Pages:
1
2
3
4 |
DavidE
Ultra Nomad
   
Posts: 3814
Registered: 12-1-2003
Location: Baja California México
Member Is Offline
Mood: 'At home we demand facts and get them. In Mexico one subsists on rumor and never demands anything.' Charles Flandrau,
|
|
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.
A Lot To See And A Lot To Do
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
     
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
Quote: | Originally posted by Pescador
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?" |
Pescador-----------Sigh----------I wish I had said that----------well stated, and it reflects my feelings and knowledge of events well.
Barry
|
|
DavidE
Ultra Nomad
   
Posts: 3814
Registered: 12-1-2003
Location: Baja California México
Member Is Offline
Mood: 'At home we demand facts and get them. In Mexico one subsists on rumor and never demands anything.' Charles Flandrau,
|
|
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.
A Lot To See And A Lot To Do
|
|
MitchMan
Super Nomad
  
Posts: 1856
Registered: 3-9-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
Wise up, Pescador
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
Super Nomad
  
Posts: 1904
Registered: 9-10-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
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.
Select Nomad
     
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
Quote: | Originally posted by Martyman
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. |
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
Ultra Nomad
   
Posts: 3587
Registered: 10-17-2002
Location: Baja California Sur
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
Select Nomad
     
Posts: 19918
Registered: 9-16-2006
Location: San Diego
Member Is Offline
Mood: Hot n spicy
|
|
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
Elite Nomad
    
Posts: 7641
Registered: 3-12-2006
Location: on the bayou
Member Is Offline
Mood: undecided
|
|
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.
Select Nomad
     
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
Quote: | Originally posted by mtgoat666
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
|
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.
Super Nomad
  
Posts: 1673
Registered: 7-8-2010
Location: Punta Banda
Member Is Offline
Mood: Easy Does It
|
|
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.
Select Nomad
     
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
Quote: | 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) |
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.
|
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
Ultra Nomad
   
Posts: 3814
Registered: 12-1-2003
Location: Baja California México
Member Is Offline
Mood: 'At home we demand facts and get them. In Mexico one subsists on rumor and never demands anything.' Charles Flandrau,
|
|
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?
A Lot To See And A Lot To Do
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
     
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
Yep, DavidE-------I agree totally.
Barry
|
|
sancho
Ultra Nomad
   
Posts: 2524
Registered: 10-6-2004
Location: OC So Cal
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
Ultra Nomad
   
Posts: 3814
Registered: 12-1-2003
Location: Baja California México
Member Is Offline
Mood: 'At home we demand facts and get them. In Mexico one subsists on rumor and never demands anything.' Charles Flandrau,
|
|
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!
A Lot To See And A Lot To Do
|
|
Bajaboy
Ultra Nomad
   
Posts: 4375
Registered: 10-9-2003
Location: Bahia Asuncion, BCS, Mexico
Member Is Offline
|
|
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 |
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 |
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.
Super Nomad
  
Posts: 1673
Registered: 7-8-2010
Location: Punta Banda
Member Is Offline
Mood: Easy Does It
|
|
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 |
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? |
around 3.50 per hour for every hour i ever worked |
|
|
DianaT
Select Nomad
     
Posts: 10020
Registered: 12-17-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
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 |
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 |
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? |
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]
|
|
J.P.
Super Nomad
  
Posts: 1673
Registered: 7-8-2010
Location: Punta Banda
Member Is Offline
Mood: Easy Does It
|
|
Unions and Republicans
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.
|
|
Pages:
1
2
3
4 |
|