skill as they think they do. and the middle class has been pretty much defunct in the u.s. for awhile now--reagan saw to that a long time ago. they better be prepared to work three mcjobs to make ends meet because that's their future. a lot of the decent paying jobs require specialized skills that necessitate training or specific college/university education for.
lol, $85k a year without upside as a teacher? check your facts, gekko. . .california is at or near the top in the nation for compensation and they start at $35k/yr, with an average of under $60k/yr.
CDS existed before this mess and still continue to exist afterwards. The problem isn't inherent to the credit default swap, it's a perfectly viable system- just like real world insurance. The problem is that big banks are effectively run by idiots who put too much stake into the credit rating agencies, and those ratings agencies are idiots because they applied the same rules for corporate bonds, to pools of mortgages. When you group a bunch of questionable corporate loans together you have security, because its unlikely they'll ALL default on their loans. Especially if they're corporations in different regions, markets, and industries. This logic doesn't work on crappy subprime mortgages, but those retards didn't realize it.
another post where you demonstrate how little you know about me. can't challenge my ideas so instead you make weak attempts to question my intelligence? uhm, okay, that clearly makes your argument superior, lol. ad hominem much?
your story about your gun club is interesting, given how you somehow equated apples to oranges. your gun club did its due diligence. in my analogy, i did not. neither did the banks that issued subprime mortgages. HUGE difference, which i think anyone can see, no?
so, you've gone from writing "within the regulations" to "some rules" to "they operated in the open and within the rules", and "You can't regulate new ideas". . .just want to know which one it is. . .
btw, afaik, cds didn't operate in the open. . .they are essentially unregulated private contracts and non-transparent.
yes, i agree with what you've written. note that i did write "from their inception to 2008" because i realized that cds didn't suddenly materialize from the ether.
i see your point, but i'll go one further. is it really the fault of a few 'retards' or is there a pervading ethos, a governing philosophy of corporate greed, that motivated those bankers to attempt to squeeze profit out of every single product that they could try out? was it not a foregone conclusion that their profit motive would lead them down that path of irresponsibility?
Actually, I dare say it was the banks that 'suggested' to the credit ratings how they rate them. Because the lenders created different tiers of securities, they 'proved' enough to the credit rating agencies that the tiered nature of the securities would suffice with respect to risk. There were 3 tiers created, AAA, BBB, CCC. They supposedly grouped the 'best' mortgages in the AAA pool, etc. Clearly it didn't work.
Last edited:
If you get a chance, watch the CNBC documentary "House of Cards" from a couple of years ago.
There is plenty of blame to go around for the 2008 - 2009 recession/depression and all of the after-effects that we are still feeling. It's not just Wall Street / Bay Street. A lot of it is the regulatory environment - and for that, it's Washington, not Ottawa.
Bankers created derivatives, some of which blew up later, because (A) they were allowed to and (B) there was a demand for them, i.e. someone wanted to buy them. Whose fault is *that*?
The ratings agencies are blamed because they rated the "collateralized debt obligations" AAA even though they contained elements of these sub-prime mortgages. But the ratings agencies are paid by the debt issuers, i.e. the banks, and this is a conflict of interest. Whose fault is *that*? Where was the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission)?
Common citizens of the USA are blamed for using their house as an ATM machine (take out a loan against the equity in the house, wait for the house to appreciate in value, then take out a new loan against the new equity, etc). But they did this because in the USA, interest on a mortgage on your principal residence is tax-deductible, so it is in your interest to be in debt against your principal residence (as opposed to here, where it is in your interest to pay off that mortgage) and all that money has to be spent on something. Whose fault is *that*? (and by the way, it's STILL like that, and the government in USA is loath to change it)
A lot of the blame lies in Washington, and not necessarily with current or recent administrations, either. The tax rules, the SEC, the mortgage eligibility rules, etc. Many of these things HAVE NOT CHANGED.
One major mistake in Washington, was assuming that everyone should own their own house. The problem with that, is that some people really shouldn't owe money - they're better off renting, because they can't handle loans responsibly.
There is plenty of blame to go around for the 2008 - 2009 recession/depression and all of the after-effects that we are still feeling. It's not just Wall Street / Bay Street. A lot of it is the regulatory environment - and for that, it's Washington, not Ottawa.
Bankers created derivatives, some of which blew up later, because (A) they were allowed to and (B) there was a demand for them, i.e. someone wanted to buy them. Whose fault is *that*?
The ratings agencies are blamed because they rated the "collateralized debt obligations" AAA even though they contained elements of these sub-prime mortgages. But the ratings agencies are paid by the debt issuers, i.e. the banks, and this is a conflict of interest. Whose fault is *that*? Where was the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission)?
Common citizens of the USA are blamed for using their house as an ATM machine (take out a loan against the equity in the house, wait for the house to appreciate in value, then take out a new loan against the new equity, etc). But they did this because in the USA, interest on a mortgage on your principal residence is tax-deductible, so it is in your interest to be in debt against your principal residence (as opposed to here, where it is in your interest to pay off that mortgage) and all that money has to be spent on something. Whose fault is *that*? (and by the way, it's STILL like that, and the government in USA is loath to change it)
A lot of the blame lies in Washington, and not necessarily with current or recent administrations, either. The tax rules, the SEC, the mortgage eligibility rules, etc. Many of these things HAVE NOT CHANGED.
One major mistake in Washington, was assuming that everyone should own their own house. The problem with that, is that some people really shouldn't owe money - they're better off renting, because they can't handle loans responsibly.
I think some of the sentiment for the "occupy" protests comes from the following quotes (including one from American historian, Bill Federer, but I don't actually agree with him, and the old Pope, who had his own agenda). Although Obama seems to be changing things, or at least trying to, I think the "have nots" feel that the "have a lots" couldn't give a flying **** about the poorest in their society. To some there's some measure of moral bankrupcy in the US. In Canada? Not the same amount or same degree...but it's there :
Our society must make it right and possible for old people
not to fear the young or be deserted by them, for the test of a civilization is
the way that it cares for its helpless members.~Pearl S. Buck (1892-1973),
My Several Worlds [1954].
The test of the morality of a society
is what it does for its children.
~Dietrich Bonhoeffer
A decent
provision for the poor is the true test of civilization.
~Samuel Johnson,
Boswell: Life of Johnson
The most certain test by which we judge
whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by
minorities.~John E. E. Dalberg, Lord Acton, The History of Freedom in
Antiquity, [1877].
"...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are
in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the
elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the
handicapped. " ~ Last Speech of Hubert H. Humphrey
"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." ~
Mahatma Ghandi
"Any society, any nation, is judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest
members -- the last, the least, the littlest."
~Cardinal Roger Mahony, In a
1998 letter, Creating a Culture of Life
The greatness of America is in how it treats its weakest members: the
elderly, the infirm, the handicapped, the underprivileged, the unborn. ~Bill
Federer
"A society will be judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members
and among the most vulnerable are surely the unborn and the dying,"
~Pope
John Paul II
Our society must make it right and possible for old people
not to fear the young or be deserted by them, for the test of a civilization is
the way that it cares for its helpless members.~Pearl S. Buck (1892-1973),
My Several Worlds [1954].
The test of the morality of a society
is what it does for its children.
~Dietrich Bonhoeffer
A decent
provision for the poor is the true test of civilization.
~Samuel Johnson,
Boswell: Life of Johnson
The most certain test by which we judge
whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by
minorities.~John E. E. Dalberg, Lord Acton, The History of Freedom in
Antiquity, [1877].
"...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are
in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the
elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the
handicapped. " ~ Last Speech of Hubert H. Humphrey
"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." ~
Mahatma Ghandi
"Any society, any nation, is judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest
members -- the last, the least, the littlest."
~Cardinal Roger Mahony, In a
1998 letter, Creating a Culture of Life
The greatness of America is in how it treats its weakest members: the
elderly, the infirm, the handicapped, the underprivileged, the unborn. ~Bill
Federer
"A society will be judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members
and among the most vulnerable are surely the unborn and the dying,"
~Pope
John Paul II
enjoy! http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=1145392808
Here's another good one. "The Fall of Lehman Brothers"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPOtQkSiCk8
Just follow the parts. They're all there.
Last edited:
I remember hearing that and really shaking my head. For such a supposed capitalist market, I thought a quote like that was very irresponsible. You can't have a capitalist society, where education is pricey, jobs are not guaranteed, (as you mentioned) and some people who are bad with money without any sort of restrictions, and then make a (socialist) declaration that everyone should own their own house. Something had to give.
Last edited:
On Friday, someone was going around downtown and slipping flyers under windshield wipers. The flyers referred to how the banks were bailed out, but not the people. Methinks someone doesn't know that there's a national border between Canada and the US.
That's every bit as much a capitalist dream, as it is a socialist comment. How you get there is what makes the difference.
That's every bit as much a capitalist dream, as it is a socialist comment. How you get there is what makes the difference.
Last edited:
New York Craigslist posting:
"Occupy me. - w4m - 28 (Financial District)
Gorgeous, sexy female trader seeks a hot and bothered 99%'er to occupy her all night long. Let yourself be exploited through deeply taxing work. Resist passionately until your voice is hoarse. Succumb and fall asleep wrapped in my Sferra 1,000 thread count sheets, then make me espresso at 6am before I leave to master the universe. Repeat.
Welcome to the 1%. Occupy me."
"Occupy me. - w4m - 28 (Financial District)
Gorgeous, sexy female trader seeks a hot and bothered 99%'er to occupy her all night long. Let yourself be exploited through deeply taxing work. Resist passionately until your voice is hoarse. Succumb and fall asleep wrapped in my Sferra 1,000 thread count sheets, then make me espresso at 6am before I leave to master the universe. Repeat.
Welcome to the 1%. Occupy me."
|
|
|
|
|