Sharing the Wealth

[fmccap]

This is done in order to recieve government money. The school boards recieve an amount based on enrollment numbers. This attitude spreads to the otherwise gifted students who become lazy, also. It would be better to let the dropouts drop out, and set standards for advancement. Then a high school diploma would stand for something. To-day, many high school graduates are illiterate and have no knowledge of history or mathematical knowledge of scale or proportion. They are ripe for the plucking by socialist or religious organizations.

We changed schools this year because of this. The old one wanted to keep there "no child left behind" certification(and government money coming in) and were having a problem keeping the requirements. Towards the end of the last school year they were resorting to open book tests.

[Edstock]

It is instructive to keep in mind, that NONE of the derivatives or other instruments born of free markets would have been troublesome had the UNDERLYING BAD MORTGAGES no been written.

xr7g428, it is instructive to keep in mind that the concept of derivatives trading goes way, way beyond the sub-prime hoo-ha that you are fixated on. Don't believe me, go and argue with Warren Buffet.

 

Derivatives come in different forms, and with no regulation and no accountablility, nobody knows how much leveraged money is out there. The house of cards is estimated at trillions, and nobody knows how stable it is.

 

It is also instructive to remember that we have never lived in an electronic economy before, so nobody, not even you, knows what the rules of the system are. So, just about any concept is about as valid as any other, except of course, the policies that created this mess.

 

Fix it.

[fmccap]

Fix it.

Problem now is they went to the wrong people to fix it and in the end are making it worse. There were many from all over that seen this coming and were laughed at back then and are being laughed at know because they see different solutions than the dummies in charge. It's time to get a big turnaround in Washington.

 

Monday, September 12, 2005

Are we headed for a "credit derivatives event"?

One thing we do know is the derivatives bubble has become too large for transparency of any kind. No one fully understands exactly what the counterparty risk really is. Everybody has vast positions, most of which are "netted out", but it's also a chain that no one has complete control over or even knowledge about. What if the ultimate guarantor of a slew of contracts is Madame Merriweather's Mud Hut in Indonesia? How would anyone know? After all, Fannie Mae doesn't even know what they themselves have on their books. How could anyone else possibly know? That of course begs the question: Is Fannie Mae "too big to fail" or "too big to bail"?

 

Let's now return to the original question:

Are we headed for a "credit derivatives event"?

I do not see how we can possibly avoid one, but timing it is the problem since no one knows what event might trigger the cascade.

 

Bernake and Paulson said banks stopped lending in Sept.

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Derivatives Trade Soars To Record $681 Trillion

Does Anybody Trust Anybody?

 

Read the last paragraph in the above article carefully.

 

Already banks no longer trust each other and/or are so capital impaired they cannot or will not lend to each other overnight. Washington Mutual is the latest casualty in that regard. See WaMu Cuts Dividend and Jobs, and Prices Preferred Stock in response.

 

Now we find out that there appears to be a growing suspicion about the possibility of counterparties defaulting on derivative deals. Given that derivatives are ten times the global economy that suspicion sure seems justified.

Edited October 26, 2008 by fmccap

[theripper]

you right wingers are so afraid. fear just drips from your writings. geez, it's comical.

 

you have been brainwashed by hannity and bill o'riley and rush. they repeat 'freedom' and 'liberty' 50 or 60 times per broadcast, and throw in a ton of liberal bashing, and you guys go running for the hills with your guns. none of the three big right wing fanatics have ever offered any solutions to any problems, they just want to stir shit up for ratings.

 

quit being so afraid and come up with better ideas, rather than bash those that you don't like.

Edited October 26, 2008 by theripper

[ford-boy]

you right wingers are so afraid. fear just drips from your writings. geez, it's comical.

 

you have been brainwashed by hannity and bill o'riley and rush. they repeat 'freedom' and 'liberty' 50 or 60 times per broadcast, and throw in a ton of liberal bashing, and you guys go running for the hills with your guns. none of the three big right wing fanatics have ever offered any solutions to any problems, they just want to stir shit up for ratings.

 

quit being so afraid and come up with better ideas, rather than bash those that you don't like.

 

Better ideas???

Like maybe giving all illegal aliens a drivers license? How about putting them all on social security? Just sign them up even if theiy're not paying taxes. Maybe we should fork over medical benefits, too? Those are good liberal ideas.

[theripper]

but YOUR president has done nothing about that, either. it's neither liberal nor conservative. it's too much of a hot topic for either side to tackle. mr. bush probably doesn't want to touch it because he probably has used illegals to do much of his household work for years. that's called hipocracy in case it's too hard for you to grasp.

 

i'm a liberal and completely believe in the sovereignty of our borders, most liberals do. you're using a typical right wing tactic of finding the most objectionable, most radical liberal idea and spreading the word that all liberals believe the same garbage. welcome to the show, mr. hannity.

 

....now, repeat 'liberty' and 'freedom' 100 times and you might just start to believe that you're the only one who loves this country.

 

[see? you didn't come up with ANYTHING, you just bashed what you call a liberal idea. i love it when you make my points so easy to make!]

Edited October 26, 2008 by theripper

[mettech]

EDSTOCK,

 

I seems like perhaps every hundred posts or so, you should remind us that you are Canadian.

 

I appreciate that you have an opinion, and that the US has a good deal of influence on Canada, but please try to refrain from speaking in the first person regarding the American experience.

 

If you believe that America was a better place under Carter than Reagan, then that is your opinion. Those of us who lived it know better.

 

If you believe that America was once this highly regulated state that succeeded as a result of massive centralized government control, I am sorry, but that was the other guys, or have you forgotten about the rousing failure of the USSR?

 

Two factors got us into this mess. First, in the interest of increasing home ownership, in 1992 Congress passed legislation to create set asides for loans to borrowers that had been previously considered too risky. This forced the mortgage originators to write a certain percentage of NON CONFORMING loans in order to be able to write good loans. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were further compelled to buy these mortgages on the secondary market. This policy was born under the Democrats, and adopted by the Republicans. There is plenty of blame to go around.

 

The additional incentives that allow Americans to sell there home ever two years and pocket the gains tax free up to $500,000 per person, turned houses into investment vehicles. These policies were supported by both parties.

 

It is instructive to keep in mind, that NONE of the derivatives or other instruments born of free markets would have been troublesome had the UNDERLYING BAD MORTGAGES no been written.

 

The long term solution to this problem is SIMPLE: STOP LOANING MONEY TO PEOPLE WHO DO NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO REPAY.

 

On the one hand, increasing home ownership is a noble idea. The rate of home ownership rose by about 5% since 1992. Oddly enough, after all of the bad mortgages are washed out of the system, we will still have modestly higher rates of home ownership than before the social engineering experiment began. I doubt that many would say the results matched the cost...

 

Our problems were created by a mix or Democrat and Republican administrations and legislatures. Only a fool would try to ascribe all of the bad or all of the good to either of the parties.

 

+1... on all points. :happy feet:

[mettech]

you right wingers are so afraid. fear just drips from your writings. geez, it's comical.

 

you have been brainwashed by hannity and bill o'riley and rush. they repeat 'freedom' and 'liberty' 50 or 60 times per broadcast, and throw in a ton of liberal bashing, and you guys go running for the hills with your guns. none of the three big right wing fanatics have ever offered any solutions to any problems, they just want to stir shit up for ratings.

 

quit being so afraid and come up with better ideas, rather than bash those that you don't like.

[mettech]

but YOUR president has done nothing about that, either. it's neither liberal nor conservative. it's too much of a hot topic for either side to tackle. mr. bush probably doesn't want to touch it because he probably has used illegals to do much of his household work for years. that's called hipocracy in case it's too hard for you to grasp.

 

i'm a liberal and completely believe in the sovereignty of our borders, most liberals do. you're using a typical right wing tactic of finding the most objectionable, most radical liberal idea and spreading the word that all liberals believe the same garbage. welcome to the show, mr. hannity.

 

....now, repeat 'liberty' and 'freedom' 100 times and you might just start to believe that you're the only one who loves this country.

 

[see? you didn't come up with ANYTHING, you just bashed what you call a liberal idea. i love it when you make my points so easy to make!]

 

Here is the GOP platform. GOP Platform

 

How does that differ from your ideas?

 

My issues that differ from the Left are:

 

Abortion:

Taxes:

Socialism:

[napfirst]

but YOUR president has done nothing about that, either. it's neither liberal nor conservative. it's too much of a hot topic for either side to tackle. mr. bush probably doesn't want to touch it because he probably has used illegals to do much of his household work for years. that's called hipocracy in case it's too hard for you to grasp.

 

i'm a liberal and completely believe in the sovereignty of our borders, most liberals do. you're using a typical right wing tactic of finding the most objectionable, most radical liberal idea and spreading the word that all liberals believe the same garbage. welcome to the show, mr. hannity.

 

....now, repeat 'liberty' and 'freedom' 100 times and you might just start to believe that you're the only one who loves this country.

 

[see? you didn't come up with ANYTHING, you just bashed what you call a liberal idea. i love it when you make my points so easy to make!]

So enlighten me, a conservative...how is giving legal status to 12 million illegals border sovereinty?

[Trimdingman]

Also, who is opposed to photo ID to vote? Who do the people who vote illegally vote for? Answer: Democrats and Democrats

[ford-boy]

Also, who is opposed to photo ID to vote? Who do the people who vote illegally vote for? Answer: Democrats and Democrats

 

Good grief!! Why would ANYONE oppose photo ID to vote?? We have licenses to do almost everything in this country. Jeeez. A license is needed in NY just to do haircuts. The priviledge to vote is our free democracy is fundelmental to our country so you would think the Democrats would endorse that.

[Trimdingman]

Good grief!! Why would ANYONE oppose photo ID to vote?? We have licenses to do almost everything in this country. Jeeez. A license is needed in NY just to do haircuts. The priviledge to vote is our free democracy is fundelmental to our country so you would think the Democrats would endorse that.

 

Democrats were all up in arms about voter fraud in the last election in Florida. (It was really sour grapes.) Well, photo ID to vote would do away with voter fraud. They like voter fraud when it means more votes for them.

Edited October 26, 2008 by Trimdingman

[Edstock]

quit being so afraid and come up with better ideas, rather than bash those that you don't like.

"come up with better ideas, rather than bash those that you don't like"

 

And the silence is deafening.

 

They have no better ideas, and that's the problem. Years of denial and partisan slander has left the conservatives without any ability to come up with new approaches, because the only ways they know are the only ways that be, even when it is proven they don't work, as we discovered recently.

 

When the rank-and-file of the GOP finally understand that the top 1% that control it do not have the rank-and-file's best interest at heart, then change is possible. That 1% has sucked trillions out of the country. Your 401k is now a 1k, but they get a nice calendar from the investment bank in the Caymans or Liechtenstein, or wherever.

[mettech]

"come up with better ideas, rather than bash those that you don't like"

 

And the silence is deafening.

 

They have no better ideas, and that's the problem. Years of denial and partisan slander has left the conservatives without any ability to come up with new approaches, because the only ways they know are the only ways that be, even when it is proven they don't work, as we discovered recently.

 

When the rank-and-file of the GOP finally understand that the top 1% that control it do not have the rank-and-file's best interest at heart, then change is possible. That 1% has sucked trillions out of the country. Your 401k is now a 1k, but they get a nice calendar from the investment bank in the Caymans or Liechtenstein, or wherever.

 

The GOP platform is posted...

 

I am not part of the 1%.... But I do support most of the GOP platform.... more so than the Demo platform..Demo Platform

 

Better look out.... The "1%" is after your job......

[Ralph Greene]

I'm kinda tired of "conservatives" bashing liberals as if so called liberals were unAmerican or something.

 

From the dictionary.....

 

Conservative.....Tending to preserve old institutions, methods, customs, and the like. Adhering to what is old and established, opposing or resisting change. Off times bigoted or narrow thinking.

 

Liberal....Not narrow or bigoted. Favoring reform or progress, as in religion, education. , etc. Specifically favoring political reforms tending toward democracy and personal freedom for the individual. Progressive.

 

So...which would you want to be? Which would you want for your leader?

 

BTW....All the retoric in this campaign is just noise. Whoever gets elected will have as their promary concern the economy, and bringing the national budget toward being balanced.

Edited October 26, 2008 by Ralph Greene

[RangerM]

Good grief!! Why would ANYONE oppose photo ID to vote?? We have licenses to do almost everything in this country. Jeeez. A license is needed in NY just to do haircuts. The priviledge to vote is our free democracy is fundelmental to our country so you would think the Democrats would endorse that.

 

I went and early voted today in Raleigh, NC.

 

No ID requested, none shown.

[mettech]

I'm kinda tired of "conservatives" bashing liberals as if so called liberals were unAmerican or something.

 

From the dictionary.....

 

Conservative.....Tending to preserve old institutions, methods, customs, and the like. Adhering to what is old and established, opposing or resisting change. Off times bigoted or narrow thinking.

 

Liberal....Not narrow or bigoted. Favoring reform or progress, as in religion, education. , etc. Specifically favoring political reforms tending toward democracy and personal freedom for the individual. Progressive.

 

So...which would you want to be? Which would you want for your leader?

 

BTW....All the retoric in this campaign is just noise. Whoever gets elected will have as their promary concern the economy, and bringing the national budget toward being balanced.

 

I'm not a person that believes the Constitution should be changed.

 

I must be a Conservative then.. :happy feet:

[napfirst]

I'm kinda tired of "conservatives" bashing liberals as if so called liberals were unAmerican or something.

 

From the dictionary.....

 

Conservative.....Tending to preserve old institutions, methods, customs, and the like. Adhering to what is old and established, opposing or resisting change. Off times bigoted or narrow thinking.

 

Liberal....Not narrow or bigoted. Favoring reform or progress, as in religion, education. , etc. Specifically favoring political reforms tending toward democracy and personal freedom for the individual. Progressive.

 

So...which would you want to be? Which would you want for your leader?

 

BTW....All the retoric in this campaign is just noise. Whoever gets elected will have as their promary concern the economy, and bringing the national budget toward being balanced.

I'd rather be a conservative....

[retro-man]

Here is the GOP platform. GOP Platform

 

How does that differ from your ideas?

 

My issues that differ from the Left are:

 

Abortion:

Taxes:

Socialism:

Abortion: I don't much like them either. That's why I've never had one. If the right wing showed half as much compassion for the born as they do for the unborn (and please, please - no "tough-love" sermons here), they would have a better chance of capturing my vote.

 

Taxes: Supply side economics (what Bush I called "Voodoo Economics" when he was running against Reagan) does not work. It has not done what it promised to do. It is a morally and fiscally bankrupt philosophy. It has created the greatest inequality of wealth since the age of the Robber Barons. The top 1% have gained and gained. Everybody else has lost. This has gone on unabated for 28 years - plenty long enough to prove or disprove its worth - while the great majority, trying to maintain the trappings of the solid middle class existence that American productivity once provided, have created the debt bubble we have now. And once this all shakes out - shake-down is more like it - who will be the beneficiaries? Who will be buying millions of foreclosed homes for dimes on the dollar? We shouldn't be bailing out Wall Street - we should be burning it down. As Robert Reich says, "Quit blaming people for living beyond their means: give them back the means". This has to do with trade policy as well. Our business-friendly government has absolutely failed us. They are doing for American Financial interests what the crown did for the Hudson's Bay Company. And its time for another revolution if they don't straighten up.

 

Socialism: I don't hear anybody talking about Socialism except the hysterical right.

 

Oh..... you mean health care - that thing that every single solitary other advanced industrial nation - every last one - provides for its citizens. I have experienced Japan's system up close. It works fine. (And, incidentally gives Japanese auto manufacturers about a $2,300.00 / car advantage over ours. Of course that will be academic in a few more years when employer-sponsored health plans have gone the way of dinosaurs, pensions, and lifetime employment.) Meanwhile, our system is similar to Somalia's: You're on your own. And what has this gotten us? We have far and away the highest per capita expenditure on health care of any country in the world, yet our average life expectancy has fallen to 49th place out of the 180 countries that Nationmaster tracks. So we should go with McCain's band-aid rather than actually tackling this, huh? .... Wrong.

 

I find it highly ironic that those who scream loudest that the government can't possibly do anything right: can't administer health care, can't run the neighborhood school, are the same ones who have professed absolute faith in Rumsfeld's and Cheney's plan to use the wealth of the U.S. taxpayer and the resources of the U.S. government (the military) to remake the entire Middle East in our image. I think you've got it exactly backwards when it comes to what the government can and can't do.

Edited October 27, 2008 by retro-man

[Ralph Greene]

In my opinion....as regards to politics....Both being liberal or conservative is a legitimate philosophical position. Both can be respected.

 

I actually believe it takes both...over time....to keep our system of checks and balances working.

 

My complaint is when one is considered to be less than a legitimate position. Per the whinings of folks like Rush Limbough.

 

For all my voting life, I was a voting conservative, I even voted for Bush. But now I realize they just didn't get the job done. Not all their fault. But it was on their watch.

 

With Bush, we really got the narrow conservatives, with a fiscal policy that only worked during parts of a business cycle. Tax cuts can not spur an economy that is already long in the tooth. I fault them for the huge increase in deficit spending, withour raising the taxes to cover it.

 

So now we get Obama and his bunch. I wonder which will be worse. The Republicans who borrow and spend, or the democrats who tax and spend. Somebody has to balance this budget. I'll pay my share.

 

Maybe Bill Clinton will be right when he said...."if you wish to live like a Republicn, then vote for democrat." Times were generally good under Clinton, and the world liked us then also. of course....Clinton was President during good times. Made it easier.

[RangerM]

-deleted for space-

 

Retro-man, since we have opened the Pandora's box in our previous discussion of morality, I'd like to give you a little insight into a conservative mind (at least MY conservative mind).

 

Many conservatives identify with the dutiful son as in the parable of the "Prodigal Son". We don't understand why we are being asked (ie. forced) to fund those whose primary (perceived) impediment is themselves.

 

You could make the case that the "liberal" view is that to provide for the masses (or put another way, to welcome the Prodigal Son home) is the more Godly way, but to many like me, this is akin to trading one religion (of Divine origin) for another (man-made). Many conservatives like me agree that to care for those "less fortunate" is the proper view, but for those like me it must be made as a testament to God, and not under threat of losing one's property or freedom.

 

The conservative does not see the Government as the equivalent of the father in the parable. This is could be seen when a conservative often refers (with derision) to a perception of the " Sugar Daddy Government" often identified with liberalism.

 

I, and those like me, often perceive the "separation of Church and State" as hypocritical, given the perception that many democrats would position the Government as a Lord/Provider to us all.

 

For this view, we are often derided as lacking empathy, stingy, or selfish, when in fact we are often anything but.

[fmccap]

I'm not a person that believes the Constitution should be changed.

 

I must be a Conservative then.. :happy feet:

The problem is that they don't follow it now.

[Mark B. Morrow]

I went and early voted today in Raleigh, NC.

 

No ID requested, none shown.

 

 

I live 4 blocks from my poling place. The voting inspector is my neighbor. I haven't missed an election since I turned 18 in 1978. Pennsylvania does issue voter ID cards and the election process requires a match of the signature on the card you receive at the poll to the record book. New or first time voters do have to show some form of ID.

[retro-man]

Retro-man, since we have opened the Pandora's box in our previous discussion of morality, I'd like to give you a little insight into a conservative mind (at least MY conservative mind).

 

Many conservatives identify with the dutiful son as in the parable of the "Prodigal Son". We don't understand why we are being asked (ie. forced) to fund those whose primary (perceived) impediment is themselves.

 

You could make the case that the "liberal" view is that to provide for the masses (or put another way, to welcome the Prodigal Son home) is the more Godly way, but to many like me, this is akin to trading one religion (of Divine origin) for another (man-made). Many conservatives like me agree that to care for those "less fortunate" is the proper view, but for those like me it must be made as a testament to God, and not under threat of losing one's property or freedom.

 

The conservative does not see the Government as the equivalent of the father in the parable. This is could be seen when a conservative often refers (with derision) to a perception of the " Sugar Daddy Government" often identified with liberalism.

 

I, and those like me, often perceive the "separation of Church and State" as hypocritical, given the perception that many democrats would position the Government as a Lord/Provider to us all.

 

For this view, we are often derided as lacking empathy, stingy, or selfish, when in fact we are often anything but.

RangerM,

I respect your view that the business of government is business, and that charity comes from a higher calling. I know that many conservatives do give generously (while I suspect that many do not). I am not suggesting that it is better that charity come at gunpoint (by the IRS). I would, however, use the conservative critique of Socialism - that it can't work because it fails to take into account human nature: i.e. Why should I work if I can be taken care of anyway? - turn that criticism the other way: The conservative view - that the less fortunate will be taken care of out of the kindness and charity of the Christian heart - is also very naive about human nature. In any case, what I was specifically talking about in the "abortion" issue was the fact that many conservatives have no compunction about killing in war (even ones launched on false pretexts) or capital punishment (George Bush presided over 152 executions as Governor of Texas - I believe that may be a record for any Governor in US history). Yes, these may be enemies, or criminals, or soldiers who understood the risks when they signed up. But they are living, breathing people with hopes and dreams and loves and fears. Unlike a fetus, which has none of those things. Their deaths are final and irrevocable. Contrary to what he may have some believing, I am pretty sure that GWB, who personally talks to God every morning evidently, does not have a divine mandate to take those lives. I see a disconnect between his professed faith and his actions.

 

As for peoples unworthiness, and responsibility for what is happening to them in the current economic meltdown: The system has been juiced for years to hide fundamental economic decline. In the name of corporate profits and free-trade ideology, our government and financial leaders have allowed - no, promoted - a race to the bottom, in which the American standard of living has been forced to compete against Mexico, China, India .... against any and all comers. We could have put policies in place that raised those countries to our level (or just left them alone if they wanted to be left alone), but instead we allowed a regimen that is inexorably driving us to the lowest common denominator (the logical end is a per-capita income of around $7,500.00 / yr. if you're into the math). Coupled with supply side economics, we have an explosion of wealth at the top tiers, and a steady decline across the middle.

 

We have masked this decline by sending all the women out to work, contributing to the GDP, while large portions of the "Social Economy": cooking, childcare, housekeeping, sewing, are also moved into the money economy - further promoting the illusion of economic growth, when in fact real wealth is steadily declining, and has been for years. One economist put it simply: "You can't stop making things and expect to maintain your standard of living." To maintain the trappings of an increasingly untenable middle class existence, we work harder and harder and borrow more and more (with the financial industry happily devising new "instruments" and pushing easy credit under the noses of a regulatory system asleep at the wheel.) It is quite clear now who has benefited, who is going to benefit, and who is going to pay the price. And frankly, it makes me sick. Ok - both parties have been complicit in this, but I know which one's core values: "government regulation is bad" "taxes are bad" "taxing the wealthiest and corporations will hamper economic growth" feed most strongly into this problem. In my estimation. And I will vote accordingly.

 

link

If the U.S. economy could have sustained its 1948-73 rate of productivity growth it would be more than 80 percent larger today. This could have allowed for major increases in incomes and/or more leisure time.

"Policies that redistribute income upward, yet fail to increase growth — such as the removal of trade barriers, deregulation of major industries and weaker unions — have hurt the vast majority of U.S. workers," said Baker.

Edited October 27, 2008 by retro-man