PDA

View Full Version : What caused the financial crisis?



Qtec
11-26-2011, 07:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why are people trying to rewrite the history of the crisis? Some are simply trying to save face. Interest groups who advocate for deregulation of the finance sector would prefer that deregulation not receive any blame for the crisis.

Some stand to profit from the status quo: Banks present a systemic risk to the economy, and reducing that risk by lowering their leverage and increasing capital requirements also lowers profitability. Others are hired guns, doing the bidding of bosses on Wall Street.


They all suffer cognitive dissonance — the intellectual crisis that occurs when a failed belief system or philosophy is confronted with proof of its implausibility.

And what about those facts? To be clear, no single issue was the cause. Our economy is a complex and intricate system. What caused the crisis? Look:

●Fed Chair Alan Greenspan dropped rates to 1 percent — levels not seen for half a century — and kept them there for an unprecedentedly long period. This caused a spiral in anything priced in dollars (i.e., oil, gold) or credit (i.e., housing) or liquidity driven (i.e., stocks).

●Low rates meant asset managers could no longer get decent yields from municipal bonds or Treasurys. Instead, they turned to high-yield mortgage-backed securities. Nearly all of them failed to do adequate due diligence before buying them, did not understand these instruments or the risk involved. They violated one of the most important rules of investing: Know what you own.

●Fund managers made this error because they relied on the credit ratings agencies — Moody’s, S&P and Fitch. They had placed an AAA rating on these junk securities, claiming they were as safe as U.S. Treasurys.

• Derivatives had become a uniquely unregulated financial instrument. They are exempt from all oversight, counter-party disclosure, exchange listing requirements, state insurance supervision and, most important, reserve requirements. This allowed AIG to write $3 trillion in derivatives while reserving precisely zero dollars against future claims.

• The Securities and Exchange Commission changed the leverage rules for just five Wall Street banks in 2004. The “Bear Stearns exemption” replaced the 1977 net capitalization rule’s 12-to-1 leverage limit. In its place, it allowed unlimited leverage for Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns. These banks ramped leverage to 20-, 30-, even 40-to-1. Extreme leverage leaves very little room for error.

•Wall Street’s compensation system was skewed toward short-term performance. It gives traders lots of upside and none of the downside. This creates incentives to take excessive risks. </div></div>

read on (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/what-caused-the-financial-crisis-the-big-lie-goes-viral/2011/10/31/gIQAXlSOqM_story_1.html)

And are they thankful for the Govt bailouts?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The former head of the American International Group sued the U.S. government for $25 billion on Monday, claiming officials should have bailed out AIG instead of taking it over.

Maurice "Hank" Greenberg and his Starr International Company accused officials of discriminating against AIG.

"The government is not empowered to trample shareholder and property rights even in the midst of a financial emergency," Starr alleges in the lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington, D.C.

Starr also sued the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in federal district court in Manhattan.

A top Treasury Department official denied Starr's claims.

"It is important to remember that the government provided assistance to AIG -- and stopped it from collapsing -- in order to prevent a meltdown of the entire global financial system," Tim Massad, assistant secretary for financial stability, said in a statement.

The New York Fed released a statement saying that the allegations have "no merit."

"AIG's board of directors had an alternative choice to borrowing from the Federal Reserve and that choice was bankruptcy," the New York Fed said in the statement. </div></div> link (http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/21/news/companies/aig_greenberg_lawsuit/index.htm)


Q

LWW
11-26-2011, 07:39 AM
So what do you think taking rates to zero and leaving them there will do?

cushioncrawler
11-26-2011, 03:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And what about those facts? To be clear, no single issue was the cause. Our economy is a complex and intricate system. What caused the crisis? Look:</div></div>No it woz a single cause.
The usofa financial/economik system iz the cause.
It iz a manmade system and failure iz built-in.

Any sort of proper system would not allow the possibility of any sort of failure of any sort.
mac.

Qtec
11-27-2011, 05:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So what do you think taking rates to zero and leaving them there will do? </div></div>

We just saw what it did. Thank Bush.

Q

LWW
11-27-2011, 10:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So what do you think taking rates to zero and leaving them there will do? </div></div>

We just saw what it did. Thank Bush.

Q </div></div>

Bush isn't the one who did it.

Stretch
11-27-2011, 10:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So what do you think taking rates to zero and leaving them there will do? </div></div>

We just saw what it did. Thank Bush.

Q </div></div>

Bush isn't the one who did it. </div></div>

Him personaly? Probably right as he was too incompetant to tie his own shoe laces which is why the economy went to crap under his watch. St.

Soflasnapper
11-27-2011, 10:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And what about those facts? To be clear, no single issue was the cause. Our economy is a complex and intricate system. What caused the crisis? Look:</div></div>No it woz a single cause.
The usofa financial/economik system iz the cause.
It iz a manmade system and failure iz built-in.

Any sort of proper system would not allow the possibility of any sort of failure of any sort.
mac. </div></div>

I agree with this.

Apparently, the debt-based money system contains a flaw-- when the money is paid back from the money that is created by the loan, no extra money is created to pay the interest, which then must come from the baseline economy somehow. Too much of this and then too much money has been sucked out of the real economy for it to function, requiring still greater amounts of credit loans to be created endlessly, lest the machinery of the real economy seize up for lack of money.

We are in a late stage of economy, a decadent stage, one which most of the other world-bestriding empires also eventually faced. It happened in Great Britain, and before that, in imperial Spain. It's where the economy ceases to make much of anything, and tries to exist solely on financial manipulation, rent seeking, etc. Prior to the financial collapse, fully 40% of all corporate profits were 'earned' (?) in the so-called 'FIRE' sector-- finance, insurance, and real estate, elevating what should be a minor part of the economy as a small financial intermediation facilitating factor instead into its core activity, even though it creates nothing, and actually functions as a destructive mechanism (the 'creative destruction' of late stage financial capitalism, which is a form of vampiric parasitism).

Likely most people imagine we can simply go back to how it was before the collapse, maybe with better regulations to prevent the worst excesses, but it is too late for that. The economy needs a new engine and a new transmission before it can run again, which is to say, a fundamental transformation from the status quo ante.

Soflasnapper
11-27-2011, 10:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So what do you think taking rates to zero and leaving them there will do? </div></div>

We just saw what it did. Thank Bush.

Q </div></div>

Bush isn't the one who did it. </div></div>

He appointed Bernanke head of the Fed. Bernanke did it, after W hired him. If W opposed this monetary policy, there is no evidence for that.

pooltchr
11-27-2011, 10:53 AM
Unless we get back to the mindset of producing, the economy is not going to recover. Producing products generates economic growth. A service based economy simply moves wealth around, but does nothing to grow an economy.
Americans are going to have to learn to get their hands dirty again, if we are to succeed. It's right there if we care to look at history. Our greatest period of economic growth was when the steel mills were running, we were building cars and ships and electronics and other real products. Right now, our best option seems to be in energy. But with a president who won't even let us build a pipeline from Canada to the gulf coast, which would create thousands of jobs, and reduce our need for oil from the middle east, it would seem that "somebody" isn't really interested in our economic recovery.

Steve

Steve

Soflasnapper
11-27-2011, 10:59 AM
I agree in general, but not in particular.

That pipeline already exists. The extension proposed would create a mere 6,000 jobs, at the risk of the large subterranean aquifer upon which millions of Americans rely for potable water and irrigation of crops, while not adding to domestic supply of oil (it's intended to be exported out of the Gulf refineries).

I realize the proponents of the extension have NOW agreed to re-route the extension to miss the aquifer, but that wasn't their original plan, and their agreement to cost the project a bit more in construction costs by not taking the most direct route over the aquifer has only come because of the opposition's force. Without that, they couldn't care less about the risk of severe environmental degradation, and still less about the human costs, since it would make for more financial profit for them.

LWW
11-27-2011, 01:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So what do you think taking rates to zero and leaving them there will do? </div></div>

We just saw what it did. Thank Bush.

Q </div></div>

Bush isn't the one who did it. </div></div>

He appointed Bernanke head of the Fed. Bernanke did it, after W hired him. If W opposed this monetary policy, there is no evidence for that. </div></div>

Incorrect ... again ... keep trying, you are close.

Sid_Vicious
11-27-2011, 01:40 PM
No doubt that Bush's policy caused it, and Obama extended it with keeping the tax cuts. Why we don't re-inact Clinton's tax rates again, which created the BEST economy we've seen, is a matter of continuing Republican's greed for power. Politics in this country is killing this country. Obama was a wimp. Bush was and is a criminal. Each American who still lingers on any idea that the tax cuts for the wealthy are good, are just un-American themselves. Why do we spiral down, when we could just try "what worked before?" Isn't that the normal process for problem solving? sid

Soflasnapper
11-27-2011, 03:18 PM
I am sympathetic to all your points, but that may not make all of them true.

In particular, Clinton's economic policies were not Democratic policies relying on fiscal policy, but monetarist policies (courtesy of Milton Friedman's ideas, a libertarian fan of Ayn Rand I think I remember), relying on monetary policies promised to be put in place IF he did no real fiscal policy. (Hence Clinton shelved the middle class tax cut in favor of greater deficit reduction, and scaled back his high tech infrastructure spending proposal so much that Congress considered it too small to make any difference, and so didn't pass it.)

There is a key difference, in that the monetary policy quiver is now out of arrows. We are at near-maximum monetary policy stimulus, with the results now seen, so Clinton's 'do nothing on fiscal policy' tactic cannot work-- we need fiscal policy changes.

The problem is that the fiscal policy changes many people have been propagandized into thinking best and therefore want is to make the fiscal policy far more contractive.

And of course, nothing needs be enacted to bring back the Clinton era rates-- something has to be enacted to PREVENT their return after 2012.

Soflasnapper
11-27-2011, 03:20 PM
Incorrect ... again ... keep trying, you are close.

Since everything I said was accurate, nothing is incorrect about it.

LWW
11-27-2011, 03:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Incorrect ... again ... keep trying, you are close.

Since everything I said was accurate, nothing is incorrect about it.

</div></div>

Your thinking contains a key error ... but since it shifts some blame dear leader's way, I am sure you will never ever get it.

llotter
11-27-2011, 03:46 PM
It is the Left that has made America less competitive in world markets with their policy of continually increasing the cost of producing here and that dose smack of decadence.

Conservatives agree that we need fundamental change but they mean by that, going back to limiting the size and scoop of government. What are fundamental change are you advocating?

cushioncrawler
11-27-2011, 04:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Unless we get back to the mindset of producing, the economy is not going to recover. Producing products generates economic growth. A service based economy simply moves wealth around, but does nothing to grow an economy.
Americans are going to have to learn to get their hands dirty again, if we are to succeed. It's right there if we care to look at history. Our greatest period of economic growth was when the steel mills were running, we were building cars and ships and electronics and other real products. Right now, our best option seems to be in energy. But with a president who won't even let us build a pipeline from Canada to the gulf coast, which would create thousands of jobs, and reduce our need for oil from the middle east, it would seem that "somebody" isn't really interested in our economic recovery. Steve</div></div>Yes -- u hav produktion and u hav parasites.
Some things help the usofa cake grow -- and some things diminish the cake.
Parasitik things diminish the size of the cake -- plus they distort the slicing.
mac.

But i am anti pipline.

cushioncrawler
11-27-2011, 05:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And what about those facts? To be clear, no single issue was the cause. Our economy is a complex and intricate system. What caused the crisis? Look:</div></div><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No it woz a single cause. The usofa financial/economik system iz the cause. It iz a manmade system and failure iz built-in. Any sort of proper system would not allow the possibility of any sort of failure of any sort. mac.</div></div><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I agree with this. Apparently, the debt-based money system contains a flaw-- when the money is paid back from the money that is created by the loan, no extra money is created to pay the interest, which then must come from the baseline economy somehow. Too much of this and then too much money has been sucked out of the real economy for it to function, requiring still greater amounts of credit loans to be created endlessly, lest the machinery of the real economy seize up for lack of money. We are in a late stage of economy, a decadent stage, one which most of the other world-bestriding empires also eventually faced. It happened in Great Britain, and before that, in imperial Spain. It's where the economy ceases to make much of anything, and tries to exist solely on financial manipulation, rent seeking, etc. Prior to the financial collapse, fully 40% of all corporate profits were 'earned' (?) in the so-called 'FIRE' sector-- finance, insurance, and real estate, elevating what should be a minor part of the economy as a small financial intermediation facilitating factor instead into its core activity, even though it creates nothing, and actually functions as a destructive mechanism (the 'creative destruction' of late stage financial capitalism, which is a form of vampiric parasitism). Likely most people imagine we can simply go back to how it was before the collapse, maybe with better regulations to prevent the worst excesses, but it is too late for that. The economy needs a new engine and a new transmission before it can run again, which is to say, a fundamental transformation from the status quo ante.</div></div>I aint sure what to think about the theory that in the long run u karnt keep priceing things more than they cost -- its an interesting question.

In the usofa parasites rule. Karnt be good.

The usofa kan hav a good finance-ekonomix system that iz based on free-enterprize -- instead of the prezent crazy system.
But it iz an impossibility when krappynomix duznt even rekognize the flaws and problems and drawbacks of the prezent crazy system.

I picture the usofa system az a roman galley.
The rowers are not rowing together.
Some rowers are not rowing.
There iz no-one at the rudder.
There iz no captain.
There iz no plan or destination for the voyage.

No-one knows where they are -- which iznt important koz no-one knows where they might be going -- which iznt important koz no-one agrees on where to go -- which iznt important koz their cargo iz rotten.

We are in debt and dont hav money to pay the rowers -- ok, all rowers on the left side are to stop rowing -- oh, and beat the drum faster and harder.

We are going very slowly, shoodnt we weigh anchor -- no, issue a good weather forecast to boost the rower's confidence.

There appears to be a reef ahead, shoodnt we change course -- no, continue direktly downwind.

Some of the rowers are sick -- ok, they kan see the doc when the doc finishes tending to rich passengers.
mac.

cushioncrawler
11-27-2011, 05:39 PM
Dont forget that the theusofa krappynomix system iz uzed allmost universally -- and it duznt work, never haz.
Krappynomix iz not really a system, it iz a dogma, a religion aktually.
Krappynomix iz not really about ekonomix, it iz about finance, politix aktually.

The following sorts of thorts go throo my mind whenever i read'hear financial stuff.

Markets..... Higher (or lower) Markets dont make theusofa cake any bigger -- they just change the size of the slices.

Bonds....... Buying bonds duznt make theusofa cake any bigger -- it iz sort of cake'neutral. Money kumming in from overseas kan enlarge theusofa cake (ie real usofa expenditure, ie real usofa produktion), but probly at the expense of the overseas cake.

Recession... I dunno what a double-dip recession iz. I do know that theusofa haz been in a recession for ever (except the times when it woz a full-blown depression), and theusofa will be in a recession for ever -- ie while krappynomix rules.

Inflation... Krappynomix shuns any direkt (efficient) kontrol of inflation -- it prefers indirekt (nonefficient) kontrol. Wages are rizing -- hmmmmmm -- lets shoot some workers.

Earnings and Investment....... Krappynomix loves lots of figures of different things, none of which are true, which duznt matter koz none of them proov anything, which duznt matter koz none of them things matter. What theusofa needs iz the real figures for real matters.

Japan....... Japan and theusofa hav the same engine -- krappynomix. It will be a good race to watch. A bit like the good old days when they had cars racing backwards, ie in reverse, lots of skidding out of kontrol, lots of funny accidents. I think it will kum down to which krappynomicyst iz the best driver. I heard that theusofa krappynomicyst haz a sore neck, and that japan might win.
If theusofa iz smart it will change the rules and turn the race into one where all are driving forward instead of backward -- but i suppoze that even here theusofa krappynomicysts will require some sort of silly rule, eg that the racers pull caravans.
mac.

cushioncrawler
11-27-2011, 05:41 PM
Abe.

"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.”
So, it appears that the usofa system iz based on having a “The Poor” and having a “The Rich”. Any system where u sometimes or all the time hav a poor and where u hav an ongoing debate about the good of helping the poor iz a shit system.

“You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.”
Once again – a system that haz a weak and a strong iz a shit system.
Hmmmm – why didn’t Abe say …..
“U can strengthen the weak by strengthening the strong”.

“You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.”
Duz anyone beleev that nowadayz ???????
Why didn’t Abe say…..
“U cannot bring about prosperity by encouraging thrift.”

“You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.”
Hmmmmm -- so – pulling’down and weakening and destroying the rich and strong and the wage’payers iznt good.
But Abe didn’t say that pushing’up and strengthening and creating were good – why not?????

“You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.”
Hmmmmm – iz Abe here saying……..
“Don’t hate the rich or the strong or the wage’payer.”

“You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence.”
Hmmmmm -- the rich need character and courage??????

“You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves."
Hmmmmmm – so how else can we help the rich and strong – did Obama do the wrong thing for banks etc.

What in hell woz Abe’s speech all about?????????????
It appears that there woz no prosperity at that time – iznt this the fault of the system or something??????????
Who iz “you” ????????
Lots of “Cannots” in there – not many “Cans” in there !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why didn’t Abe say “Yes we can” ??????????? Would make more sense.
mac.

Soflasnapper
11-27-2011, 05:41 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is the Left that has made America less competitive in world markets with their policy of continually increasing the cost of producing here and that dose smack of decadence.

Conservatives agree that we need fundamental change but they mean by that, going back to limiting the size and scoop of government. What are fundamental change are you advocating? </div></div>

What 'left' has there been, and doing what, exactly, between the end of the Clinton era of prosperity and the end of 2008?

Isn't it obvious that it was instead the insanity of the neo-liberal (i.e., non-left, non-liberal) free trade policies along with the so-called conservatives pushing the same thing as a consensus of the elites, and their acceptance of the conservative model of deregulation?

In other words, we have ALWAYS been at a disadvantage for labor costs, relative to third world countries. We used to make up that difference in two ways: greater productivity based on capital investments (machines, computers, technology), but just as critically, TARIFFS that specifically took away any advantage from a company gaining a lowered labor cost (as that savings went right back onto the price as an import tariff).

By taking away the tariff penalty for lowering labor costs, companies were enabled to shift their capital investments overseas, to reap the benefit of the now-allowed labor cost arbitrage.

The theory appeared to be that US consumers would so enjoy their lowered costs of cheap imported goods so as not to complain, and maybe make up the difference, when their wages stagnated for 30 years. It worked for a while, but that wasn't the key goal anyway, which was rather the enlargement of profits and profit margins. Maybe the thought was that if the corporations enjoyed ever-growing profits, it must of course make the general public prosperous as well. That's all been proven wrong.

cushioncrawler
11-27-2011, 05:59 PM
USS ENTERPRIZE (2007)

mac..... Mr Friedman, congratulations on your yesBull surPrize for Krappynomix Science.
Milton........ Thanku very much.

mac..... We all take MacroKrappynomix for granted now, but in the oldendayz navigation woz more a matter of luck than science.
Milton....... Yes. In the oldendayz ships had Captains and big rudders.

mac..... What about Maynard Keynes – in hiz paper “Iceburgs, LifeBoats, LifeJackets, and Drowning”, he theorized that HMS Titanic didn’t hav enuff lifeBoats.
Milton....... Yes, but this iz completely contrary to modern Krappynomix. I mean, here we hav a ship with a double hull, unsinkable, yet the passengers’ confidence woz entirely destroyed simply by having lifeboats, albeit a small number, in full view.

mac..... Confidence iz the key.
Milton....... Yes, passenger confidence iz the number one main paramount thing with navigation. I karnt stress this too much.

mac..... But, HMS Titanic didn’t hav a big rudder.
Milton....... Yes, but it would hav been much better with a much smaller rudder, in fakt, in an ideal world, zero rudder.

mac..... What about the danger of icebergs, and drownings.
Milton....... A small level of drownings iz acceptable, in fakt, in our system, necessary – about 10% iz a good number. Look, with zero drownings things would heat up, and then glaciers would spawn even more icebergs. All Krappynomicysts agree on this.

mac..... The lifeJackets didn’t help much.
Milton....... No, of course not – inflation (spit) iz the big problem here. I mean, sure, u kood hav twice az many lifeJackets, and they kood be twice az big allso, but this would do more harm than good. It would simply give rize to inflationary (spit) pressures.

mac..... Inflation iz a Krappynomicysts major fear.
Milton....... Exaktly. It duznt matter how bad thingz get, if u had high inflation (spit) thingz would be much much worse. Putting it another way, if u had zero inflation then passenger confidence would be high no matter what happened.

mac..... And passenger confidence iz paramount. Milton....... Exaktly.

mac..... Changing the subjekt -- it looks like there iz likely to be a YesBull SurPrize this year for MicroKrappynomix Science.
Milton....... Yes, one of my ex-students haz dunn some excellent theorizing on MicroKrappynomix. And, seeing az none of hiz theory can ever be prooven correct or incorrect, I think that a yesBull surPrize shood be awarded.

mac..... This theory iz about swimming lessons.
Milton....... Yes. Hiz paper iz about “Swimming Lessons, Anchors, and Drowning”. He showz how fewer swimmers would drown if lifeSavers were properly equipped with anchors.

mac..... But lifeSavers hav allwayz thrown anchors to drowning people.
Milton....... Yes, but ordinary anchors rust. How can a rusty anchor do much good in the long-term, when what a drowner really needz iz a golden anchor, or at least a silver anchor.

mac..... What about a goldPlated anchor.
Milton....... No, no, no, no, no. It must be solid gold or solid silver. Its lucky for us that Treasury happenz to hav thousands of tons of solid gold anchors buryd somewhere -- if they were simply gold plated then swimming simply wouldnt exist and nobody would hav the constitutional right to drown.

mac..... And swimming lessons do more harm than good.
Milton....... Yes, swimming lessons are nothing but pure socialist (spit) dogma, favored only by left wing extremists. And, swimming lessons are unconstitutional -- if the Foundling Farters had favored swimming lessons, then they would hav written them into the Constitution.

mac..... Well, thank u Professor Friedman. I look forward to talking with u after our next dizaster, probly next year.

pooltchr
11-27-2011, 11:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Maybe the thought was that if the corporations enjoyed ever-growing profits, it must of course make the general public prosperous as well. That's all been proven wrong.



</div></div>
And the sad thing is, it's wrong because the general public is to stupid to actually try to save and invest some of their earnings. Anyone who collects a pay check has the opportunity to get a piece of those evil corporate profits. The trick is, they need to buy stock in those evil corporations. But hey...which is more important, investing in your future, or buying beer and cigarettes?

Steve

Soflasnapper
11-28-2011, 01:55 PM
It's much harder to save when real wages stagnate for 30 years, but costs of everything generally rise (computers and some other things excepted).

Even when people did save and invest in the market, growing rich, apparently, we found out eventually that the market itself was a bubble that retraced its rise by dropping 50% on average. All those sizzling high tech stocks or penny stocks were subject to market manipulators, or whale-size institutional investors' whims and computer program trading, whipsawing market values in frightening volatility.

Lots of people bought into the 'buy and hold' philosophy, doing all the right things according to the conventional wisdom, and their net worths were slaughtered nonetheless.

Same with the usual way an American family saved and invested, where they had the lion's share of their net worth, in their home. Down 40-50%.

Same thing in the Roaring '20s. Everybody and their brother-in-law got into the market, or the side bet parlors where smaller monies could buy into the appreciating stocks by proxy. All those people were wiped out in the crash.

The people in general are sheep to be shorn by the manipulators.

Gayle in MD
11-28-2011, 02:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's much harder to save when real wages stagnate for 30 years, but costs of everything generally rise (computers and some other things excepted).

Even when people did save and invest in the market, growing rich, apparently, we found out eventually that the market itself was a bubble that retraced its rise by dropping 50% on average. All those sizzling high tech stocks or penny stocks were subject to market manipulators, or whale-size institutional investors' whims and computer program trading, whipsawing market values in frightening volatility.

Lots of people bought into the 'buy and hold' philosophy, doing all the right things according to the conventional wisdom, and their net worths were slaughtered nonetheless.

Same with the usual way an American family saved and invested, where they had the lion's share of their net worth, in their home. Down 40-50%.

Same thing in the Roaring '20s. Everybody and their brother-in-law got into the market, or the side bet parlors where smaller monies could buy into the appreciating stocks by proxy. All those people were wiped out in the crash.

The people in general are sheep to be shorn by the manipulators. </div></div>

Gee, you mean the crash wasn't just the result of the stupid people buying beer and cigarettes?

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Soflasnapper
11-28-2011, 05:49 PM
Gee, you mean the crash wasn't just the result of the stupid people buying beer and cigarettes?

Ha ha! Mostly those people didn't contribute anything to the crash, unless they got a subprime mortgage loan, of course.

cushioncrawler
11-28-2011, 06:34 PM
If i were king there would be no mortgages -- everyone would hav a house, or 2.

If i were king there would be zero population growth.
If u do the math u will see that the average fella will inherit a house. No mortgage needed.
mac.