BajaNomad - It's Time to Ditch the Mexican Stereotypes

It's Time to Ditch the Mexican Stereotypes

Gypsy Jan - 5-26-2012 at 03:08 PM

"I think that everyone will find this article by Richard Fisher, President and CEO of the Federal Reserve, Dallas, as informative and enlightening."

"On the fiscal front, Mexico ran a budget deficit of 2.5 per cent of gross domestic product in 2011, compared with 8.6 per cent for the US. National debt in Mexico is stable at 27 per cent of GDP, while in the US it is 98 per cent and rising. There is a lesson for America here: Mexico passed a balanced budget rule in 2006, which forced its government to hew to fiscal discipline.

Trade has boomed, too, affirming once again the importance of international agreements on tariffs. Since joining the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in 1986, and ratifying the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994, average tariffs in Mexico fell from 27 per cent in 1982 to 1.3 per cent in 2001, and the volume and composition of trade changed significantly. In 1980, trade as a percentage of GDP was only 17.5 per cent. Today exports and imports represent 61 per cent of economic output. And about 80 per cent of Mexico's exports are now manufactured goods.

Certainly, Mexico still has many problems. Deregulation has met with mixed results. Declining crude oil production threatens the government's ability to fund itself. Low high-school graduation rates contribute to low labor productivity and potentially greater social instability. Continuing violence directly harms businesses and tests investor resolve, resulting in a capital and brain drain.

For many Americans, Mexico is seen through the lens of immigration or drug trafficking. This is a mistake: it is outperforming the US in many economic areas and provides several important lessons for Washington policy makers that seem unable to make a start on ever more urgent reforms. Mexico has a sound macroeconomic footing and is addressing the microeconomic problems still holding it back.

The same cannot be said for the US. Mexico recovered rapidly from the global financial crisis. Real gross domestic product grew 5.5 per cent in 2010 and 3.9 per cent in 2011 after plummeting 6.2 per cent in 2009. Economic output was back to its peak pre-recession level after 12 quarters, bettering the US by nearly a year. Moreover, Mexico's industrial

Still, we should discard old stereotypes of Mexico and give credit to the country's fiscal and monetary authorities. The economic performance during and after the global financial crisis should allay the fears of those who doubted Mexico's capability to reform.

The government has implemented greater fiscal discipline than the US, without hindering economic recovery. By comparison, US policy makers appear incapable of fiscal reform. They have not created a budget that restores confidence, and encourages investment, job creation and risk-taking, while also controlling long-term deficits and unfunded liabilities.

The US can also learn from Mexico on monetary matters. By constitutional amendment, Banco de Mexico became an independent central bank in 1993. In 2001, it formally adopted inflation targeting, whereas the Federal Reserve did not announce an explicit long-term inflation target until this year.

Monetary policy reforms have had a salutary effect on the Mexican economy. Before central bank independence, Mexico's annual inflation rate averaged 43 per cent. The rate has now dropped to 4.4 per cent.

The peso is now a store of value and no longer shunned. The central bank's commitment to low inflation has led to a peso-denominated bond market and falling interest rates. Before 1995 the Mexican yield curve ran out to 27 days. In 1995 the Mexican government began building a yield curve by issuing notes of up to one year in maturity. In 2000, five-year notes were issued; in 2004, 20-year bonds; and in 2006, 30-year bonds. Interest rates have fallen on each successive issue. Credit default swaps market spreads assess a greater default possibility for French sovereign debt than for Mexico's obligations.

Mexico's macroeconomic recovery shows that gains from reform are worth the pain. For both the US and Europe there are lessons to learn. Mexico's achievements have come through both fiscal and monetary reforms. For this, Mexicans can be proud. And other nations should be inspired."

David Thompson
Co-Founder, JaltembaBayLife.com

[Edited on 5-27-2012 by Gypsy Jan]

Hook - 5-26-2012 at 05:52 PM

I bet if we nationalized OUR oil industry and plowed the profits into running the government, we'd have a debt ratio even lower than Mexico. Bogus comparison, IMO. Mexico funds 40% of their government operations from Pemex.

Cypress - 5-26-2012 at 06:06 PM

Our oil industry is taxed to the max. The govt. makes more per gallon than the oil companies and all the govt. does is tax it. No investment, no research, no exploration, no nothing. Just slap a tax on it. And the silly crowd blames "Big Oil" for ripping 'em off. :biggrin:

DavidE - 5-26-2012 at 08:15 PM

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_n2_v55/ai_170...

J.P. - 5-26-2012 at 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cypress
Our oil industry is taxed to the max. The govt. makes more per gallon than the oil companies and all the govt. does is tax it. No investment, no research, no exploration, no nothing. Just slap a tax on it. And the silly crowd blames "Big Oil" for ripping 'em off. :biggrin:

B.S. When Skeeter and I went to school in Texas the state didnt have a School tax The tax on oil funded the Schools and Texas had the best schools in the nation. and Gasoline was around 18cents a gallon.

[Edited on 5-27-2012 by J.P.]

vgabndo - 5-26-2012 at 10:45 PM

David...the 17 year old story is somehow relevant???

Pescador - 5-27-2012 at 10:36 AM

Well, it will be really interesting to see what happens in the next six years under Nieto the PRI Presidential candidate. Hopefully they will keep headed in the right direction. They did not get hoodwinked into thinking that everyone deserved a house and change their lending strategies to reflect the socialistic thinking that sent our market crashing down. The mexican stock exhange did not burp either and has consistently produced a profit for the last 10 years even amid fears about another peso devaluation.

DENNIS - 5-27-2012 at 10:44 AM

Yeah....let's get rid of all those senseless stereotypes and stay with the factual, documentary illustrations that present the clear picture of Mexico....like this:

http://images.clipartof.com/small/214246-Royalty-Free-RF-Cli...

DavidE - 5-27-2012 at 11:11 AM

WHOA! DENNIS! EASY HOSS!

That's ME in that caricatura.

Seventeen year old stories reveal the same level of unknowledge about the Mexican finance system of 2012 as in 1929 revealed the house of cards built on margin trading on Wall Street. Take a good look at the level of trading done, daily, in the Mexican Stock Market.

My whining and complaining is totally about how the very few exalted ultra wealthy in Mexico abandon ship at the first sign of trouble and send untold billions of dollars worth of pesos out of the country leaving the poor (and now the middle class) to take it in the shorts. After 5 decades of watching this I am sick of it.

IMHO the most honest president Mexico has had in my lifetime is humble Ernesto Zedillo Ponce de Leon. He actually weakened the presidency, the powers of the chief executive. But the PRI holds a majority of states and in essence the bases of power in both houses. When they take control, things are going to get mighty interesting.

Please keep in mind, I am merely a student of these things. Nothing more, nothing less.

MitchMan - 5-27-2012 at 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pescador
They did not get hoodwinked into thinking that everyone deserved a house and change their lending strategies to reflect the socialistic thinking that sent our market crashing down.

You need to do better research on what caused the crash in 2007/2008. Don't blame the CRA interdiction against redlining in lending for the crisis...very naive, very illinformed. Don't drink that cool aid.

The bad loans were a direct result of lenders wantonly and deliberately failing to do proper loan underwriting in order to make more loans in a shorter time, sell them off as fast as they could, and then use the sales proceeds to make more deliberately bad loans. The money that paid for the loans that were bought from the originating lenders came from an inexhaustible supply of money from the offshore unregulated shadow banking system. The mortaged back securities got AAA ratings from the unregulated rating agencies that paved the way for wild mad over trading of these securities here and abroad. The motivation for such behavior was greed and self interest, just the opposite of anything "socialistic" in nature.

The loans reflected in the CRA addressed only conforming loans, not subprimes. Furthermore, the loans made under compliance to the CRA had a normal delinquency rate, not the bad delinquency rates experienced with the subprimes.

The act of not doing proper loan underwriting, fraudulently granting AAA ratings, and the economically disastrous and under regulated off shore banking together with unregualted derivatives are among the major causal factors of the near collapse of our financial structure and the Great Recession of 2008 .... not "socialistic thinking". That statement reflects a serious lack of knowledge on even the basics of the issue and is 180 degrees from the truth. Not even close quantitatively or qualitatively.

[Edited on 5-27-2012 by MitchMan]

desertcpl - 5-27-2012 at 04:27 PM

Well said Mitch

DavidE - 5-27-2012 at 04:57 PM

X 2

Greed versus ethics. The problem is one of regaining trust. I have never seen any time in my lengthening life, a concerted aversion to social responsibility. Both sides of the aisle seem to focus only on themselves and their pet projects. Is not the tax burden less now than it was in the sixties or seventies?

desertcpl - 5-27-2012 at 05:22 PM

I agree David

my car that I bought that was made in Detroit,, the speedometer goes up to 120 MPH
would I drive at that speed thru a school zone,, NO I drive
responsible and the older I get even more so

the banks and wall street acted irresponsibly. there is alot of blame to go around, but this is where it comes down to

djh - 5-27-2012 at 05:48 PM

Quote:

Our oil industry is taxed to the max. The govt. makes more per gallon than the oil companies and all the govt. does is tax it. No investment, no research, no exploration, no nothing. Just slap a tax on it. And the silly crowd blames "Big Oil" for ripping 'em off.

Exxon Mobile's (do you know just how HUGE they are $?)... record shattering profits - even during the "biggesteconomicdump" in decades - are made even more rediculous by the massive tax BREAKS they receive from the US Govt.

Big oil doesn't pay a penny of taxes on oil of course..... (But they DO receive tons of corporate welfare...) YOU AND I DO (and every other consumer) . . . And YES, BIG OIL is ripping us off - their profits are so far over the top, it is beyond rediculous.... The devestation from the "Horizon Deepwater" ... The Exxon Valdez... and all of the other fiascos around the globe are another shining example of socializing and diluting the responsability for loss of life, livelihood, resource loss.

I suggest reading "A Century of War" by Engdahl.... An imperfect and incomplete history of oil in the world, but one that will revealmany of the mysteries about "how the H-E-doublehockeysticks" we got to this point...

STOP corporate entitlement and good-ol-boy corporate welfare. THAT will be a huge step towards cutting the deficit spending that we all pretty much agree is sinking America. but that would require taking the corrupting influence of $ out of US politics, and the US Supreme Court has done exactly the opposite with Citizen United... Even to the point of overstepping states rights (Montana et al. current action)...

ONE of the biggest jokes in our lifetime is that we somehow live in a democratic, capitalistic system in the US... Bush's TARP bailout (and all of the "bailouts" since) are a fine example of privatizing profits and socializing debt.

I also see MitchMan just saved me part two of my intended post.

Pescador - 5-28-2012 at 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MitchMan
You need to do better research on what caused the crash in 2007/2008. Don't blame the CRA interdiction against redlining in lending for the crisis...very naive, very illinformed. Don't drink that cool aid.

The bad loans were a direct result of lenders wantonly and deliberately failing to do proper loan underwriting in order to make more loans in a shorter time, sell them off as fast as they could, and then use the sales proceeds to make more deliberately bad loans.

[Edited on 5-27-2012 by MitchMan]

Talk about drinking cool-aid but somehow this seems to be MSNBC brand cool-aid. You conveniently leave out the whole part about what happened with Freddie and Fannie. Let us not get the cart in front of the horse. Without that in place the legalized gambling over sub-prime mortgages would not have been a possiblity.

DavidE - 5-28-2012 at 08:54 AM

Every Body wants to be a (insert one) million, billion, trillion:

aire

No matter what it takes. Nero Burns While Rome Fiddles. Burn The Furniture. Outsource. Revoke citizenship, whatever it takes...

But no one got punished in the USA, except crooks that screwed other crooks like Unka Bernie. With all of the geniuses, all of the PhD economists, and think tanks at hand, who ran around before the fiasco yelling the Sky Was Going To Fall? They were discredited because there was too much money to be made and Americans are far too immersed in their own cares and worries to have had time to stop and listen.

Now the hew and cry is "Screw Everyone I Come First". This only works if you are the largest hog at the trough with the longest tusks. Anger is building in inner cities, only the most careless ignore the warning signs. The housing crash and failing job market are a breeding ground for trouble, the kind of which you can see for fifty miles on the horizon at night.

And it was all, one hundred percent, caused by greed.

DavidE - 5-28-2012 at 09:13 AM

I wonder, how many GS-15 workers it takes, how many megawatts of electricity is burned, how many billions of taxpayer dollars are collected, just to do this...?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2150281/REVEALED-Hun...

MitchMan - 5-28-2012 at 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pescador
Talk about drinking cool-aid but somehow this seems to be MSNBC brand cool-aid. You conveniently leave out the whole part about what happened with Freddie and Fannie. Let us not get the cart in front of the horse. Without that in place the legalized gambling over sub-prime mortgages would not have been a possiblity.

Wow, Pescador, your attempt at feeble deflection reveals a mind-blowing lack of knowledge of actual recent history.

Freddie and Fannie’s participation in sub primes came after the fact and later into the sub prime wave. The brain child of sub prime lending was created, started, and uncontrollably pursued by private industry commercial banks and Wall Street investment banks such as Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, et al. Fannie and Freddie (F & F) only started buying sub primes after they started loosing significant market share to sub prime loans. The type of sub prime-like loans that they bought were not nearly as toxic as the vast majority of nonconforming toxic sub primes in existence promulgated by the private investment banks. F&F were always trailing the market with regard to sub primes, not leading it as you would falsely have us believe.

Your statement that legalized gambling over sub-prime mortgages would not have been possible without F&F is just plain stupid. Sub primes were the brainchild of private industry (commercial banks and investment banks) and were going full steam ahead by the time F&F got into the mix. Also, it was the commercial lenders/originators that pressured and blackmailed F&F into easing their credit requirements for the loans that they were willing to buy so that said lenders could sell their sub primes to F&F, not the other way around as you would falsely have us infer. It was the growth of such unregulated private label securitization (MBS’s) that led to unstable over funding the housing market bubble. F&F weren’t initially allowed to participate in non-conforming very risky sub prime loans. Later, they did engage significantly in a milder form of sub prime-like loans (to a specified proportion), but not into a type of non-conforming jumbo loan that was the prime and principal constituency of the more toxic and prevalent troubled private label securities.

BTW, you do know that Fannie Mae was privatized in 1968, taken off the government’s books by stock ownership offered over the NYSE and privately managed, right? It was George Bush that put it under conservatorship by the federal government in 2008 because it was performing dangerously poor as it was discovered that the CEO and his executives lied about their faulty accounting and fraudulent reporting of the true composition and risky condition of the loan and MBS portfolios. Yet another example of the greed and self-interest I mentioned in my earlier post.

You need to break out of your siesta, get out of the cart, and take another look at the horse. Oh yeah, wouldn’t hurt for you to stop guzzling from the Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh cool aid trough either.

[Edited on 5-28-2012 by MitchMan]

Pescador - 5-28-2012 at 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MitchMan

Wow, Pescador, your attempt at feeble deflection reveals a mind-blowing lack of knowledge of actual recent history.

Freddie and Fannie’s participation in sub primes came after the fact and later into the sub prime wave. The brain child of sub prime lending was created, started, and uncontrollably pursued by private industry commercial banks and Wall Street investment banks such as Citigroup, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, et al. Fannie and Freddie (F & F) only started buying sub primes after they started loosing significant market share to sub prime loans. The type of sub prime-like loans that they bought were not nearly as toxic as the vast majority of nonconforming toxic sub primes in existence promulgated by the private investment banks. F&F were always trailing the market with regard to sub primes, not leading it as you would falsely have us believe.

Your statement that legalized gambling over sub-prime mortgages would not have been possible without F&F is just plain stupid. Sub primes were the brainchild of private industry (commercial banks and investment banks) and were going full steam ahead by the time F&F got into the mix. Also, it was the commercial lenders/originators that pressured and blackmailed F&F into easing their credit requirements for the loans that they were willing to buy so that said lenders could sell their sub primes to F&F, not the other way around as you would falsely have us infer. It was the growth of such unregulated private label securitization (MBS’s) that led to unstable over funding the housing market bubble. F&F weren’t initially allowed to participate in non-conforming very risky sub prime loans. Later, they did engage significantly in a milder form of sub prime-like loans (to a specified proportion), but not into a type of non-conforming jumbo loan that was the prime and principal constituency of the more toxic and prevalent troubled private label securities.

BTW, you do know that Fannie Mae was privatized in 1968, taken off the government’s books by stock ownership offered over the NYSE and privately managed, right? It was George Bush that put it under conservatorship by the federal government in 2008 because it was performing dangerously poor as it was discovered that the CEO and his executives lied about their faulty accounting and fraudulent reporting of the true composition and risky condition of the loan and MBS portfolios. Yet another example of the greed and self-interest I mentioned in my earlier post.

You need to break out of your siesta, get out of the cart, and take another look at the horse. Oh yeah, wouldn’t hurt for you to stop guzzling from the Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh cool aid trough either.

[Edited on 5-28-2012 by MitchMan]

Well, the really interesting thing is the way you communicate. Whenever someone does not agree with your totally liberal agenda, then you bring out the name calling and really negative attitude. I was having a little fun by pointing out some of the inconsistencies in your thought process, but had no intention of trying to get you to think in another direction, but never did I have to resort to getting angry and making disparaging remarks about your position. You, on the other hand, seem to immediately jump to the negative sterotypical negativity that one witnesses when tuning in to the "Occupy Crowd".

I respectfully disagree with your take on what was the causation of the sub-prime lending debacle and have taken the time to research out and understand what probably took place, but was in no way trying to get you to look differently at another way of looking at the situation. You can be happy to know that according to all of the recent polls that your perception is in the minority (hence the anger displayed by your comments) but I will defend your right to think the way you choose.

Sometimes when you are in a really reflective mood you might want to think why the people like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly have such a large audience and the really small smattering of people who feed at the trough of MSNBC and the like are dwindling in numbers. But, if my suspicions are correct, you will just get stronger in your denial and your accusations and wonder why everyone does not see things in the same way you do.

Kinda reminds me of a friend I brought to Mexico one time who visited a small indian village just south of Puerto Libertad. When he asked one of the children if they wanted an "el orangeo" and the kids looked at him with a look of bewilderment and non-understanding, he just hollered louder with an undertone of anger in his voice, "YOU WANTO EL ORANGEO?"

wessongroup - 5-28-2012 at 05:11 PM

Mitch.. the only thing I would change... "toxic loans" to "chit loans"... as that was what they were ... chit loans... and the government bought them all... that b US !!!

DavidE - 5-28-2012 at 06:19 PM

IMHO there was and there is no simple one way do undo what was done. IMHO the problem had to had been prevented. Once done, every decision, every pathway is fraught with peril of one form or another. Will you look at what is happening around the world. This is serious stuff. Something has gone wrong, fundamentally. Before any Canadians laugh por favor, what would happen to Canada if eighty percent of her exports were no longer "needed"? Markets everywhere are contracting. Call it deflation. Deflation is a nice calm word to use for economic depression. Calvin Coolidge and America's wealthy tried the most draconian spending and tax cuts in history. They served only to preserve the wealth of the wealthiest. One American turns to the other and says "Well, this is a fine mess you got us into this time (Laurel & Hardy)".

And poor Mexicans are going to "get it" worst of all.

Barry A. - 5-28-2012 at 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pescador

Quote:

Pescador-----------Sigh----------I wish I had said that----------well stated, and it reflects my feelings and knowledge of events well.

Barry

DavidE - 5-28-2012 at 07:01 PM

Meanwhile back in the world...

Looks like war in the middle east which is a classic political and economic tool*. Iran and Syria.

*Like it or not, Liberal or Conservative

Sigh, now I know why old people do not mind leaving it all behind.

Wise up, Pescador

MitchMan - 5-29-2012 at 12:27 PM

Pescador, again, way off the mark in soooo many ways. Is reliance on true logic, facts, and the truth just not in your DNA?

Point #1 – I called you no names. Don’t be so defensive. I characterized your statements as deflection, pointed out your obvious lack of knowledge on the subject, and I characterized your conclusion that gambling on sub primes was not possible without Fannie and Freddie as stupid… and I supported my contentions with pertinent verifiable fact. You, on the other hand, simply make accusations and unsupported characterizations that, on their own, prove nothing. In short, you can’t back up what you say…and I called you on it. I dare you to quote me in this thread where I called you, personally, a name.

Pont #2 – Pointing out inconsistencies in my thought process. You didn’t prove, counter or point anything thing inconsistent in my statements. If you want to prove an inconsistency, you have to use my own words to show that I stated two things that opposed each other. You didn’t do that at all. The only thing you did was to insinuate that Fannie and Freddie were instrumental together with “socialist thinking” as principally causal in crashing the market. I proved you wrong. I didn’t mention Fannie and Freddie, as they were not causal, but symptomatic. You might want to try diagramming the sentences out to keep things straight in your head so that you don’t make so many non-sequiturs.

Very shabby, very weak and earns you no credibility. Now that’s stereotypically right wing agenda…and there’s abundant proof of that everywhere.

Point #3 – My perception is in the minority. Man alive, Pescador, you seriously need to get your head out of the right wing sand! Poll after poll, time after time shows you absolutely, positively, and unequivocally wrong on this! The vast majority of the people in this country know (unlike you) that the cause of the meltdown was deregulation and malfeasance by the financial structure exemplified by the greedy behavior of private business commercial banking and by Wall Street. Greenspan said as much himself! Blaming socialism…what a convoluted disingenuous transparent ruse. Did you really think that you were going to get away with that one?

Point #4 – This is a philosophical/intellectual point. Obviously, you are encouraged and persuaded by whom in the media you listen to (just like Barry) and whether whom you listen to have “larger audiences” than opposing sources. I hope that you will take the time, in more sober and somber moods, to reflect on another source of information and persuasion: the facts. Feed your mind with verifiable facts and information and draw your own conclusions from those sources, not from other people, per se. You will feel better about yourself. It will help you argue your points of view with some real substance instead of your usual broadcast of unsupported conclusions, biased opinions, gross generalizations, and unsupported counter accusations and mischaracterizations as you reflected in this thread so far. You make yourself very vulnerable.

BTW, since when do larger popularity and larger audiences for certain media shows constitute proof and validity of points of view? You do realize that the smaller audienced Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt, even Dennis Praeger have superior content by far than anything offered by Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, right? You know, G. Bush was elected twice by a majority of the population and look at the mess his failed administration eventually got the country into (and the world), not to mention the false war he persuaded the majority of the population to enter.

I believe in majority rule, even though the Republican party doesn't, but the majority isn't always right. You're old enough to know that.

[Edited on 5-29-2012 by MitchMan]

Martyman - 5-29-2012 at 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pescador
Sometimes when you are in a really reflective mood you might want to think why the people like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly have such a large audience.

Reflective? I think you mean hypnotized.

Barry A. - 5-29-2012 at 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Martyman

Quote:

Reflective? I think you mean hypnotized.

No, not "hypnotized"------- they just make sense, by and large, but with exceptions. Personally I find Beck and Limbaugh boring-----the same stuff over and over---------boring!!! But I mostly agree with the thrust of what they say, tho I seldom tune in. O'Reilly is different-------I like him and watch him daily.

Barry

Pescador - 5-30-2012 at 06:52 AM

Well, Mitchman, this topic has gotten completely away from the original post which was about Mexico and how well they are doing financially. The system in the United States was functioning quite well when it was pretty clearly understood that not everyone would qualify for purchasing a home and that the banks had a system in place that worked pretty well which was basically that you had sufficient income and at least 20% down payment. It was when the progressives started to play with that system and wanted to make "housing available for everyone" that things began to go downhill. You can do lots of manipulation of ideas and thought but that is still the basic root of where the problem began.
My original point was that Mexico is in a position of strength financially due to the fact that did not get caught up in the lending frenzy of the subprime market and therefore stayed in a position of strength with way less toxic assets.

mtgoat666 - 5-30-2012 at 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pescador
Well, Mitchman, this topic has gotten completely away from the original post which was about Mexico and how well they are doing financially. The system in the United States was functioning quite well when it was pretty clearly understood that not everyone would qualify for purchasing a home and that the banks had a system in place that worked pretty well which was basically that you had sufficient income and at least 20% down payment. It was when the progressives started to play with that system and wanted to make "housing available for everyone" that things began to go downhill. You can do lots of manipulation of ideas and thought but that is still the basic root of where the problem began.
My original point was that Mexico is in a position of strength financially due to the fact that did not get caught up in the lending frenzy of the subprime market and therefore stayed in a position of strength with way less toxic assets.

in the USA, stock market went sideways, has been sideways for over a decade now,... and since defined benefit pensions were abolished for all but public sector slackers, people turned to houses as investment tool,... now we know that neither housing nor stock market are going to be our retirement nest egg, and we are a f'd

mexicans are worse of than us gringos,... we are all f'd

Cypress - 5-30-2012 at 07:13 AM

It's truely amazing! When given the same facts, two individuals can come to completely opposite conclusions as to the cause of "X". Liberals(progressives) always blame big business, big oil, the rich, etc. Conservatives point the finger at government intervention, regulations, etc. A genetic factor?

Barry A. - 5-30-2012 at 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mtgoat666

Quote:

mexicans are worse of than us gringos,... we are all f'd

This above is mis-leading (surprise). The "Stock Market has gone sideways for 10 years" because of the way many in the Media define it-----by the Dow, or the S&P 500, etc. and mistakingly thinking that this represents a true picture of the Stock Market------It doesn't, and it is misleading. I have been invested in the same "Stock Market" (tho world-wide) and my annualized return as of last Dec. 31st was 13.9%, largely because I only invest in a Managed portfolio of stocks and Mutual Funds carefully selected based on (of all things) what is actually going on in the world. My Benchmark is the "MSCI World Index" by which I measure my progress. Long Term we have beat that index by a little.

Passive "Index" investing (investing in all stocks within an index) sorta worked for years, but not so well anymore. Personally, I have never invested in "Index's" in all my 40 Plus years of investing, and the whole idea to me is kinda weird. You have to pay attention, like you have to do in any job or work, and be selective if you expect good long-term results-------at least that has been my experience.

"Houses" are for living in, not for "investment" IMO. Traditionally, even in good times, they have not enjoyed that great a return except in very limited tiny areas of the Nation. If you are very selective in what and where you buy, you can make big bucks in housing, but it ain't easy, and it takes lots of leverage (and risk) unless you are pretty rich.

Putting your financial future on auto-pilot is not a good idea, IMO.

But, to each his own.

Barry

By the way, Goat, "public sector slackers" is an offensive & non-compassionate term to all us dedicated Public Sector Workers that saw a pretty good deal way back when. We are the folks that take care of all the many Bureaus and Regulatory Agencies that mostly the Dems have created, and the Unions have defended. (sorry, I just could not help myself)

J.P. - 5-30-2012 at 09:38 AM

Quote:

Barry

By the way, Goat, "public sector slackers" is an offensive & non-compassionate term to all us dedicated Public Sector Workers that saw a pretty good deal way back when. We are the folks that take care of all the many Bureaus and Regulatory Agencies that mostly the Dems have created, and the Unions have defended. (sorry, I just could not help myself)

Speaking as a Retired Trade Union Member . The Public Sector Unions Have Hitch Hiked on the Trade Unions Reputation Until They have drawn them down to their level.
I think Teacher and Public Sector union should be Abolished os Seriously Modified A Ca teacher draws 4 to 5k a month for a job that requires them to work only 9mos of the year is absuard. and a fire dept Hero makes more than he did when he was working and I use the term working lightly.

Barry A. - 5-30-2012 at 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by J.P.
Barry

By the way, Goat, "public sector slackers" is an offensive & non-compassionate term to all us dedicated Public Sector Workers that saw a pretty good deal way back when. We are the folks that take care of all the many Bureaus and Regulatory Agencies that mostly the Dems have created, and the Unions have defended. (sorry, I just could not help myself)

J.P.----------Yes, you are right, but you are talking about STATE Public Sector workers NOT FEDERAL. I can't speak to the STATE folks, but the FED folks are not getting that much retirement, believe me. I, as a Fed. retiree with Law Enforcement enhancement, get about 65% of the salary I earned WHEN I retired ($40K Gross), and hardly any increases since I retired 16 years ago. As previously stated, I take home about $1,700 net a month Fed. retirement, with no Social Security available for me. Without my investments I would be barely scraping by, even with my wife's $474 net per month Social Security. About 70% of our income comes from our investments.

Barry

DavidE - 5-30-2012 at 10:33 AM

You know what "gets" me in all this, is the amount of anger boiling beneath the surface in US society. Intolerance, contempt, and sometimes sheer hatred. We never used to have this kind of abominable behavior or attitudes twenty or thirty years ago. Maybe Patrick Buchanan was right in one respect in his infamous book, we may be looking at the end of the United States of America as a first rate country. But not because of reasons he describes. The animosity is the dagger. Al Qaeda is laughing, China and India are licking their lips. What a shame. I would like to know how a young teenager I know from Michoacan was able to enter the USA without documentation, go to Seattle, have 5 children in 5 years at public expense, live on public assistance, get food stamps, and now is untouchable because all of her children were born on US soil?

Barry A. - 5-30-2012 at 10:35 AM

Yep, DavidE-------I agree totally.

Barry

sancho - 5-30-2012 at 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by J.P.

Speaking as a Retired Trade Union Member . The Public Sector Unions Have Hitch Hiked on the Trade Unions Reputation

Couldn't agree more, I cringe when the Fat Public
Govt Unions even have the gall to use the term Union,
while piggybacking on Construction/Worker Unions,
who risk getting laid off every day, while the Govt
employees lounge around waiting for their BLOATED/
Excessive
tax payer funded retirements

DavidE - 5-30-2012 at 11:00 AM

Returning to Mexico, Lo Siento Mucho...

A rather involved document published by Banco de México

http://www.banxico.org.mx/publicaciones-y-discursos/publicac...

Discussing various theory and hypothesi for the 1994-1995 devaluation. I could not find anywhere in the document the subject of CAPITAL FLIGHT. Perhaps a kind fellow NOMAD could help me find that sub heading within this article. Perhaps someone can also find the statistics showing over forty billion US Dollars being available for backing the peso and then 5-days later, poof! nothing!

Bajaboy - 5-30-2012 at 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sancho

Quote:

Originally posted by J.P.

Speaking as a Retired Trade Union Member . The Public Sector Unions Have Hitch Hiked on the Trade Unions Reputation

tax payer funded pensions....???? You might want to do a bit of research before you open your mouth...in California, teachers contribute 8%, the State 2%, and school districts 8%. How much per month do you contribute to your retirement?

J.P. - 5-30-2012 at 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajaboy

Quote:

Originally posted by sancho

Quote:

Originally posted by J.P.

Speaking as a Retired Trade Union Member . The Public Sector Unions Have Hitch Hiked on the Trade Unions Reputation

around 3.50 per hour for every hour i ever worked

DianaT - 5-30-2012 at 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bajaboy

Quote:

Originally posted by sancho

Quote:

Originally posted by J.P.

Speaking as a Retired Trade Union Member . The Public Sector Unions Have Hitch Hiked on the Trade Unions Reputation

Yes, teachers pay a lot into their own retirement as do California State Employees --- Our retirement is not a "gift" from the tax payers. And teachers face being laid off all the time.

In California the highest paid retirement is for the Highway Patrol and IMHO, well deserved. Correctional officers also have a very strong union and receive good benefits---better than the teachers in the prison system.

Right now the Repugs are doing a good job of divide and conquer when it comes to unions. They want to do away with all unions. One day it is the outside unions who are the evil ones, and public unions good. Then they change and promote the incredible idea that the public unions are pigs at the trough.

And it seems to working for them as there are union members who support the Republicans--- often on the basis of guns, gays, abortion, and the racist birther ideas and they don't realize they are voting against their own best interest. The Republicans today are controlled by those who want all unions to go away.

Having worked in the Correction's system, it just amazed me as to how many officers were so anti-union, except for their own union. And to hear people who have a decent retirement because of a union be anti-union really sounds simply like I have mine, and tough luck to others.

I still hope that there is hope that the real GOP will come back --- when there will be more Republicans listening to George Will and fewer admiring Donald Trump, Beck and Limbaugh. I am sure Barry Goldwater is rolling over in his grave right now.

On edit--- I don't agree with George Will on most issues, but he is at least a man of intelligence, thought, and decency.

[Edited on 5-30-2012 by DianaT]

Unions and Republicans

J.P. - 5-30-2012 at 12:31 PM

Any Union member that votes or supports the Republican Agenda should be fined 10,000 dls and kicked out of the Union.
I am not a Democrat.

Cypress - 5-30-2012 at 12:40 PM

J.P., Not a democrat? You're one of those "independent/libertarian" voters? :yes:

And I'm most certain who you voted for during the last presidential election. :biggrin:

J.P. - 5-30-2012 at 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cypress
J.P., Not a democrat? You're one of those "independent/libertarian" voters? :yes:

And I'm most certain who you voted for during the last presidential election. :biggrin:

I didn't vote tor that Tratior Mc Cain
:lol:

Pescador - 5-30-2012 at 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cypress
J.P., Not a democrat? You're one of those "independent/libertarian" voters? :yes:

And I'm most certain who you voted for during the last presidential election. :biggrin:

I suspect that we need to do an independent study, I am sure a lot of these folks never had the chance to "Breast Feed" and were relegated to "Formula Babies" with "Pampers". :lol:

DavidE - 5-30-2012 at 08:01 PM

Yo? I am a steeking anarchisto! Plata o Plomo! Andele!

MitchMan - 5-31-2012 at 08:23 AM

Quote:

Remember that you initiated the change in the thread’s focus away from Mexico’s economy by expressing your incorrect insinuation that, by contrast, the US’s melt down was caused by our government’s “thinking that everyone deserved a house and changed lending strategies to reflect the socialistic thinking that sent our market crashing down. You doubled down with your incorrect implication that Fannie and Freddie played the causal role in the sub prime debacle. Two major, major right wing promulgated fallacies …that I refuted with verifiable fact….not counter opinions, like you employ.

BTW, 10%, 5% and 0% down residential mortgage loans have been available since the mid 80s. It is clear, Pescador, you simply do not know what you are talking about. Also, what government did was to prevent REDLINING. I have already informed you of that.

And again, since you can’t get this through your head, it was private commercial banking that acted on their own to 1)ignore and violate underwriting guidelines, 2) deliberately ignore income requirements, 3)invented sub prime loans 3)engage in predatory lending. It was private Wall Street investment banks, ON THEIR OWN, that wantonly engaged in risky investments, the offshore shadow banking system, the fatal use of derivatives, inside dealing, and hedge gambling on MBS and on sub primes and even on derivatives on derivatives (a Goldman Sachs invention). NOT the government! NOT the Progressive Agenda!

What is the matter with you, Pescador? How can you ignore these truths. For God’s sake, man, this stuff is common knowledge. You do know that AIG blew up because of its use of derivatives on derivatives that required that initial bailout of $85 Billion, don’t you? Right? Your assertions make no sense in view of common knowledge facts. You need to read more.

It’s one thing to have differing opinions on subjective issues, but to be mistaken on the facts and thereby draw unsupported false conclusions on objective issues is quite another. Blaming progressives for the lending debacle is just plain false quantitatively and qualitatively. You do not know what you are talking about. In fact, I suspect you suffer from massive ignorance on the matter.

One of the big differences between your statements and my statements is that you state your conclusions and opinions as if they were the objective factual conclusions of these macroeconomic objective issues. What I have done is to declare your incorrectness and support my declaration by submitting pertinent verifiable facts that disprove your erroneous statements….each one of your statements. I cite your statements and disprove them with relevant and pertinent verifiable detail and evidence. You have not refuted nor disproved any of my statements, you have not challenged any of my facts, nor have you proven and supported any of your own statements with verifiable detail…never. Huge difference, Pescador.

What I find very amusing is that every time you right wingers are soundly trounced and proven wrong, as happens here time and time again, and because you do not refute the facts that repudiated your false and inaccurate assertions, you all engage what I will call (from now on) the ultimate Barry-ism. You guys simply state, “Must be a difference of opinion”…and that’s your usual final response when you fail to back up what you say. Happens almost everytime.

Cypress, generally and most frequently, when two individuals look at the same adequate and sufficient list of pertinent facts and they come to opposite conclusions, one individual is usually wrong. In the instant case in this thread, when you look at the wrong-headed assertions made by Pescador, and counterbalancing on point verifiable facts that I posited to discredit everything he said and the fact that he did not refute or disprove any of the facts I mentioned, how can anyone persist in continuing to believe the unproven and that which has been discredited? Where is the repudiation of any of my facts, where are the support/detail/proof of his assertions? Pescador has only compounded his folly with more inaccuracies, every time.

The reason I am spending the time on this is not because of the economic issue, per se, (it’s an old one and much has already been written about it), but because it exemplifies and serves as a classic case of faulty right wing reasoning and the usual tactics employed by the right wing Nomads in this forum. It’s classic, and it keeps interfering with truth itself.

[Edited on 5-31-2012 by MitchMan]

Cypress - 5-31-2012 at 09:36 AM

Mitchman. Trounce on this. In 1996 HUD directed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to issue 42% of their mortages to borrowers with household incomes below the median for their area. This was increased to 50% in 2000 and upped to 52% in 2005. The HUD directives opened the floogates. Not right wing, not leftwing, just facts. :biggrin:

DianaT - 5-31-2012 at 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MitchMan

BTW, 10%, 5% and 0% down residential mortgage loans have been available since the mid 80s. It is clear, Pescador, you simply do not know what you are talking about. Also, what government did was to prevent REDLINING. I have already informed you of that.

The no income verification loans were also around then. They required 25% down and no documentation. They really were very good loans especially for self-employed people whose Income Tax statements often did not reflect reality as they had so many deductions including things like depreciation.

With 25% down they were quite safe loans as no one, including me, wanted to walk away from that 25%. And these loans were usually warehoused by the original lender. One of the first companies to offer these was Great Western Savings and Loan.

Then came the derivities (sp) scam where the lending agents could break up the loans into little pieces and sell the bits and pieces----thus, the lender had no liability so they changed the rules to even lending 105% of the value with no income documentation.

The attempt to end redlining did not cause the disaster. MitchMan, you present it all quite well. Thank You!

Bajaboy - 5-31-2012 at 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cypress
Mitchman. Trounce on this. In 1996 HUD directed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to issue 42% of their mortages to borrowers with household incomes below the median for their area. This was increased to 50% in 2000 and upped to 52% in 2005. The HUD directives opened the floogates. Not right wing, not leftwing, just facts. :biggrin:

I find this all bs....everyone was partying like the money machine would never end....from local politicians to Realtors to lenders to....you name it. I find it folly now that people think only one entity is to blame.

I do realize though that the Bush tax cuts were even less effective than advertised as his economy was primarily based on the bubble and nothing else.

It's time to mop up and move on. Plenty of blame to go around including most of us here who benefited in one way or another and then likely got P-nched, too.

DavidE - 5-31-2012 at 10:26 AM

My parents purchased a home in 1949 with a down payment of ONE DOLLAR. But back then I believe the lenders did not have hallucinations of becoming quadrillionaires in the process.

Some acquaintances think renting of their homes allows them to increase rent out of hand higher than inflation, taxes, improvements, etc. A lot of people do this. "Charge What The Market Will Bear". Welcome to five dollar loaves of bread, Fast food burgers for nine dollars, ten dollar a gallon gasoline, twenty dollar a pound round steak, and tomatoes at five dollars a pound. Now, all one has to do is sit down and figure out how to pay those prices. You can charge twelve thousand a month for rental of a dump, and a Ford Taurus could inflate to eighty thousand dollars. Who gains and who loses? This is a disease and I know of no cure, except for an all-out depression. What a tragedy.

Cypress - 5-31-2012 at 05:38 PM

Bajaboy, Facts are BS? Time to move on? It's always time to move on when the facts don't fit the liberal agenda. :biggrin:

Bajaboy - 5-31-2012 at 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cypress
Bajaboy, Facts are BS? Time to move on? It's always time to move on when the facts don't fit the liberal agenda. :biggrin:

Post some facts with some sources and I'd be happy to read up. I don't follow anyone's agenda unless I'm at a meeting. I normally prefer to think for myself...you might try doing the same :spingrin:

Cypress - 5-31-2012 at 06:24 PM

I posted some facts. Wikipedia isn't a good enough source? You can think what ever you want, but I would suggest doing a little research. Facts? Yea, they can be a problem. You'll probably continue to ignore them. :biggrin:

Cypress, Trounce on This

MitchMan - 5-31-2012 at 07:29 PM

Quote:

Cypress, I appreciate your supplying some verifiable substance. Great improvement over Pescador. But, you are wrong about the HUD directives opening the flood gates. I can see, if you only have the info you cited, how you might wrongfully leap to that conclusion.

Now, you trounce on this.

The flood gates were actually started in 2003-2004 (the acknowledged start of the sub prime crisis itself), when the market shifted away from selling their loans to Fannie and Freddie and radically toward MBS’s issued by unregulated private-companies operated by investment banks and the shadow banking system. The GSE’s (e.g., Fannie and Freddie or “F&F”) were required to use tougher/tighter underwriting standards for all their loans, monitor and control the private originators and their loan product from whom F&F bought their loans including their types of sub primes, not so for private MBS’s. The private originators who sold to non F&F, well, their loans were not controlled or monitored, therefore they did not have much in the way of underwriting regulation or oversight. Those originators made the worst toxic loans in the crisis.

The floodgates were already open and they were PRIVATE MBS’s, not F&F’s MBS’s. The PRIVATE floodgates went nuts because they could because loan originators selling their loans to non-F&F private MBS’s couldn’t be monitored or regulated for underwriting. Also, competition for loans to buy from lenders further weakened GSE’s ability to regulate better underwriting in the country and therefore to keep track as to what the overall condition of the market was turning into. It was the unmonitored, unregulated, and uncontrolled radical growth in the private sector supply of mortgage money from private MBS’s by Wall Street Investment Banks and offshore shadow banking system that were responsible for the drastic decline in underwriting standards in the private sector and the over supply of loans to the housing market that was a major cause of the financial crisis.

Investment Banks realized little risk from their MBS’s unlike F&F’s because F&F guranteed their MBS’s performance (Investments didn’t) and usually had more of their own money invested in their MBS’s than the Investment Banks had in their MBS’s.

BTW, you do know that former CEO’s of Fannie are in grave legal trouble, right? During the Crisis, these PRIVATE managers of the publicly owned privatized F&F and their cohorts misrepresented and understated the content of sub primes and toxic sub primes in the F&F portfolio by up to 8 fold to HUD and other regulators in the federal government. Also they cheated on accounting to maximize their bonuses. It was not progressive agenda that committed those malfeasances to “hoodwink” the government, it was “private” managers’ self-interest and greed.

Also, Cypress, I looked up and found in Wikipedia where you got and quoted your above-mentioned stats. Why didn’t you quote any of the paragraph immediately above your stats where it said that detailed analyses of mortgage data by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, Federal Reserve Economists, and independent academic researchers suggest that the pundit claim that government policies designed to promote affordable housing were an important cause of the financial crisis was probably not correct? Please note that Community Reinvestment Act loans outperformed other "subprime" mortgages, and GSE mortgages performed better than private label MBS’s. Aslo, why didn’t you quote the passage three paragraphs down from your stats that said that the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported in 2011 that Fannie & Freddie "contributed to the crisis, but were not a primary cause." That was and has been my point.

I applaud your taking at least some time to gather facts, a vast improvement over Pescador and Barry who are loathe to do that. But, you’ve got to do the whole job. Cherry picking facts and ignoring others and not integrating your thinking will keep you stuck in right wing la la land of perpetual denial.

Try reading the entirety of the “Subprime Mortgage Crisis” in Wikipedia and then tell us where you stand on this issue. You will be glad you did.

[Edited on 6-1-2012 by MitchMan]

Bajaboy - 5-31-2012 at 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cypress
I posted some facts. Wikipedia isn't a good enough source? You can think what ever you want, but I would suggest doing a little research. Facts? Yea, they can be a problem. You'll probably continue to ignore them. :biggrin:

Did you mention something :yawn:

Cypress - 6-1-2012 at 04:59 AM

It's clear that there's enough blame to spread around. Both the public and the private sector have contributed to the crash in the housing market, thus the overall decline in the economy. Govt. policies haven't helped. The stimulus money? Shovel ready jobs?

DavidE - 6-1-2012 at 08:00 AM

You are all sadly missing one issue. When people, especially poor people own their own land, their own home, cities are less likely to burn, cynicism does not prevail, and worker productivity skyrockets. The problem, the one and only, this means solitary, problem, is, that was not and is now not possible.

wessongroup - 6-1-2012 at 08:18 AM

Excellent discussion ... best of luck to all... as it is not looking to good at the moment ...

MitchMan - 6-1-2012 at 10:57 AM

Aside from the usual give and take here on this forum between liberals and conservatives, we all have to keep our eyes on the ball. More knowledge is always better than less. The financial and economic world is changing for us Americans and our country is going to face brand new challenges in the form of two giant emerging countries in China and India for competition and leadership and control economically. Also, we face competition for resources and leadership and control from the surge toward prominence by other groups of smaller emerging economies.

We as a country have to find our new niche, our new comparative advantange in the global economy, and we have to do the things now that need to done by us now as Americans...we are falling behind while our competition is moving ahead. That means we have to get our house in order. We have to do something about education FOR EVERYONE, about the exhorbitant out of control cost of healthcare FOR EVERYONE, and we have to start serious and big investment in our country's infrastructure.

Without being too partisan here, I suggest that we go back to majority rule in congress by engaging in true compromise and in the cessation of filibuster 60%+ votes to get legislation passed and go back to rarer "appropriate" uses of the filibuster and back to the 51% MAJORITY RULE voting of the past. We need to get money out of politics by overturning Citizens United, pulling back most of the lobby industry, and getting rid of the "revolving door" in politics. Lastly, we need to do something about the criminal disparity of income and wealth in this country....it's getting worse, not better, since the crash of 2008! Working class earnings have remained flat since 1980 while the GDP has grown from about $1 trillion to about $15 Trillion today and top 1 and 2% income and wealth has soared by a multiple!

Now, the last two sentences of my last paragraph are just plain verifiable facts. Virtually all economists on both sides of the aisle agree that our disparity of income and wealth is not economically healthy for the country.

There it is. Now, we need to keep our eyes on the big picture, deal with objective facts...all the facts, stop making mistakes of the past, and start working on our major problems....in unison using 51% majority rule.

[Edited on 6-1-2012 by MitchMan]

DavidE - 6-1-2012 at 11:32 AM

The United States is going to fail, the way it is going. One cannot burn the furniture by outsourcing, and shifting domestic capital and assets overseas and not sit on the floor.

Greed is destroying our skilled work force, our education system, transportation, and energy sectors. China may soon have a full blown civil war on its hands. We are not hearing one ten thousandth of what is actually happening at the moment to industrial output, GDP and exports, across the globe. I hope the individuals that have looted this economy learn to love living in armed camps, and be transported in armored vehicles.

Cypress - 6-1-2012 at 02:49 PM

MitchMan, The usual give and take, which has been more give on the conservative side of the equation, has resulted in a major cluster "F". The conservatives should just ignore the liberals. It's silly to try to appease someone who's agenda is your demise.

DavidE - 6-1-2012 at 03:11 PM

Let's switch from ideological hyperbole to cold, bald, reality. The state of California is FORCED BY LAW to publish statistics about fuel prices, taxes, profits, crude costs, refining costs and profits.

On a little known site resides fact, not fiction. But because the state government relies heavily on gasoline sales tax revenue, it cannot afford to take a consumer oriented stance. Indeed in a trance of make believe wishing that fuel could soar to fifty dollars a gallon, coupled with same or increased consumer consumption, viola, the end to California's deficit!

One must study the chart in the link below, not merely glance at it. But if you do study it, things will come into perspective. I hope I am not wasting electrons here. While the 3 little pigs argue, the wolf is sprinkling garlic salt and pepper on them. Cheers!

http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/gasoline/margins/index.php

SFandH - 6-1-2012 at 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DavidE
China may soon have a full blown civil war on its hands.

Do you have some links with info or do you mean Syria?

[Edited on 6-1-2012 by SFandH]

DavidE - 6-1-2012 at 03:47 PM

Bits and pieces. China isn't CNN. Stories of factories closing, and the PLA The People's Liberation Army is working in factories earning little more than their keep. There is increasing civil unrest in the country, and what I say is this. If you think the recession is impacting the USA hard, it's going to mortify China. The Yuan does not have a death grip on the USD for nothing. China has many mouths to feed. And it cannot grow all of its rice. China is like Mexico, even more so, with several official languages.
GOOGLE
civil unrest in china

Pick on the latest information. Multiply it by factor X, what happens when a hundred million chinese lose their jobs. Beijing is not stupid, they will keep the PLA working and civilians will get the boot. Nothing is as perturbing as the thought of an army of ten million hungry soldiers.

This surmising of mine is based on what I believe is coming, and it isn't pretty. Western economies are based on TRUST, that's how credit ratings get established, loans approved, deals struck, and money loosens. When trust evaporates, world financial markets have twenty seven dozen euphemisms for it. If I started naming all of the buzzwords it would blow every integrated circuit on this server.

Read the history of the great crash of 1929. Study it. I could name a dozen worthy works about global depression. Money dries up. The "supposedly untouchables" find themselves without orders, without compensation, without work. This would have been so easy to avoid. But compare margin buying to sub prime loans. The first was public, the second, private. Effects = Same

Cypress - 6-1-2012 at 03:56 PM

Syria without a doubt has a full-blown civil war on its hands. China? That would be a major, major. What would the USA do? Under the current administration I get a mental picture of someone sucking their thumb.

DavidE - 6-1-2012 at 04:03 PM

But my preaching has to have an end. And this is it. Saludos!

And México is paradise.

MitchMan - 6-1-2012 at 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cypress
It's silly to try to appease someone who's agenda is your demise.

That's what I fealt when Mitch McConnell said publicly early on that his number one goal is to defeat Obama.

Cypress - 6-1-2012 at 04:24 PM

Mithman, Did you get a tingle down your leg? :biggrin:

MitchMan - 6-1-2012 at 04:36 PM

yes

Cypress - 6-1-2012 at 04:37 PM

:biggrin:

Pescador - 6-2-2012 at 07:37 AM

Well, Mitchman, the most complete treatment of the Subprime Crisis that I have read comes from the Heritage Foundation and is pretty dead spot on with their treatment. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/04/the-subprim...

I still find it very interesting that you have such "unresolved anger issues" in most of your statements. Never once did I attack you for your liberal beliefs or positions, but you find it necessary to continually attack and use futile attempts at demeaning. Sure must put a serious damper on your ability to communicate with those who do not share your "world view".

MitchMan - 6-2-2012 at 11:44 AM

Pescador, thanks for the link. I will read it with great interest.

My motis operandi in my "communications" with those who have posted opposing views to mine is to read very carefully what the opposition writes and says and use their very words to discredit those words with adequate and sufficient pertinent facts. That's the honest and responsible and fair thing to do.

If my manner is too sharp or seems too sharp at times or even most of the time, I think there are three principal reasons for that. 1) A reflection of my disgust for repeated false and unsupported statements, rank ignorance of pertinent facts, and for the many deliberate and many hateful mischaracterizations by the right wingers on this forum, 2) a reflection of my disgust that the right wingers on this forum have gotten away with their crap mentioned above for too dam long and it is high time that they are held accountable for the gross errors and mean spiritedness of their ways.

The third reason is, in my view, best illustrated by that famous Harry Truman quote: "I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell".

Time after time (as in this thread in my encounter with you), I take the opposing view's words, verbatim, apply careful reading to correctly interpret exactly was said using sound grammar and sentence structure analysis and then build my case to discredit and disprove those statements with adequate and sufficient pertinent facts.

And, time after time, I never get a refutation of any of my facts nor even refutation of the pertinence of those facts to the instant issue under scrutiny, but instead, I get what you have done and that is to 1)cowardly, dishonestly, and consistently fail to respond to the glaring on-point facts that soundly descredited their statements 2) fail to support their own (your own) statements/conclusions with adequate and sufficient fact 3) exit with the classic Barry-ism #1: "We just have a difference of opinion". AND/OR 4) respond with more unsupported conclusions, accusations or mischaracterizations.

Also, quite consciously and carefully and deliberately, I usually am not the first one (in an exchange) to call a person any names; that would be character assassination. But, I do fight fire with fire if my oponent does that first, you can count on me for that. What I do quite regularly, though, is use colorful language and names (if you will) to criticize the "statement" itself made by my oponent in an exchange (not the person themself), or characterize and purposely denigrate the opposing concept itself, or use a very criticising word to describe some one's "action or deed". That is quite different than calling the "person" a name, as that, again, would be character assassination. You need to get that straight.

BTW, your feeble and inexpert attempt at arm chair character/personality analyzation is becoming an observable familiar pattern of yours. Now, see, you are actively engaging in "character assassination". Could such deflection be your defense mechanism when you have nothing else and you feel that you have to respond (just asking, don't really know)? But, if that's all you got, I guess you have to go with it.

[Edited on 6-2-2012 by MitchMan]

Stereo?

EdZeranski - 6-2-2012 at 08:17 PM

No stereo...Only mon-aural??? 8^0

EdZ