518
Post by: Kid_Kyoto
Nice chart, it seems Bush raised federal spending 8% in each of his terms, Obama...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/22/1093906/-Obama-did-not-go-on-federal-spending-binge-Pace-of-increase-now-lowest-it-has-been-in-decades
1.4%
Not that the MSM would ever admit this.
Oh and historically, Reagan raised it 8%, Clinton 3%
30287
Post by: Bromsy
Now, as I have been forced to point out recently - I am no doctor of Mathology, but I am fairly sure 1.4 goes into 8 something like 5.7 times, not 7 times.
39004
Post by: biccat
Kid_Kyoto wrote:dailykos.com
There's your problem right there.
518
Post by: Kid_Kyoto
biccat wrote:Kid_Kyoto wrote:dailykos.com
There's your problem right there.
Go ahead, refute it
29878
Post by: Chowderhead
Bromsy wrote:Now, as I have been forced to point out recently - I am no doctor of Mathology, but I am fairly sure 1.4 goes into 8 something like 5.7 times, not 7 times.
Agreed.
Also, in the second graph, it says he steadied the spending. Not made it go down, but just leveled it.
That's not much of an achievement, IMHO.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Whats so awesome is how much sophistry that is. If your wife loses her job, cutting the family income in half, and you only raise your spending 5%, you're still an idiot. Or President Obama.
39004
Post by: biccat
Kid_Kyoto wrote:biccat wrote:Kid_Kyoto wrote:dailykos.com
There's your problem right there.
Go ahead, refute it
Unfortunately, hate sites are blocked.
But I suspect it's the same information that has already been posted elsewhere.
29878
Post by: Chowderhead
Frazzled wrote:
Whats so awesome is how much sophistry that is.
If your wife loses her job, cutting the family income in half, and you only raise your spending 5%, you're still an idiot.
Or President Obama.
Yes, because the budget for a country is so much like that for a household.
Oh wait... Automatically Appended Next Post: biccat wrote:Kid_Kyoto wrote:biccat wrote:Kid_Kyoto wrote:dailykos.com
There's your problem right there.
Go ahead, refute it
Unfortunately, hate sites are blocked.
But I suspect it's the same information that has already been posted elsewhere.
I'm going to have to agree with Biccat on this.
The Daily Kos looks like a Democratic Hate Machine, and probably has a bit of a bias.
Just a bit.
39004
Post by: biccat
Frazzled wrote:If your wife loses her job, cutting the family income in half, and you only raise your spending 5%, you're still an idiot.
More like buying a car one year (paying for the whole thing), and then including that in your budget every year.
"See honey? Last year under your budgeting we increased our spending by $30,000 on a new car. Spending since I took over has been relatively flat."
48860
Post by: Joey
Frazzled wrote:
Whats so awesome is how much sophistry that is.
If your wife loses her job, cutting the family income in half, and you only raise your spending 5%, you're still an idiot.
Or President Obama.
What?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynes
221
Post by: Frazzled
biccat wrote:Frazzled wrote:If your wife loses her job, cutting the family income in half, and you only raise your spending 5%, you're still an idiot.
More like buying a car one year (paying for the whole thing), and then including that in your budget every year.
"See honey? Last year under your budgeting we increased our spending by $30,000 on a new car. Spending since I took over has been relatively flat."
Good point. True point. I for one welcome our new Weimarian style govenrment financial situation. After all thats never caused any problems before. Automatically Appended Next Post: Joey wrote:Frazzled wrote:
Whats so awesome is how much sophistry that is.
If your wife loses her job, cutting the family income in half, and you only raise your spending 5%, you're still an idiot.
Or President Obama.
What?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynes
A better example:
http://fxtrade.oanda.ca/analysis/infographics/greece-economic-crisis
48860
Post by: Joey
Keynsian economics is not "spend far more money than you can afford, all the time, and lie to everyone about it too". The fact that you think it is makes me wonder why you bother to post in economics threads at all if you can't understand these very basic things.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Joey wrote:
Keynsian economics is not "spend far more money than you can afford, all the time, and lie to everyone about it too". The fact that you think it is makes me wonder why you bother to post in economics threads at all if you can't understand these very basic things.
I agree. However, YOU cited the joke that is Obama spending as an example of Keynesian economics. "Spend far more money than you can afford, all the time, and lie to everyone about it too," is accurate in that circumstance.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
You need a government more like Belgium's.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
Chowderhead wrote:
The Daily Kos looks like a Democratic Hate Machine, and probably has a bit of a bias.
Just a bit.
Like if you repeatedly used fox news as a cited souce.
wait we see that regularly here...
518
Post by: Kid_Kyoto
Frazzled wrote:Joey wrote:
Keynsian economics is not "spend far more money than you can afford, all the time, and lie to everyone about it too". The fact that you think it is makes me wonder why you bother to post in economics threads at all if you can't understand these very basic things.
I agree. However, YOU cited the joke that is Obama spending as an example of Keynesian economics. "Spend far more money than you can afford, all the time, and lie to everyone about it too," is accurate in that circumstance.
Not even close. It was Bush who spent like a drunk sailor with no plan to pay for it, at a time the economy was growing.
Rather than, say keep the balanced budget Clinton left him and pay down the debt.
Republican deficit hawks have no credibility. None.
Obama has the unenviable position of having to stimulate the economy AFTER the national credit card was maxed out, and far from Greek levels of spending he's kept it lower than any president in 30 years.
The Republican narrative is fiction, when they ask where our dept came from they need to look in the mirror.
And in Iraq.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
The Republican narrative is fiction, when they ask where our dept came from they need to look in the mirror.
And in Iraq.
Well, we needed to find those WMDs...
(And fatten Halliburton's bottom line)
25703
Post by: juraigamer
CT GAMER wrote:Chowderhead wrote:
The Daily Kos looks like a Democratic Hate Machine, and probably has a bit of a bias.
Just a bit.
Like if you repeatedly used fox news as a cited souce.
wait we see that regularly here...
Dohoho!
News channel(s) and political parties are driving us apart, it's like "thar be treason afoot!"
29408
Post by: Melissia
The Republican narrative is fiction
Pretty much this.
48860
Post by: Joey
Frazzled wrote:Joey wrote:
Keynsian economics is not "spend far more money than you can afford, all the time, and lie to everyone about it too". The fact that you think it is makes me wonder why you bother to post in economics threads at all if you can't understand these very basic things.
I agree. However, YOU cited the joke that is Obama spending as an example of Keynesian economics. "Spend far more money than you can afford, all the time, and lie to everyone about it too," is accurate in that circumstance.
All government spending stimulates the economy, to varying degrees, hence why it's increased in a time of recession.
You have no factual basis for suggesting that the president is increasing spending to further socialistic/state capitalist goals. Unless this rabid-left winger got to be president, and coincidentally there was a recession going on so he got to do so under the veil of Keynesism.
5470
Post by: sebster
Frazzled wrote:Good point. True point. I for one welcome our new Weimarian style govenrment financial situation. After all thats never caused any problems before.
I've explained to you before that the Weimar Republic has little in common with the US, despite you thinking 'Weimar Republic had debt, USA has debt' is a powerful analogy.
For instance, at the peak of hyperinflation in the Weimar Repbulic was around 26,000,000,000%. The annualised rate of inflation for the US as of April 2012 is 2.6%. These, as I'm sure you would be aware, are very different numbers from each other.
I keep explaining to you that they're very different, and you keep ignoring me and just repeating your point. It's really getting quite ridiculous. Automatically Appended Next Post: Melissia wrote:The Republican narrative is fiction
Pretty much this.
Yes, very much so.
46
Post by: alarmingrick
sebster wrote:Melissia wrote:The Republican narrative is fiction
Pretty much this.
Yes, very much so.
Seeing as I third the motion, I say we break for beer and pizza. On Frazz. 
30287
Post by: Bromsy
alarmingrick wrote:sebster wrote:Melissia wrote:The Republican narrative is fiction
Pretty much this.
Yes, very much so.
Seeing as I third the motion, I say we break for beer and pizza. On Frazz.
I'd prefer a glass and a plate, respectively. But to each their own.
46
Post by: alarmingrick
Bromsy wrote:alarmingrick wrote:sebster wrote:Melissia wrote:The Republican narrative is fiction
Pretty much this.
Yes, very much so.
Seeing as I third the motion, I say we break for beer and pizza. On Frazz.
I'd prefer a glass and a plate, respectively. But to each their own.
Glass of beer and a plate of pizza? Sure, I can compromise. 
30287
Post by: Bromsy
If only our political leaders were as enlightened as us.
14070
Post by: SagesStone
I'm pretty sure they like glasses and plates too.
29110
Post by: AustonT
juraigamer wrote:
Dohoho!
News channel(s) and political parties are driving us apart, it's like "thar be treason afoot!"
some useless old guy wrote:In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union...One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts...they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection...The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Joey wrote:
You have no factual basis for suggesting that the president is increasing spending to further socialistic/state capitalist goals. Unless this rabid-left winger got to be president, and coincidentally there was a recession going on so he got to do so under the veil of Keynesism.
check
and check
30287
Post by: Bromsy
n0t_u wrote:I'm pretty sure they like glasses and plates too.
But they hate the compromise that is represented by the plates and glasses!
See, if we were like our political leaders, i'd be eating my pizza off a plate and drinking my beer out of a glass and calling rick a godless heathen, and rick would be eating and drinking his off frazzled and calling me a demagogue.
But instead, civility and joy abounds.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Bromsy wrote:n0t_u wrote:I'm pretty sure they like glasses and plates too.
But they hate the compromise that is represented by the plates and glasses!
See, if we were like our political leaders, i'd be eating my pizza off a plate and drinking my beer out of a glass and calling rick a godless heathen, and rick would be eating and drinking his off frazzled and calling me a demagogue.
A compromise between a plate and a glass is a bowl
14070
Post by: SagesStone
Compromise was between having a glass and a plate or nothing. I'd have to agree with the cost cutting method and compromise with paper cups and paper plates as if you drop them they won't break so you can dust them off.
29110
Post by: AustonT
n0t_u wrote:Compromise was between having a glass and a plate or nothing. I'd have to agree with the cost cutting method and compromise with paper cups and paper plates as if you drop them they won't break so you can dust them off.
I counter with Styrofoam bowls; they float. So you can eat in a hot tub.
30287
Post by: Bromsy
AustonT wrote:Bromsy wrote:n0t_u wrote:I'm pretty sure they like glasses and plates too.
But they hate the compromise that is represented by the plates and glasses!
See, if we were like our political leaders, i'd be eating my pizza off a plate and drinking my beer out of a glass and calling rick a godless heathen, and rick would be eating and drinking his off frazzled and calling me a demagogue.
A compromise between a plate and a glass is a bowl
Or a trencher, tureen, gravy boat, or tajine, I'm just happy so long as I'm not served off of Fraz.
29110
Post by: AustonT
I feel like a gravy boat is stretching. That's more like a compromise between a pitcher and a plate, or a pitcher and a bowl. I have no idea what a trencher is as to me that's a long coat.
14070
Post by: SagesStone
If I'm Googling it right, I believe serving pizza with the trencher would be the most entertaining use for the budget.
For the larger gatherings.
30287
Post by: Bromsy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trencher_%28tableware%29
and a gravy boat is like a cup but flattened out some, so I am standing by my argument that it is half cup half plate.
Although serving mashed taters out of what not_u came up with would also be dead sexy.
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
I prefer n0t_u's. 
221
Post by: Frazzled
n0t_u wrote:If I'm Googling it right, I believe serving pizza with the trencher would be the most entertaining use for the budget.
For the larger gatherings.
Don't show my wife. She'll want one.
29878
Post by: Chowderhead
CT GAMER wrote:Chowderhead wrote:
The Daily Kos looks like a Democratic Hate Machine, and probably has a bit of a bias.
Just a bit.
Like if you repeatedly used fox news as a cited souce.
wait we see that regularly here...
Now, just a thought:
There is a difference between me posting stories from Fox News, and me citing it as a source.
Facts! They're so much fun!
29110
Post by: AustonT
Bromsy wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trencher_%28tableware%29
and a gravy boat is like a cup but flattened out some, so I am standing by my argument that it is half cup half plate.
Although serving mashed taters out of what not_u came up with would also be dead sexy.
Squashed pitcher!
16387
Post by: Manchu
Back on-topic please!
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
MMM....pizza. Wait, isn't pizza the topic of this conversation? If not, I'm in the wrong thread. Also,  at the Bush defenders who are continuing their "we hate Obama" stance. Except Frazzled-he's proven he's alright by the furry, brown company he keeps.
39004
Post by: biccat
timetowaste85 wrote:Also, at the Bush defenders who are continuing their "we hate Obama" stance.
No at people who continue, 3 years after Obama took office, their "It's all Bush's fault" stance?
16387
Post by: Manchu
It's a pity more Republicans can't see the value of regulation. If you really wanted to drag President Obama over the coals, you could just bring up his deference to Wallstreet.
I'm not sure that the graph in the article suggests the President has gotten spending "under control." I suspect it illustrates the ambivalence of either side more than anything else.
39004
Post by: biccat
Manchu wrote:It's a pity more Republicans can't see the value of regulation. If you really wanted to drag President Obama over the coals, you could just bring up his deference to Wallstreet.
Believe it or not, the best way for a center-right party to attack a left (or center-left if you want) president is not by trying to outmaneuver him to the left.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
If you looked at issues on an individual basis instead of on a left right axis, more problems would get solved.
16387
Post by: Manchu
biccat wrote:Believe it or not, the best way for a center-right party to attack a left (or center-left if you want) president is not by trying to outmaneuver him to the left.
Fair point, and even more relevant in that we're dealing with a far right party attacking a center-right one. What I mean to say is, the President hasn't done much that's center-left much less left: passed Newt Gingrich's vision of healthcare reform and encouraged Wallstreet to pretend nothing happened. You can see why he needed to kick up some dust with gay marriage. Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, I don't think regulation is necessarily "leftist." It's just not libertarian. I don't buy the libertarian attempt to masquerade as conservatives. The finance sector should be reeled in to actually finance things rather than betting on bets about betting.
221
Post by: Frazzled
-Cap and tax
-EPA now implementing the cap part (see destruction of coal fired plants at FYE)
-Obamacare fiasco
-Greatest federal deficit in the history of mankind
-Financial regulation so vague no one in the industry knows whats going to come down the pike
-Cradle to grave help for Julia.
EDIT: Forgot about the crony capitalism and massive government spending to support goverment payrolls, not infrastructure or other actual services.
center right only in a fevered imagination.
39004
Post by: biccat
Manchu wrote:Fair point, and even more relevant in that we're dealing with a far right party attacking a center-right one.
The Republican party is certainly not far-right. The fact that Romney is the presidential nominee and the last nominee was McCain should be sufficient for that. If you want more evidence, look at Bush's major legislative accomplishments.
Manchu wrote:What I mean to say is, the President hasn't done much that's center-left much less left: passed Newt Gingrich's vision of healthcare reform and encouraged Wallstreet to pretend nothing happened. You can see why he needed to kick up some dust with gay marriage.
Stop referring to it as a Republican health care reform position. It's not. The idea was floated around some Right-wing think tanks a while ago, but never went anywhere. To continue to claim it's anything but center-left is dishonest. Second, Obama has been pretty harsh on Wall Street. So I'm not sure where you're getting that idea that he's encouraging Wall Street to pretend nothing happened.
He hasn't done much that's center-left, much less left, because he isn't a good President and hasn't been able to accomplish much in Congress. He proposes some broad idea them dumps it off on the Democrats in Congress to find the votes. He then goes out and gives speeches demonizing Republicans for not going along with his idea, not knowing what exactly is in the bill that the DNC has put forward. Then when the bill inevitably fails, he gets the administrative agencies to do what Congress would not.
Put simply, Obama is a good demagogue and advocates a lot of left-wing positions, but he's not actually good at running the Executive. He's shown both an inability and an unwillingness to work with Congressional Republicans to get bills passed. And there are Republicans from liberal states that would work with him if he reached out to them. Obama's current strategy seems to be "get Democrats elected and we'll fix everything," where his strategy should be getting some things done to create a real record of success.
The fact that leftwingers are mimicking Obama's reference to Romney as all kinds of an evil Right-winger (seriously... Romney, governor of Massachusettes) shows that Obama doesn't have much to run on. Automatically Appended Next Post: Manchu wrote:Also, I don't think regulation is necessarily "leftist." It's just not libertarian. I don't buy the libertarian attempt to masquerade as conservatives. The finance sector should be reeled in to actually finance things rather than betting on bets about betting.
Actually, finance companies should do whatever is in their business interest. If they want to bet on bets about betting, who cares? Don't do business with them. Others will come in and finance things when the big boys go down.
221
Post by: Frazzled
I'll just leave this here from that right wing rag the Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/forget-bain-obamas-public-equity-record-is-the-real-scandal/2012/05/24/gJQAXnXCnU_allComments.html?ctab=all_& Forget Bain — Obama’s public-equity record is the real scandal
Text Size PrintE-mailReprintsBy Marc A. Thiessen, Published: May 24The Washington Post Despite a growing backlash from his fellow Democrats, President Obama has doubled down on his attacks on Mitt Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital. But the strategy could backfire in ways Obama did not anticipate. After all, if Romney’s record in private equity is fair game, then so is Obama’s record in public equity — and that record is not pretty.
Since taking office, Obama has invested billions of taxpayer dollars in private businesses, including as part of his stimulus spending bill. Many of those investments have turned out to be unmitigated disasters — leaving in their wake bankruptcies, layoffs, criminal investigations and taxpayers on the hook for billions. Consider just a few examples of Obama’s public equity failures:
.● Raser Technologies. In 2010, the Obama administration gave Raser a $33 million taxpayer-funded grant to build a power plant in Beaver Creek, Utah. According to the Wall Street Journal, after burning through our tax dollars, the company filed for bankruptcy protection in 2012. The plant now has fewer than 10 employees, and Raser owes $1.5 million in back taxes.
● ECOtality. The Obama administration gave ECOtality $126.2 million in taxpayer money in 2009 for, among other things, the installation of 14,000 electric car chargers in five states. Obama even hosted the company’s president, Don Karner, in the first lady’s box during the 2010 State of the Union address as an example of a stimulus success story. According to ECOtality’s own SEC filings, the company has since incurred more than $45 million in losses and has told the federal government, “We may not achieve or sustain profitability on a quarterly or annual basis in the future.”
Worse, according to CBS News the company is “under investigation for insider trading,” and Karner has been subpoenaed “for any and all documentation surrounding the public announcement of the first Department of Energy grant to the company.”
● Nevada Geothermal Power (NGP). The Obama administration gave NGP a $98.5 million taxpayer loan guarantee in 2010. The New York Times reported last October that the company is in “financial turmoil” and that “[a]fter a series of technical missteps that are draining Nevada Geothermal’s cash reserves, its own auditor concluded in a filing released last week that there was ‘significant doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern.’ ”
● First Solar. The Obama administration provided First Solar with more than $3 billion in loan guarantees for power plants in Arizona and California. According to a Bloomberg Businessweek report last week, the company “fell to a record low in Nasdaq Stock Market trading May 4 after reporting $401 million in restructuring costs tied to firing 30 percent of its workforce.”
● Abound Solar, Inc. The Obama administration gave Abound Solar a $400 million loan guarantee to build photovoltaic panel factories. According to Forbes, in February the company halted production and laid off 180 employees.
● Beacon Power. The Obama administration gave Beacon — a green-energy storage company — a $43 million loan guarantee. According to CBS News, at the time of the loan, “Standard and Poor’s had confidentially given the project a dismal outlook of ‘CCC-plus.’ ” In the fall of 2011, Beacon received a delisting notice from Nasdaq and filed for bankruptcy.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. A company called SunPower got a $1.2 billion loan guarantee from the Obama administration, and as of January, the company owed more than it was worth. Brightsource got a $1.6 billion loan guarantee and posted a string of net losses totaling $177 million. And, of course, let’s not forget Solyndra — the solar panel manufacturer that received $535 million in taxpayer-funded loan guarantees and went bankrupt, leaving taxpayers on the hook.
Amazingly, Obama has declared that all the projects received funding “based solely on their merits.” But as Hoover Institution scholar Peter Schweizer reported in his book, “Throw Them All Out,” fully 71 percent of the Obama Energy Department’s grants and loans went to “individuals who were bundlers, members of Obama’s National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party.” Collectively, these Obama cronies raised $457,834 for his campaign, and they were in turn approved for grants or loans of nearly $11.35 billion. Obama said this week it’s not the president’s job “to make a lot of money for investors.” Well, he sure seems to have made a lot of (taxpayer) money for investors in his political machine.
All that cronyism and corruption is catching up with the administration. According to Politico, “The Energy Department’s inspector general has launched more than 100 criminal investigations” related to the department’s green-energy programs.
Now the man who made Solyndra a household name says Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital “is what this campaign is going to be about.” Good luck with that, Mr. President. If Obama wants to attack Romney’s alleged private equity failures as chief executive of Bain, he’d better be ready to defend his own massive public equity failures as chief executive of the United States.
16387
Post by: Manchu
biccat wrote:The Republican party is certainly not far-right. The fact that Romney is the presidential nominee and the last nominee was McCain should be sufficient for that.
All that proves is that the American electorate isn't (self-consciously) far-right.
As to your evaluation of the President, I disagree that he's inept. Rather, I think he's been quite effective as the best friend that Wallstreet ever had. But who cares as long as dudes can marry other dudes? biccat wrote:Actually, finance companies should do whatever is in their business interest. If they want to bet on bets about betting, who cares? Don't do business with them. Others will come in and finance things when the big boys go down.
This is silly. You're saying individuals should reign in Wallstreet by ... what, closing their Wells Fargo checking accounts?
29408
Post by: Melissia
The invisible hand. Because if it were REAL regulation instead of some theoretical entirely non-existent regulation based off of a philosophy about free trade which doesn't really apply to today's financial markets, it'd be baaaaad baaaaad lefties!
6931
Post by: frgsinwntr
Manchu wrote:biccat wrote:The Republican party is certainly not far-right. The fact that Romney is the presidential nominee and the last nominee was McCain should be sufficient for that.
All that proves is that the American electorate isn't (self-consciously) far-right.
As to your evaluation of the President, I disagree that he's inept. Rather, I think he's been quite effective as the best friend that Wallstreet ever had. But who cares as long as dudes can marry other dudes? biccat wrote:Actually, finance companies should do whatever is in their business interest. If they want to bet on bets about betting, who cares? Don't do business with them. Others will come in and finance things when the big boys go down.
This is silly. You're saying individuals should reign in Wallstreet by ... what, closing their Wells Fargo checking accounts?
What gets me... is people think he is a socialist who is all for wall street....
How could he be both?
16387
Post by: Manchu
Barak Obama is about as much of a socialist as biccat is.
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
frgsinwntr wrote:
What gets me... is people think he is a socialist who is all for wall street....
How could he be both?
And a nazi and a muslim and a communist... and doubtless a lizard person from the Nth dimension.
30287
Post by: Bromsy
I got all the way through before I realized that wasn't Bacon Power. I am a little sad now.
As far as regulation - if you can get gas below 1.50 - go for it. Doesn't seem interested in that one though.
221
Post by: Frazzled
MeanGreenStompa wrote:frgsinwntr wrote:
What gets me... is people think he is a socialist who is all for wall street....
How could he be both?
And a nazi and a muslim and a communist... and doubtless a lizard person from the Nth dimension.
Son, I knew lizards for the Nth dimension, and you're no lizards from the Nth dimension.
39004
Post by: biccat
Manchu wrote:Rather, I think he's been quite effective as the best friend that Wallstreet ever had.
Considering Obama signed Dodd-Frank, I think it's safe to say your comment is pretty much wrong.
Manchu wrote:This is silly. You're saying individuals should reign in Wallstreet by ... what, closing their Wells Fargo checking accounts?
Sure. But don't be sad if millions of other Wells Fargo customers don't follow suit.
Regulation is unnecessary when the market behaves in the manner you want. A call for regulation therefore is a call to force people to act in a manner that you want. Automatically Appended Next Post: frgsinwntr wrote:What gets me... is people think he is a socialist who is all for wall street....
State capitalism is a socialist concept.
29110
Post by: AustonT
biccat wrote:
frgsinwntr wrote:What gets me... is people think he is a socialist who is all for wall street....
State capitalism is a socialist concept.
National Socialist?
29408
Post by: Melissia
So that must mean that Republicans are socialists.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Melissia wrote:So that must mean that Republicans are socialists.
Yes!
16387
Post by: Manchu
biccat wrote:Considering Obama signed Dodd-Frank, I think it's safe to say your comment is pretty much wrong.
Dodd-Frank has been nothing but smoke and noise. All it did was authorize a rule-writing, which process was immediately infiltrated and overpowered by corporate lobby. All while giving that same lobby a beautiful smokescreen of wailing over the supposedly draconian regulation, which of course is only regulation at all when compared to the lacuna that preceded it. Meanwhile, in DC, Democrats get to pretend that they did something good and Republicans can pretend Democrats did something bad. Here on Dakka, it let's you pretend the President is interested in reforming Wallstreet. biccat wrote:Regulation is unnecessary when the market behaves in the manner you want.
I think that's probably chiseled on the front of the NYSE, right? That's the bloody motto of big business. biccat wrote:A call for regulation therefore is a call to force people to act in a manner that you want.
And the objection to regulation is an objection to anyone else having a say on what you want.
39004
Post by: biccat
Manchu wrote:Dodd-Frank has been nothing but smoke and noise. All it did was authorize a rule-writing, which process was immediately infiltrated and overpowered by corporate lobby. All while giving that same lobby a beautiful smokescreen of wailing over the supposedly draconian regulation, which of course is only regulation at all when compared to the lacuna that preceded it.
Except...no. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that Obama has been a friend to Wall Street, but you're largely wrong. He's been a friend to his friends on Wall Street, but that's pretty much how state capitalism works. People in power give favors to their friends. But anyone who isn't a friend of Obama (or raising money for him) has been left out in the cold. Manchu wrote:I think that's probably chiseled on the front of the NYSE, right? That's the bloody motto of big business.
No, that's the motto of big government. "People aren't doing what we want, how can we force them to do so?" When government takes the power to force people to behave in a certain manner businesses have to respond. Manchu wrote:And the objection to regulation is an objection to anyone else having a say on what you want.
Yup. Now you're getting it.
16387
Post by: Manchu
The proper role of government is to force people to behave in certain ways: such as not assaulting, raping, and murdering one another -- and yes, even trillion dollar examples of fraud are still fraud. (But don't you worry; the President is clearly not interested in treating it as crime.)
39004
Post by: biccat
Manchu wrote:The proper role of government is to force people to behave in certain ways: such as not assaulting, raping, and murdering one another -- and yes, even trillion dollar examples of fraud are still fraud. (But don't you worry; the President is clearly not interested in treating it as crime.)
I suppose there's only one thing left to be said.
Manchu wrote:
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
Manchu wrote:The proper role of government is to force people to behave in certain ways: such as not assaulting, raping, and murdering one another -- and yes, even trillion dollar examples of fraud are still fraud. (But don't you worry; the President is clearly not interested in treating it as crime.)
that's part of the problem, since the banks got deregulated what they did is not even a crime.
221
Post by: Frazzled
What was the supposed crime again?
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Frazzled wrote:What was the supposed crime again?
Losing millions of public savings in get rich quick schemes and needing the government to put it back in out of loans which will eventually be repaid by taxes paid by the public whose money was lost in the first place? Meanwhile the retards who actually lost the money take their enormous bonus for doing such a good job, stick it in an offshore account so they don't pay any tax on it and retire to somewhere nice and sunny. At least that's what happened here in the UK. Pretty much the only consequence the "banksters" (as our tabloids like to call them) had to face was one of them losing his knighthood.
16387
Post by: Manchu
The one the banks are all charging each other with (carefully, carefully -- as a violation of civil law!) is fraud. The complaints tend to read "massive fraud." The damages tend to the hundreds of millions if not billions. The cases are piling higher and higher. Of course, that's just the banks hounding each other, setting aside the American population that is actually being affected. The activity in question, remarkably similar from instance to instance, has lead to near economic collapse. No other enemy of the United States has ever done so much damage to the Republic as corporate finance. If I didn't know better, I'd say Al Qaeda was running Wallstreet.
221
Post by: Frazzled
A Town Called Malus wrote:Frazzled wrote:What was the supposed crime again?
Losing millions of Americans savings in get rich quick schemes and needing the government to put it back in out of loans which will eventually be repaid by taxes paid by the Americans whose money was lost in the first place?
What get rich quick schemes?
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
Frazzled wrote:What was the supposed crime again?
aren't you against socialism? you're opposed to welfare to help your neighbor, but your fine with welfare to help big banks? interesting.
if banks are to big to fail, they need to get chopped up into smaller banks that can fail.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Manchu wrote:The one the banks are all charging each other with (carefully, carefully -- as a violation of civil law!) is fraud. The complaints tend to read "massive fraud." The damages tend to the hundreds of millions if not billions. The cases are piling higher and higher. Of course, that's just the banks hounding each other, setting aside the American population that is actually being affected. The activity in question, remarkably similar from instance to instance, has lead to near economic collapse. No other enemy of the United States has ever done so much damage to the Republic as corporate finance. If I didn't know better, I'd say Al Qaeda was running Wallstreet.
How is whatever fraud. Just saying a word doesn't make it a crime. Automatically Appended Next Post: sirlynchmob wrote:Frazzled wrote:What was the supposed crime again?
aren't you against socialism? you're opposed to welfare to help your neighbor, but your fine with welfare to help big banks? interesting.
if banks are to big to fail, they need to get chopped up into smaller banks that can fail.
Again, what crime. Don't change the subject when called on it.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Frazzled wrote:What get rich quick schemes?
We could start with credit default swaps.
29110
Post by: AustonT
A Town Called Malus wrote:Frazzled wrote:What was the supposed crime again?
Losing millions of public savings in get rich quick schemes and needing the government to put it back in out of loans which will eventually be repaid by taxes paid by the public whose money was lost in the first place?
Meanwhile the retards who actually lost the money take their enormous bonus for doing such a good job, stick it in an offshore account so they don't pay any tax on it and retire to somewhere nice and sunny.
At least that's what happened here in the UK. Pretty much the only consequence the "banksters" (as our tabloids like to call them) had to face was one of them losing his knighthood.
When did the banks lose ANYONE's savings?
Manchu wrote:If I didn't know better, I'd say Al Qaeda was running Wallstreet.
You knew this was ridiculous when you wrote it.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Manchu wrote:Frazzled wrote:What get rich quick schemes?
We could start with credit default swaps.
Thats designed to be insurance. Do you know what they are actually?
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
Frazzled wrote:Manchu wrote:The one the banks are all charging each other with (carefully, carefully -- as a violation of civil law!) is fraud. The complaints tend to read "massive fraud." The damages tend to the hundreds of millions if not billions. The cases are piling higher and higher. Of course, that's just the banks hounding each other, setting aside the American population that is actually being affected. The activity in question, remarkably similar from instance to instance, has lead to near economic collapse. No other enemy of the United States has ever done so much damage to the Republic as corporate finance. If I didn't know better, I'd say Al Qaeda was running Wallstreet.
How is whatever fraud. Just saying a word doesn't make it a crime.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sirlynchmob wrote:Frazzled wrote:What was the supposed crime again?
aren't you against socialism? you're opposed to welfare to help your neighbor, but your fine with welfare to help big banks? interesting.
if banks are to big to fail, they need to get chopped up into smaller banks that can fail.
Again, what crime. Don't change the subject when called on it.
I said there was no crime involved because there are no laws to regulate the banks. Laws need to be put into place so those same banks don't crash the entire worlds market again. Now why are you for welfare for the banks?
16387
Post by: Manchu
Frazzled wrote:How is whatever fraud. Just saying a word doesn't make it a crime.
Good thing I didn't just say a word then. The charge is that banks encouraged customers to invest in instruments that those same banks were simultaneously betting against. You keep playing dumb.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Allrighty then what crime would you accuse them of?
16387
Post by: Manchu
Frazzled wrote:Manchu wrote:Frazzled wrote:What get rich quick schemes?
We could start with credit default swaps.
Thats designed to be insurance. Do you know what they are actually?
No it's not designed to be insurance. It's designed to be like insurance, in terms of the profitability, but it was specifically designed to be different enough that it could entirely avoid regulation. (Most basically the investor doesn't even have to have an insurable interest in the instrument.) Since you're the expert, you must know that insurance is one of the most if not the most heavily regulated products in the market. Credit default swaps, by contrast, had absolutely no regulation whatsoever. Automatically Appended Next Post: AustonT wrote:Manchu wrote:If I didn't know better, I'd say Al Qaeda was running Wallstreet.
You knew this was ridiculous when you wrote it.
You're right. The damage Al Qaeda has done or ever possibly could do pales absolutely in comparison to the way Wallstreet has ravaged and continues to ravage Mainstreet.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
AustonT wrote:A Town Called Malus wrote:Frazzled wrote:What was the supposed crime again?
Losing millions of public savings in get rich quick schemes and needing the government to put it back in out of loans which will eventually be repaid by taxes paid by the public whose money was lost in the first place?
Meanwhile the retards who actually lost the money take their enormous bonus for doing such a good job, stick it in an offshore account so they don't pay any tax on it and retire to somewhere nice and sunny.
At least that's what happened here in the UK. Pretty much the only consequence the "banksters" (as our tabloids like to call them) had to face was one of them losing his knighthood.
When did the banks lose ANYONE's savings?
When they needed the government to pour millions of pounds/dollars into them so that they could stay afloat? The banks leant peoples money in risky schemes, which if successful would result in big returns. They failed and the money leant was lost. Then the government has to come in and put it back through nationalisation or a loan to the banks, using public money from taxes or a loan, to ensure that it doesn't end up like it did in Iceland where all of their major banks collapsed.
221
Post by: Frazzled
No.
It was different than an actual insurance contract because it was an offsetting trade tied to differing bonds to match the risk profile of the underlying credit you were trying to hedge the risk against.
Its not designed for nefarious purpose, but as a way for banks and other institutions to hedge loans/securities to clients they viewed as too risky for the return they were getting. Automatically Appended Next Post: Manchu wrote:Frazzled wrote:Manchu wrote:Frazzled wrote:What get rich quick schemes?
We could start with credit default swaps.
Thats designed to be insurance. Do you know what they are actually?
No it's not designed to be insurance. It's designed to be like insurance, in terms of the profitability, but it was specifically designed to be different enough that it could entirely avoid regulation. (Most basically the investor doesn't even have to have an insurable interest in the instrument.) Since you're the expert, you must know that insurance is one of the most if not the most heavily regulated products in the market. Credit default swaps, by contrast, had absolutely no regulation whatsoever.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote:Manchu wrote:If I didn't know better, I'd say Al Qaeda was running Wallstreet.
You knew this was ridiculous when you wrote it.
You're right. The damage Al Qaeda has done or ever possibly could do pales absolutely in comparison to the way Wallstreet has ravaged and continues to ravage Mainstreet.
I likw how you just compared millions of US citizens to "worse than Al Qaeda." Thats, wow. I appreciate your view that I am worse than Al Qaeda, and really wish you were here so we could express that to you in person. Automatically Appended Next Post: A Town Called Malus wrote:AustonT wrote:A Town Called Malus wrote:Frazzled wrote:What was the supposed crime again?
Losing millions of public savings in get rich quick schemes and needing the government to put it back in out of loans which will eventually be repaid by taxes paid by the public whose money was lost in the first place?
Meanwhile the retards who actually lost the money take their enormous bonus for doing such a good job, stick it in an offshore account so they don't pay any tax on it and retire to somewhere nice and sunny.
At least that's what happened here in the UK. Pretty much the only consequence the "banksters" (as our tabloids like to call them) had to face was one of them losing his knighthood.
When did the banks lose ANYONE's savings?
When they needed the government to pour millions of pounds/dollars into them so that they could stay afloat? The banks leant peoples money in risky schemes, which if successful would result in big returns. They failed and the money leant was lost. Then the government has to come in and put it back through nationalisation or a loan to the banks, using public money from taxes or a loan, to ensure that it doesn't end up like it did in Iceland where all of their major banks collapsed.
Malus, understand, in the US deposits are insured. Its my understanding that is not the case in the UK. You're both right actually.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Frazzled wrote:Its not designed for nefarious purpose, but as a way for banks and other institutions to hedge loans/securities to clients they viewed as too risky for the return they were getting.
Yeah -- banks took on risk by making loans that they then wanted off their books so that they could take on other risks -- CDS let them do it all without increasing capitalization AND selling the derivative was insanely profitable. And the result? Who cares how risky the loan is if you don't have to deal with the risk?
Are you seriously tell me, in 2012, that nothing went wrong?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Manchu wrote:Frazzled wrote:How is whatever fraud. Just saying a word doesn't make it a crime.
Good thing I didn't just say a word then. The charge is that banks encouraged customers to invest in instruments that those same banks were simultaneously betting against. You keep playing dumb.
What instruments? When you say "customers" are you talking retail or sophisticate institutional?
29110
Post by: AustonT
A Town Called Malus wrote:AustonT wrote:A Town Called Malus wrote:Frazzled wrote:What was the supposed crime again?
Losing millions of public savings in get rich quick schemes and needing the government to put it back in out of loans which will eventually be repaid by taxes paid by the public whose money was lost in the first place?
Meanwhile the retards who actually lost the money take their enormous bonus for doing such a good job, stick it in an offshore account so they don't pay any tax on it and retire to somewhere nice and sunny.
At least that's what happened here in the UK. Pretty much the only consequence the "banksters" (as our tabloids like to call them) had to face was one of them losing his knighthood.
When did the banks lose ANYONE's savings?
When they needed the government to pour millions of pounds/dollars into them so that they could stay afloat? The banks leant peoples money in risky schemes, which if successful would result in big returns. They failed and the money leant was lost. Then the government has to come in and put it back through nationalisation or a loan to the banks, using public money from taxes or a loan, to ensure that it doesn't end up like it did in Iceland where all of their major banks collapsed.
That doesn't make any sense. You said they "lost millions of public savings and needing the government to put it back" Now in clarification you have made those two separate statements one and the same. The subprime lending market was and is a debacle, but to my knowledge no one's SAVINGS were lost by banks. Which is what I asked about: savings.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Manchu wrote:Frazzled wrote:Its not designed for nefarious purpose, but as a way for banks and other institutions to hedge loans/securities to clients they viewed as too risky for the return they were getting.
Yeah -- banks took on risk by making loans that they then wanted off their books so that they could take on other risks -- CDS let them do it all without increasing capitalization AND selling the derivative was insanely profitable. And the result? Who cares how risky the loan is if you don't have to deal with the risk? Are you seriously tell me, in 2012, that nothing went wrong?
If you're trying to lay off risk you buy CDS not sell it. In addition to seeming to have taken up the pastime of comparing whole industries to mass terorrists (thats just choice, so choice) you're lacking a basic understanding of risk. Further, the pricing of the CDS is tied to the underlyhing risk you're offsetting. Get a potential bad loan and there's no CDS to begin with or the pricing is particularly brutal. Of course its not illegal or unethical, unless you're down with the hardcore Baptist view that insurance is a form of gambling. I guess you don't have home insurance either. To your point that soething went wrong. Yea. Lots of things go wrong all the time. It doesn't make them illegal or unethical. Guess what, none of that blathering is what nearly sank Citigroup.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Frazzled wrote:I likw how you just compared millions of US citizens to "worse than Al Qaeda." Thats, wow. I appreciate your view that I am worse than Al Qaeda, and really wish you were here so we could express that to you in person.
You don't need to wait for me, tough guy. Head over to the side of town where the fallout from all this "not crime" has forced families into hunger and homelessness. You can personally explain to them how innocent the finance sector is. Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazzled wrote:When you say "customers" are you talking retail or sophisticate institutional?
Depending on the level of the transaction, both. As you well know.
17923
Post by: Asherian Command
alarmingrick wrote:Bromsy wrote:alarmingrick wrote:sebster wrote:Melissia wrote:The Republican narrative is fiction
Pretty much this.
Yes, very much so.
Seeing as I third the motion, I say we break for beer and pizza. On Frazz.
I'd prefer a glass and a plate, respectively. But to each their own.
Glass of beer and a plate of pizza? Sure, I can compromise.
I also agree with this,
The republicans are just digging a larger hole for themselves.
Though people who keep saying Obama is the worst president clearly have never read history correctly XD
16387
Post by: Manchu
Frazzled wrote:Further, the pricing of the CDS is tied to the underlyhing risk you're offsetting. Get a potential bad loan and there's no CDS to begin with or the pricing is particularly brutal.
It didn't matter. In less than fifteen years, the market was worth over $60 trillion. And I'm not even talking about mortgages, which is where the model really took hold. Frazzled wrote:If you're trying to lay off risk you buy CDS not sell it.
Yeah, that's the point -- banks were doing both at the same time.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Manchu wrote:Frazzled wrote:I likw how you just compared millions of US citizens to "worse than Al Qaeda." Thats, wow. I appreciate your view that I am worse than Al Qaeda, and really wish you were here so we could express that to you in person.
You don't need to wait for me, tough guy. Head over to the side of town where the fallout from all this "not crime" has forced families into hunger and homelessness. You can personally explain to them how innocent the finance sector is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:When you say "customers" are you talking retail or sophisticate institutional?
Depending on the level of the transaction, both. As you well know.
Whats your encore? Do you accuse real estate agents of being Nazis next?
16387
Post by: Manchu
Do you seriously feel personally responsible for the financial models that ruined our economy? If so, then you ought to do something other than defend them.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Manchu wrote:Frazzled wrote:I likw how you just compared millions of US citizens to "worse than Al Qaeda." Thats, wow. I appreciate your view that I am worse than Al Qaeda, and really wish you were here so we could express that to you in person.
You don't need to wait for me, tough guy. Head over to the side of town where the fallout from all this "not crime" has forced families into hunger and homelessness. You can personally explain to them how innocent the finance sector is. Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazzled wrote:When you say "customers" are you talking retail or sophisticate institutional?
Depending on the level of the transaction, both. As you well know.
So yo're telling me retail customers were being sold CDS? What the feth are you smoking? What retail Joe Shmoe has a couple of million laying around for a CDS? Automatically Appended Next Post: Manchu wrote:Do you seriously feel personally responsible for the financial models that ruined our economy? If so, then you ought to do something other than defend them.
The problem is you're shooting your arrow at the wrong target. However, since you labelled all finance and insurance guys (er Wall Street in your joyous Occupymyass parlance) as AlQaeda you've just attacked everything from car insurance salesmen to bank tellers arguing with you about what really happened is kind of pointless.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
AustonT wrote:A Town Called Malus wrote:AustonT wrote:A Town Called Malus wrote:Frazzled wrote:What was the supposed crime again?
Losing millions of public savings in get rich quick schemes and needing the government to put it back in out of loans which will eventually be repaid by taxes paid by the public whose money was lost in the first place?
Meanwhile the retards who actually lost the money take their enormous bonus for doing such a good job, stick it in an offshore account so they don't pay any tax on it and retire to somewhere nice and sunny.
At least that's what happened here in the UK. Pretty much the only consequence the "banksters" (as our tabloids like to call them) had to face was one of them losing his knighthood.
When did the banks lose ANYONE's savings?
When they needed the government to pour millions of pounds/dollars into them so that they could stay afloat? The banks leant peoples money in risky schemes, which if successful would result in big returns. They failed and the money leant was lost. Then the government has to come in and put it back through nationalisation or a loan to the banks, using public money from taxes or a loan, to ensure that it doesn't end up like it did in Iceland where all of their major banks collapsed.
That doesn't make any sense. You said they "lost millions of public savings and needing the government to put it back" Now in clarification you have made those two separate statements one and the same. The subprime lending market was and is a debacle, but to my knowledge no one's SAVINGS were lost by banks. Which is what I asked about: savings.
Where do you think the money leant to people for their subprime mortgage came from? Banks take peoples money and invest it in order to get a return, hence why they can offer interest on your money. When they actually evaluate the risks this works quite well. But what happened here is that they leant this money recklessly, looking for a quick return. Then the debtors defaulted, so the money was completely lost. If they didn't get the massive amount of money from the government to keep them afloat they would have collapsed completely (like what happened in Iceland) and all the people who had been saving with them would have found their money sucked into the warp.
That these people didn't is because the government had put the money back in, taking the debt on itself and, effectively, on the people whose money had been lost by careless and reckless banking. So peoples savings were lost by the banks, replaced by the government and the cost of the banks mistakes in the form of national debt is passed onto them.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Frazzled wrote:So yo're telling me retail customers were being sold CDS? What the feth are you smoking?
No, I'm telling you that once banks found out how profitable it was to bet against their customers, the idea permeated the market at every level of transaction. For example, there was a much greater demand for mortgage loans than there were qualified borrowers. And the CDS model needed bad loans to bet against. Lo and behold, the mortgage crisis happened. And here I thought Dick and Jane were just irresponsible good-for-nothings.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Frazzled wrote:I am. We're cleaning up on the wreckage of the European banks.
It was JP Morgan and the other Wallstreet banks who made the damn mess in the first place.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
Here is the real problem:
http://moneymorning.com/2011/10/12/derivatives-the-600-trillion-time-bomb-thats-set-to-explode/
October 12, 2011
"Derivatives played a crucial role in bringing down the global economy, so you would think that the world's top policymakers would have reined these things in by now - but they haven't.
Instead of attacking the problem, regulators have let it spiral out of control, and the result is a $600 trillion time bomb called the derivatives market. "
and its spiraled up to:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=30944
May 20, 2012
"Top Derivatives Expert Estimates Size of the Global Derivatives Market at $1,200 Trillion Dollars … 20 Times Larger than the Global Economy"
so frazz, do you see anything wrong with gambling with more than 20 times the global economy is worth? Do you think we should enact some regulations to stop this practice and bring it under control? or do we just trust the bankers to fix the problem?
39004
Post by: biccat
Manchu wrote:Head over to the side of town where the fallout from all this "not crime" has forced families into hunger and homelessness.
I'm confused, how did JP Morgan force familiesinto homelessness?
Did people who were responsibly paying their mortgages lose their house or something?
I think it's sufficient to say that some animals are more equal than others.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Nope. Derivtives are everything from forex to interest derviatives to commodity derivatives. Its so large because they frequently go out 5 - 10 - 15 years.
Want to know how much you're gong to pay for oil so you can configure your fixed costs for that electricty plant? You need a long term hedge.
Need to know how much you're going to pay for electricity for the long term so you can configure the costs for your manufacturing plant? Again you need a hedge.
It wasn't derivatives that sent the market a tizzy and locked up the financial system. Take the conspiracy goggles off.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Frazzled wrote:The problem is you're shooting your arrow at the wrong target. However, since you labelled all finance and insurance guys (er Wall Street in your joyous Occupymyass parlance) as AlQaeda you've just attacked everything from car insurance salesmen to bank tellers arguing with you about what really happened is kind of pointless.
Yeah, clearly it was the bank tellers who came up with, systematized, and directed a market worth trillions of dollars. Clearly, that is exactly what I mean.
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
Frazzled wrote:Nope. Derivtives are everything from forex to interest derviatives to commodity derivatives. Its so large because they frequently go out 5 - 10 - 15 years.
Want to know how much you're gong to pay for oil so you can configure your fixed costs for that electricty plant? You need a long term hedge.
Need to know how much you're going to pay for electricity for the long term so you can configure the costs for your manufacturing plant? Again you need a hedge.
It wasn't derivatives that sent the market a tizzy and locked up the financial system. Take the conspiracy goggles off.
wow, just wow, let me guess, you're a manager for one of these banks aren't you.
16387
Post by: Manchu
biccat wrote:I think it's sufficient to say that some animals are more equal than others.
I think it's sufficient to say that some minds are less willing or able to correlate their contents than others.
39004
Post by: biccat
Manchu wrote:biccat wrote:I think it's sufficient to say that some animals are more equal than others.
I think it's sufficient to say that some minds are less willing or able to correlate their contents than others.
Yes, that's my point. All animals are equal. Some animals are more equal than others.
16387
Post by: Manchu
biccat wrote:Manchu wrote:biccat wrote:I think it's sufficient to say that some animals are more equal than others.
I think it's sufficient to say that some minds are less willing or able to correlate their contents than others.
Yes, that's my point.
Not even your particular brand of sarcasm stretches quite that far.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Manchu wrote:Frazzled wrote:The problem is you're shooting your arrow at the wrong target. However, since you labelled all finance and insurance guys (er Wall Street in your joyous Occupymyass parlance) as AlQaeda you've just attacked everything from car insurance salesmen to bank tellers arguing with you about what really happened is kind of pointless.
Yeah, clearly it was the bank tellers who came up with, systematized, and directed a market worth trillions of dollars. Clearly, that is exactly what I mean.
Under criminal racqueteering they're all part of the evil criminal organization. Again thanks for calling us all terrorists. Really appreciate that. As someone who's entire institution wasn't involved in derivatives or mortgage backed securities (Canada superior all others inferior) and am now having fun with the Europeans I especially appreciate it. By the way, its especially choice as we had stuff in the towers and I knew people in them that didn't come out. So  you too would be in order but that would be rude. Automatically Appended Next Post: sirlynchmob wrote:Frazzled wrote:Nope. Derivtives are everything from forex to interest derviatives to commodity derivatives. Its so large because they frequently go out 5 - 10 - 15 years.
Want to know how much you're gong to pay for oil so you can configure your fixed costs for that electricty plant? You need a long term hedge.
Need to know how much you're going to pay for electricity for the long term so you can configure the costs for your manufacturing plant? Again you need a hedge.
It wasn't derivatives that sent the market a tizzy and locked up the financial system. Take the conspiracy goggles off.
wow, just wow, let me guess, you're a manager for one of these banks aren't you.
Bank manager wow that takes me back. I remember working in a branch. I remember being a teller joking to a client about her new job at "the toy store" not realizing that it was a strip joint just around the corner. Oops...  Wow its 2.30 this worse than Al Qaeda banker is outta here for the long weekend YEEE HAAAAA!
16387
Post by: Manchu
Frazzled wrote:So you too would be in order but that would be rude.
That's the hardest I've ever seen anyone try to spin something. I'm sure you make a comfortable living as a banker Frazz but Rush would pay you a mint to write lines like that for him.
39004
Post by: biccat
Manchu wrote:biccat wrote:Manchu wrote:biccat wrote:I think it's sufficient to say that some animals are more equal than others.
I think it's sufficient to say that some minds are less willing or able to correlate their contents than others.
Yes, that's my point.
Not even your particular brand of sarcasm stretches quite that far.
Au contraire. Hypothetically, and this is just an intellectual exercise, imagine if a small group of people decided to run an operation that was open to public participation, but somehow public participation was limited. You had to open an account or something. You gave them $X and they invested it with others to get access to large investments with good returns. The group of people didn't really care what you did with your account, for the most part, so long as you followed some basic rules. You couldn't take out money or trade at certain times, you had to notify the group if you wanted your money directed towards specific ends, and you couldn't put borrowed money in your account, pretty easy-to-follow rules. Then the number of public members grows too large for the small group to run. So they appoint managers to oversee individual members. We'll call them traders. The traders oversee member accounts. They direct funds according to member wishes and help the people running the organization decide how to invest money. But instead of simply being disinterested employees, the traders decide to invest their money with the operation. They don't just invest their money disinterestedly, they make arrangements with friends to trade before the market opens. They create outside companies, get them approved for investments, borrow based on client funds, and then reinvest that money back into their accounts. All sorts of nasty shenanigans. Oh, and lets suppose, again just as a mental exercise, that several of the investors did the same thing the traders were doing and the traders kicked them out of the investment. Now does my "particular brand of sarcasm stretche[] quite that far"?
16387
Post by: Manchu
I wish your understanding of banking reflected reality. Just like I wish "It's A Wonderful Life" reflected reality.
39004
Post by: biccat
Manchu wrote:I wish you understanding of banking reflected reality. Just like I wish "It's A Wonderful Life" reflected reality.
To quote what someone said upthread:
Manchu wrote:I think it's sufficient to say that some minds are less willing or able to correlate their contents than others.
16387
Post by: Manchu
I encourage you to learn more about this subject, biccat.
This is as good as any a place to start: http://fcic.law.stanford.edu/report
39004
Post by: biccat
And you said Obama didn't do anything about Wall Street.
16387
Post by: Manchu
biccat wrote:And you said Obama didn't do anything about Wall Street.
I did forget to mention commissioning a damning report and then doing nothing about it, didn't I? Thanks for reminding me.
39004
Post by: biccat
Manchu wrote:biccat wrote:And you said Obama didn't do anything about Wall Street.
I did forget to mention commissioning a damning report and then doing nothing about it, didn't I? Thanks for reminding me.
You did forget.
That's OK. You also forgot Dodd-Frank, "the most comprehensive financial regulatory overhaul since the Great Depression," until I reminded you.
Anything else you forgot in making your broad claim that Obama didn't do anything? Like stress tests?
43621
Post by: sirlynchmob
biccat wrote:Manchu wrote:biccat wrote:And you said Obama didn't do anything about Wall Street.
I did forget to mention commissioning a damning report and then doing nothing about it, didn't I? Thanks for reminding me.
You did forget.
That's OK. You also forgot Dodd-Frank, "the most comprehensive financial regulatory overhaul since the Great Depression," until I reminded you.
Anything else you forgot in making your broad claim that Obama didn't do anything? Like stress tests?
it also failed to do anything about the derivatives market.
518
Post by: Kid_Kyoto
Frazzled wrote:A Town Called Malus wrote:Frazzled wrote:What was the supposed crime again?
Losing millions of Americans savings in get rich quick schemes and needing the government to put it back in out of loans which will eventually be repaid by taxes paid by the Americans whose money was lost in the first place?
What get rich quick schemes?
One of the biggies was mortgage bavked securities.
Mortgages used to be a get rich slow scheme, lend money to qualified applicants get it back with interest over 30 years.
But when banks were deregulated they found a way to get rich fast off of them. They would sell bonds backed by the income of these mortgages. That way you get your, iney now, not 30 years from now.
But that created an incentive to issue as many mortgages as they could whether or not the borrowers were qualified. So people with insufficient income were steered towards loans they could not pay back but banks didn't care because they would resell the loan and get their cash now.
Impacts-prople getting loans they could not repay, often under fraudulent terms, and then foreclosed
Infusion of cheap money drove up housing prices and remts for all of us
Banks sold securities they privately knew were junk but publically held up as AAA rated
And thats for staters.
39004
Post by: biccat
Looks like AP did some fact-checking on this claim. The White House is aggressively pushing the idea that, contrary to widespread belief, President Barack Obama is tightfisted with taxpayer dollars. To back it up, the administration cites a media report that claims federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since the Eisenhower years.
"Federal spending since I took office has risen at the slowest pace of any president in almost 60 years," Obama said at a campaign rally Thursday in Des Moines, Iowa.
The problem with that rosy claim is that the Wall Street bailout is part of the calculation. The bailout ballooned the 2009 budget just before Obama took office, making Obama's 2010 results look smaller in comparison. And as almost $150 billion of the bailout was paid back during Obama's watch, the analysis counted them as government spending cuts.
It also assumes Obama had less of a role setting the budget for 2009 than he really did.
Also, the Washington Post's fact checker gave the story "Three Pinocchios" representing "Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions." Which is generous.
27872
Post by: Samus_aran115
Bromsy wrote:If only our political leaders were as enlightened as us.
Haha.
|
|
