Contrary to what those in power would like you to believe so that you'll give up your pension, cut your wages, and settle for the life your great-grandparents had, America is not broke. Not by a long shot. The country is awash in wealth and cash. It's just that it's not in your hands. It has been transferred, in the greatest heist in history, from the workers and consumers to the banks and the portfolios of the uber-rich.
Today just 400 Americans have the same wealth as half of all Americans combined.
Let me say that again. 400 obscenely rich people, most of whom benefited in some way from the multi-trillion dollar taxpayer "bailout" of 2008, now have as much loot, stock and property as the assets of 155 million Americans combined. If you can't bring yourself to call that a financial coup d'état, then you are simply not being honest about what you know in your heart to be true.
And I can see why. For us to admit that we have let a small group of men abscond with and hoard the bulk of the wealth that runs our economy, would mean that we'd have to accept the humiliating acknowledgment that we have indeed surrendered our precious Democracy to the moneyed elite. Wall Street, the banks and the Fortune 500 now run this Republic -- and, until this past month, the rest of us have felt completely helpless, unable to find a way to do anything about it.
I have nothing more than a high school degree. But back when I was in school, every student had to take one semester of economics in order to graduate. And here's what I learned: Money doesn't grow on trees. It grows when we make things. It grows when we have good jobs with good wages that we use to buy the things we need and thus create more jobs. It grows when we provide an outstanding educational system that then grows a new generation of inventors, entrepreneurs, artists, scientists and thinkers who come up with the next great idea for the planet. And that new idea creates new jobs and that creates revenue for the state. But if those who have the most money don't pay their fair share of taxes, the state can't function. The schools can't produce the best and the brightest who will go on to create those jobs. If the wealthy get to keep most of their money, we have seen what they will do with it: recklessly gamble it on crazy Wall Street schemes and crash our economy. The crash they created cost us millions of jobs. That too caused a reduction in tax revenue. Everyone ended up suffering because of what the rich did.
The nation is not broke, my friends. Wisconsin is not broke. Saying that the country is broke is repeating a Big Lie. It's one of the three biggest lies of the decade: 1) America is broke, 2) Iraq has WMD, and 3) The Packers can't win the Super Bowl without Brett Favre.
The truth is, there's lots of money to go around. LOTS. It's just that those in charge have diverted that wealth into a deep well that sits on their well-guarded estates. They know they have committed crimes to make this happen and they know that someday you may want to see some of that money that used to be yours. So they have bought and paid for hundreds of politicians across the country to do their bidding for them. But just in case that doesn't work, they've got their gated communities, and the luxury jet is always fully fueled, the engines running, waiting for that day they hope never comes. To help prevent that day when the people demand their country back, the wealthy have done two very smart things:
1. They control the message. By owning most of the media they have expertly convinced many Americans of few means to buy their version of the American Dream and to vote for their politicians. Their version of the Dream says that you, too, might be rich some day -- this is America, where anything can happen if you just apply yourself! They have conveniently provided you with believable examples to show you how a poor boy can become a rich man, how the child of a single mother in Hawaii can become president, how a guy with a high school education can become a successful filmmaker. They will play these stories for you over and over again all day long so that the last thing you will want to do is upset the apple cart -- because you -- yes, you, too! -- might be rich/president/an Oscar-winner some day! The message is clear: keep you head down, your nose to the grindstone, don't rock the boat and be sure to vote for the party that protects the rich man that you might be some day.
2. They have created a poison pill that they know you will never want to take. It is their version of mutually assured destruction. And when they threatened to release this weapon of mass economic annihilation in September of 2008, we blinked. As the economy and the stock market went into a tailspin, and the banks were caught conducting a worldwide Ponzi scheme, Wall Street issued this threat: Either hand over trillions of dollars from the American taxpayers or we will crash this economy straight into the ground. Fork it over or it's Goodbye savings accounts. Goodbye pensions. Goodbye United States Treasury. Goodbye jobs and homes and future. It was friggin' awesome and it scared the shit out of everyone. "Here! Take our money! We don't care. We'll even print more for you! Just take it! But, please, leave our lives alone, PLEASE!"
The executives in the board rooms and hedge funds could not contain their laughter, their glee, and within three months they were writing each other huge bonus checks and marveling at how perfectly they had played a nation full of suckers. Millions lost their jobs anyway, and millions lost their homes. But there was no revolt (see #1).
Until now. On Wisconsin! Never has a Michigander been more happy to share a big, great lake with you! You have aroused the sleeping giant known as the working people of the United States of America. Right now the earth is shaking and the ground is shifting under the feet of those who are in charge. Your message has inspired people in all 50 states and that message is: WE HAVE HAD IT! We reject anyone who tells us America is broke and broken. It's just the opposite! We are rich with talent and ideas and hard work and, yes, love. Love and compassion toward those who have, through no fault of their own, ended up as the least among us. But they still crave what we all crave: Our country back! Our democracy back! Our good name back! The United States of America. NOT the Corporate States of America. The United States of America!
So how do we make this happen? Well, we do it with a little bit of Egypt here, a little bit of Madison there. And let us pause for a moment and remember that it was a poor man with a fruit stand in Tunisia who gave his life so that the world might focus its attention on how a government run by billionaires for billionaires is an affront to freedom and morality and humanity.
Thank you, Wisconsin. You have made people realize this was our last best chance to grab the final thread of what was left of who we are as Americans. For three weeks you have stood in the cold, slept on the floor, skipped out of town to Illinois -- whatever it took, you have done it, and one thing is for certain: Madison is only the beginning. The smug rich have overplayed their hand. They couldn't have just been content with the money they raided from the treasury. They couldn't be satiated by simply removing millions of jobs and shipping them overseas to exploit the poor elsewhere. No, they had to have more -- something more than all the riches in the world. They had to have our soul. They had to strip us of our dignity. They had to shut us up and shut us down so that we could not even sit at a table with them and bargain about simple things like classroom size or bulletproof vests for everyone on the police force or letting a pilot just get a few extra hours sleep so he or she can do their job -- their $19,000 a year job. That's how much some rookie pilots on commuter airlines make, maybe even the rookie pilot who flew me here to Madison today. He told me he's stopped hoping for a pay increase. All he's asking for now is enough down time so that he doesn't have to sleep in his car between shifts at O'Hare airport. That's how despicably low we have sunk! The wealthy couldn't be content with just paying this man $19,000 a year. They had to take away his sleep. They had to demean him and dehumanize him and rub his face in it. After all, he's just another slob, isn't he?
And that, my friends, is Corporate America's fatal mistake. But trying to destroy us they have given birth to a movement -- a movement that is becoming a massive, nonviolent revolt across the country. We all knew there had to be a breaking point some day, and that point is upon us. Many people in the media don't understand this. They say they were caught off guard about Egypt, never saw it coming. Now they act surprised and flummoxed about why so many hundreds of thousands have come to Madison over the last three weeks during brutal winter weather. "Why are they all standing out there in the cold?" I mean, there was that election in November and that was supposed to be that!
"There's something happening here, and you don't know what it is, do you ...?"
America ain't broke! The only thing that's broke is the moral compass of the rulers. And we aim to fix that compass and steer the ship ourselves from now on. Never forget, as long as that Constitution of ours still stands, it's one person, one vote, and it's the thing the rich hate most about America -- because even though they seem to hold all the money and all the cards, they begrudgingly know this one unshakeable basic fact: There are more of us than there are of them!
Madison, do not retreat. We are with you. We will win together.
It's about the Wisconsin state protests. One little fun fact that stuck out at me was the beginning of the blog.. "Today just 400 Americans have the same wealth as half of all Americans combined.
Let me say that again. 400 obscenely rich people, most of whom benefited in some way from the multi-trillion dollar taxpayer "bailout" of 2008, now have as much loot, stock and property as the assets of 155 million Americans combined...."
Holy shit... Holy fucking shit... If I was an American, I would be VERY upset. I know a few of those 400 are people like Bill Gates, and Zuckerburg, and Buffet, but the rest are CEO pigs rolling in filthy cash. Wow.
I've known about the obscenely rich people holding a ton of wealth thing for a while, though I didn't know the exact numbers. I can't say for certain but I think it's common knowledge in America these days.
I'm not sure how to respond to this, really, so I'll let others do the talking while I lurk and learn.
On March 08 2011 18:07 Souma wrote: This will be interesting.
I've known about the obscenely rich people holding a ton of wealth thing for a while, though I didn't know the exact numbers. I can't say for certain but I think it's common knowledge in America these days.
I'm not sure how to respond to this, really, so I'll let others do the talking while I lurk and learn.
Edit: 666 posts. afk not posting anymore.
Lol @ 666 posts
I'm Canadian so I guess until a celebrity says something we don't hear much. I know about the protests and such but I had no idea so much wealth was in the hands of so few. That makes me mad and I'm not even part of your corporation - er I mean country.
I know a few of those 400 are people like Bill Gates, and Zuckerburg, and Buffet, but the rest are CEO pigs rolling in filthy cash. Wow.
Delicious irony right there. Mark Zuckerberg's negative influence is amongst the largest of all rich folks with something to say these days.
Lol. If you look at it that way, then Gate's influence is definitely among the richest of all rich folks with something to say these days. He holds almost uncountable money with his foundation. Including lots of zucker's and his future wealth as well...
Americans might be upset, but they won't do anything about it until they lose their jobs, money, etc and also their television, internet, entertainment, etc. (aka never in most cases)
It's all the fault of those greedy, fatcat teachers and government workers. They sit in their mansions and palaces and demand more from good, hardworking, middle class Americans like you and also me.
On March 08 2011 18:02 Hellhammer wrote: Holy shit... Holy fucking shit... If I was an American, I would be VERY upset. I know a few of those 400 are people like Bill Gates, and Zuckerburg, and Buffet, but the rest are CEO pigs rolling in filthy cash. Wow.
Lol
Moore's message is pretty BS
the top 400 richest is composed of people that got spectacularly (in some way or another) lucky with the path they chose (usually an entrepreneurial one) There are very few "bankers" in that list (if any?), mostly hedge fund managers, which have nothing to do with banks. the vast majority of the people on that list are composed of entrepreneurs who hit big
And the idea that these 400 richest benefited from the bailout is pretty ludicrous too hahahahahahahaha
I mean, you really, REALLY wanna know what started it? It was the idea that you could own things that you couldn't afford - in particular, a house. A man known as bill clinton started this idea
Something that continually surprised me through the 'bailout' bullshit of a few years ago was the fact that no one got shot.
The U.S. is a country based on revolting against people demanding they have the right to fuck with your money. The fact that none of the swindlers from Wall Street got nailed in the street by someone that lost everything kind of stunned me. Kindof be-all end-all proof that the U.S. populace can be fucked with in any way and they'll just take it at this point.
On March 08 2011 19:33 maahes wrote: Something that continually surprised me through the 'bailout' bullshit of a few years ago was the fact that no one got shot.
The U.S. is a country based on revolting against people demanding they have the right to fuck with your money. The fact that none of the swindlers from Wall Street got nailed in the street by someone that lost everything kind of stunned me. Kindof be-all end-all proof that the U.S. populace can be fucked with in any way and they'll just take it at this point.
I can't wait to leave once I get my degree,. o_o;
exactly what i thought. was pretty surprised no one emptied a clip into someone.
I really hate Michael Moore. Everything about him is wrong.
But yeah, even if indirectly they benefited for sure. Then again, so did everyone else. That really isn't the central theme either way.
On March 08 2011 19:17 BrTarolg wrote: I mean, you really, REALLY wanna know what started it? It was the idea that you could own things that you couldn't afford - in particular, a house. A man known as bill clinton started this idea
On March 08 2011 19:33 maahes wrote: Something that continually surprised me through the 'bailout' bullshit of a few years ago was the fact that no one got shot.
The U.S. is a country based on revolting against people demanding they have the right to fuck with your money. The fact that none of the swindlers from Wall Street got nailed in the street by someone that lost everything kind of stunned me. Kindof be-all end-all proof that the U.S. populace can be fucked with in any way and they'll just take it at this point.
I can't wait to leave once I get my degree,. o_o;
You aren't the only one to think that.
Wisconsin has me giggling with happiness though. Republicans really overstepped their bounds with that one and JUST MAYBE this is what the country needed to realize the shit coming their way if they don't do something.
Hell even other Republicans are telling Walker to back the fuck off because it's going to crash down around his head.
I remember a quote from Walker two days ago...
"The unions are acting like this because they are afraid of change. Change breeds fear, and fear breeds anger."
Really? Holy shit you patronizing mother fucker I am so surprised you haven't gotten your face ripped off for saying something so insulting.
The day getting your right to bargain for your life stripped is simply considered a "change"...as if it's a minor issue, is the day I leave.
Most estimates I've read put Moore's net worth around $50million; I'd say he's way closer to the top 400 rich people then pretty much everyone who reads his blogs and buys his stuff.
On March 08 2011 19:33 maahes wrote: Something that continually surprised me through the 'bailout' bullshit of a few years ago was the fact that no one got shot.
The U.S. is a country based on revolting against people demanding they have the right to fuck with your money. The fact that none of the swindlers from Wall Street got nailed in the street by someone that lost everything kind of stunned me. Kindof be-all end-all proof that the U.S. populace can be fucked with in any way and they'll just take it at this point.
I can't wait to leave once I get my degree,. o_o;
You aren't the only one to think that.
Wisconsin has me giggling with happiness though. Republicans really overstepped their bounds with that one and JUST MAYBE this is what the country needed to realize the shit coming their way if they don't do something.
Hell even other Republicans are telling Walker to back the fuck off because it's going to crash down around his head.
I remember a quote from Walker two days ago...
"The unions are acting like this because they are afraid of change. Change breeds fear, and fear breeds anger."
Really? Holy shit you patronizing mother fucker I am so surprised you haven't gotten your face ripped off for saying something so insulting.
The day getting your right to bargain for your life stripped is simply considered a "change"...as if it's a minor issue, is the day I leave.
Yeah, this shit in Wisconsin is nuts. The propagandists are using the envy some might have had toward government workers to somehow weave a tale wherein it wasn't the top 1% taking everyone's money with unregulated math voodoo, it was the receptionist at the DMV that made us all poor.
Walker seems like the king of idiots the more he says... I dread that this bill gets passed, however. It'll just be another substantial blow to the middle class and it'll set a precedent that other states are already looking to domino off of.
On March 08 2011 20:50 Fiveandahalf wrote: Most estimates I've read put Moore's net worth around $50million; I'd say he's way closer to the top 400 rich people then pretty much everyone who reads his blogs and buys his stuff.
Yeah , capitalism has really worked out well for him i guess? If you want proper docos look elsewhere
On March 08 2011 19:17 BrTarolg wrote: I mean, you really, REALLY wanna know what started it? It was the idea that you could own things that you couldn't afford - in particular, a house. A man known as bill clinton started this idea
Or those bankers. Delighted at the concept.
I still find it fascinating that somehow the legions of dumb shit people who voluntarily signed mortgages they could never afford escaped blame in all that in the eyes of most. America, the land where accountability only matters as long as you're not implicating yourself!!
I also find it hilarious that Michael Moore, who is worth several million and makes a career off of stroking this ridiculous sense of entitlement that so many people have, has the audacity to start talking about redistributing the wealth.
Also funny is that he is acting as if public employees aren't the single biggest drain on any municipality or state. Attend your local budget meeting. See just how much salary some retard who barely passed high school gets for picking up downed trees at the DPW. Then prepare to punch yourself in the head when you realize he's probably getting benefits you could only dream of and he'll get $50k-ish a year for life on his pension when he retires after 20-25 years at fucking 55.
On a local, county and state level, the biggest expenditures are almost always for government employees, who get ridiculous benefits that they contribute next to nothing for. To say that it isn't a major issue means you are a goddamn idiot.
On March 08 2011 19:51 Romantic wrote: I really hate Michael Moore. Everything about him is wrong.
But yeah, even if indirectly they benefited for sure. Then again, so did everyone else. That really isn't the central theme either way.
On March 08 2011 19:17 BrTarolg wrote: I mean, you really, REALLY wanna know what started it? It was the idea that you could own things that you couldn't afford - in particular, a house. A man known as bill clinton started this idea
Or those bankers. Delighted at the concept.
I still find it fascinating that somehow the legions of dumb shit people who voluntarily signed mortgages they could never afford escaped blame in all that in the eyes of most. America, the land where accountability only matters as long as you're not implicating yourself!!
I dunno, I think a fair amount of non dumbshit people were just encouraged by the bankers who told them they could afford that shit, and everybody in general telling them a house = a good and safe investment. Obviously those mortgages were dangerous as fuck in retrospect, but at the time people were getting them, nobody was warning them so. Do you expect the average dumbshit to understand how dumb/predatory bankers get when they're caught up in bubblemania?
If you can't be bothered to do your own, independent research on mortgages prior to agreeing on a purchase of several hundred thousands of dollars, yes, you are an idiot. Plain and simple, it is a lack of accountability.
How is that any different than going car shopping and being like 'oh well the salesman told me this car is way under value and it's totally fine, let me skip all inspection, research and screw shopping to compare prices'
People buying things they can't afford is a tradition in this country, as is passing the blame.
What's even more wonderful is that the people who did live within their means and don't carry insane, unpayable debt don't get the government to help them out.
e; if you don't understand the logic that goes into a $500,000 transaction, you shouldn't be buying a house until you figure out the process. The whole thing can be summed up as a bunch of dumbasses buying on a whim instead of doing research.
I'm really starting to think that there will be some sort of revolution soon in the US. Not like Egypt or Libya of course, but something drastic. There's just too much inequality, and everybody is pissed that we live in "the richest country in the world" and yet still feel poor.
On March 09 2011 00:18 Hawk wrote: If you can't be bothered to do your own, independent research on mortgages prior to agreeing on a purchase of several hundred thousands of dollars, yes, you are an idiot. Plain and simple, it is a lack of accountability.
Can you point me to an example of said research that would've discouraged someone from gettting a shitty adjustable mortgage? Preferably one that was up before the collapse. I'm not sure the "THIS IS BULLSHIT" sign was so easy to find. Especially when the banks themselves were offering stupideasy versions of the "pros and cons" of fixed vs adjustable mortgages or whatnot. I actually don't know the details of the predatory aspects, do you?
EDIT: In general too, people generally look for confirmation to the rationalizations of their desires more than for discouragement. Even if they found a bunch of sources, and like 5 of them said "this could be bullshit" and 5 of them said "this is probably safe," they'd probably believe the latter. I still think it's less an issue of how stupid Americans are and more an issue of the bullshit that banks were advertising in the first place. Europeans are generally OK with apartments, and their government wasn't screaming at them that home ownership = their dream.
EDIT2: And even if they had done the research, and people warned them of the possible event that some bubble pops and their adjustable rate rockets and they get fucked, it sounds like a black swan event that people wouldn't expect anyway. People don't like accounting for black swans, even educated investors (until Nassim Taleb wrote a book about that shit anyhow, read it if you havent).
On March 09 2011 00:18 Hawk wrote: If you can't be bothered to do your own, independent research on mortgages prior to agreeing on a purchase of several hundred thousands of dollars, yes, you are an idiot. Plain and simple, it is a lack of accountability.
Can you point me to an example of said research that would've discouraged someone from gettting a shitty adjustable mortgage? Preferably one that was up before the collapse. I'm not sure the "THIS IS BULLSHIT" sign was so easy to find. Especially when the banks themselves were offering stupideasy versions of the "pros and cons" of fixed vs adjustable mortgages or whatnot. I actually don't know the details of the predatory aspects, do you?
Adjustable rate mortgages were the culprit I believe?? Google comes up with a ton of stuff on that and other options. This isn't stuff that was hidden prior to the crash. All stuff that, if you're serious about spending $500k or something of that nature, you'd look at before hand.
It's as simple as not entering a contract when you don't understand all the components and not entering a contract that you can't possibly meet (like, one of these options that has insane high rates based on bank data and all that shit)
Car dealers give you the pros and cons of certain deals all the time too. I just bought a new car. I sure as shit didn't just go on what the dealer said and assume it was all good. I did my research, figured out what I could afford, made sure I had OH SHIT money on the side and made sure I very thoroughly understood the loan that I was entering. I figured out a bunch of different payment plans on my own and verified what the dealership was saying.
Would you enter a contract for a nice home with an adjustable rate without know exactly how it works?
On March 09 2011 00:22 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: EDIT: In general too, people generally look for confirmation to the rationalizations of their desires more than for discouragement. Even if they found a bunch of sources, and like 5 of them said "this could be bullshit" and 5 of them said "this is probably safe," they'd probably believe the latter. I still think it's less an issue of how stupid Americans are and more an issue of the bullshit that banks were advertising in the first place. Europeans are generally OK with apartments, and their government wasn't screaming at them that home ownership = their dream.
EDIT2: And even if they had done the research, and people warned them of the possible event that some bubble pops and their adjustable rate rockets and they get fucked, it sounds like a black swan event that people wouldn't expect anyway. People don't like accounting for black swans, even educated investors (until Nassim Taleb wrote a book about that shit anyhow, read it if you havent).
These are all valid points, but I still feel as if they point to a greater problem with the mentality of the average cheese burger chompin American than a problem with the system.
Why do things without research? Why enter a contract without understanding it? Why purchase something you can't possibly afford? Why take what the US government, a bank or anything else that a party with a vested interest is saying at face value?? While we're specifically talking about houses, you can take this concept and throw it anywhere... cars, TVs, etc.
Like I certainly don't know all the nuances of mortgages and shit, but I also definitely wouldn't be buying a house until I felt very comfortable in understanding it.
Pretty much the only thing I cared for out of that blog post that Moore shit out was that we sued to have economics required in high school. This and the fact that your average college grad is so retarded that they can't balance a checkbook should make society start rethinking that.
I just find it very hard to be sympathetic to someone who can't bother to essentially use their brain.
On March 09 2011 00:18 Hawk wrote: If you can't be bothered to do your own, independent research on mortgages prior to agreeing on a purchase of several hundred thousands of dollars, yes, you are an idiot. Plain and simple, it is a lack of accountability.
Can you point me to an example of said research that would've discouraged someone from gettting a shitty adjustable mortgage? Preferably one that was up before the collapse. I'm not sure the "THIS IS BULLSHIT" sign was so easy to find. Especially when the banks themselves were offering stupideasy versions of the "pros and cons" of fixed vs adjustable mortgages or whatnot. I actually don't know the details of the predatory aspects, do you?
Would you enter a contract for a nice home with an adjustable rate without know exactly how it works?
I wouldn't, what I am contending is that there is always going to be a significant amount of people (in any country) who would anyway. To confirm I'd have to do some experimenting, maybe design a hypothetical having the person pick between a higher fixed rate and a lower adjustable rate that could, with some low percentage, rocket up. The adjustable rate would have a higher expected cost, but I wouldn't tell them that. Question: "Which of these options would you pick?" The choices would be Fixed, Adjustable, I Don't Know. I'd still expect the results to be Adjustable ~= I Don't Know > Fixed, because people are bad at understanding probabilities and a lot of people don't know / won't admit that people are bad at understanding probabilities.
But what's even more troublesome than my experiment is that in the case of the actual stupid buyers, they didn't really know the probability that the adjustable mortgages would shoot up. AFAIK, it's linked to the Federal interest rate, which was bound to go back up eventually, but everybody was fuzzy on the true repercussions.
What do you get out of blaming the victims anyway, even if it was their faults? It's not like the bailouts helped them, it just helped the banks and debt-buyer-derivative-trading-quant-assholes who thought these guys could pay their mortages;
On March 09 2011 00:22 Luddite wrote: I'm really starting to think that there will be some sort of revolution soon in the US. Not like Egypt or Libya of course, but something drastic. There's just too much inequality, and everybody is pissed that we live in "the richest country in the world" and yet still feel poor.
yeah man, what would we do without our $300 smartphones and $50/month data plan to surf facebook with???
On March 09 2011 00:18 Hawk wrote: If you can't be bothered to do your own, independent research on mortgages prior to agreeing on a purchase of several hundred thousands of dollars, yes, you are an idiot. Plain and simple, it is a lack of accountability.
Can you point me to an example of said research that would've discouraged someone from gettting a shitty adjustable mortgage? Preferably one that was up before the collapse. I'm not sure the "THIS IS BULLSHIT" sign was so easy to find. Especially when the banks themselves were offering stupideasy versions of the "pros and cons" of fixed vs adjustable mortgages or whatnot. I actually don't know the details of the predatory aspects, do you?
Would you enter a contract for a nice home with an adjustable rate without know exactly how it works?
I wouldn't, what I am contending is that there is always going to be a significant amount of people (in any country) who would anyway. To confirm I'd have to do some experimenting, maybe design a hypothetical having the person pick between a higher fixed rate and a lower adjustable rate that could, with some low percentage, rocket up. The adjustable rate would have a higher expected cost, but I wouldn't tell them that. Question: "Which of these options would you pick?" The choices would be Fixed, Adjustable, I Don't Know. I'd still expect the results to be Adjustable ~= I Don't Know > Fixed, because people are bad at understanding probabilities and a lot of people don't know / won't admit that people are bad at understanding probabilities.
But what's even more troublesome than my experiment is that in the case of the actual stupid buyers, they didn't really know the probability that the adjustable mortgages would shoot up. AFAIK, it's linked to the Federal interest rate, which was bound to go back up eventually, but everybody was fuzzy on the true repercussions.
Yeah no you're totally right. I guess we just differ in that my reaction to all this is 'why is the average person so fucking stupid and what can we do to fix it' whereas your concern is the banks exploiting that stupidity, to put it loosely.
On March 09 2011 00:18 Hawk wrote: If you can't be bothered to do your own, independent research on mortgages prior to agreeing on a purchase of several hundred thousands of dollars, yes, you are an idiot. Plain and simple, it is a lack of accountability.
Can you point me to an example of said research that would've discouraged someone from gettting a shitty adjustable mortgage? Preferably one that was up before the collapse. I'm not sure the "THIS IS BULLSHIT" sign was so easy to find. Especially when the banks themselves were offering stupideasy versions of the "pros and cons" of fixed vs adjustable mortgages or whatnot. I actually don't know the details of the predatory aspects, do you?
Would you enter a contract for a nice home with an adjustable rate without know exactly how it works?
I wouldn't, what I am contending is that there is always going to be a significant amount of people (in any country) who would anyway. To confirm I'd have to do some experimenting, maybe design a hypothetical having the person pick between a higher fixed rate and a lower adjustable rate that could, with some low percentage, rocket up. The adjustable rate would have a higher expected cost, but I wouldn't tell them that. Question: "Which of these options would you pick?" The choices would be Fixed, Adjustable, I Don't Know. I'd still expect the results to be Adjustable ~= I Don't Know > Fixed, because people are bad at understanding probabilities and a lot of people don't know / won't admit that people are bad at understanding probabilities.
But what's even more troublesome than my experiment is that in the case of the actual stupid buyers, they didn't really know the probability that the adjustable mortgages would shoot up. AFAIK, it's linked to the Federal interest rate, which was bound to go back up eventually, but everybody was fuzzy on the true repercussions.
Yeah no you're totally right. I guess we just differ in that my reaction to all this is 'why is the average person so fucking stupid and what can we do to fix it' whereas your concern is the banks exploiting that stupidity, to put it loosely.
Yep :D
No one in this world has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby. H. L. Mencken
On March 09 2011 00:05 Hawk wrote: Also funny is that he is acting as if public employees aren't the single biggest drain on any municipality or state. Attend your local budget meeting. See just how much salary some retard who barely passed high school gets for picking up downed trees at the DPW. Then prepare to punch yourself in the head when you realize he's probably getting benefits you could only dream of and he'll get $50k-ish a year for life on his pension when he retires after 20-25 years at fucking 55.
On a local, county and state level, the biggest expenditures are almost always for government employees, who get ridiculous benefits that they contribute next to nothing for. To say that it isn't a major issue means you are a goddamn idiot.
Michael Moore being a fat douchebag aside, I don't understand the bitterness toward government workers. Yes, they have cushy jobs, but why is that a problem fundamentally? If this action in Wisconsin goes through it has a good chance of putting the nail in the coffin on unions, which have shrunk from almost 35% of the workforce to only 8% in recent years. That's just less good jobs the middle class can look forward to. Whether or not public servants make as much as they should is debatable (I think they might have too nice of a job situation myself), but those behind this precedent-setting legislation have already stated that substantial pay cuts aren't enough - complete demolition of the unions' power to negotiate is the bare minimum, and that's just terrible for the present but even more so for the future.
On March 09 2011 00:39 Hawk wrote: I just find it very hard to be sympathetic to someone who can't bother to essentially use their brain.
Yeah I hate em too, I'm just one of those liberal pansies who thinks the system should account for them, rather than being one of those guys who thinks they'll learn their lessons if we let em fuck up enough. In essence, I guess I'm actually more pessimistic about the average human than you are :D
On March 09 2011 00:05 Hawk wrote: Also funny is that he is acting as if public employees aren't the single biggest drain on any municipality or state. Attend your local budget meeting. See just how much salary some retard who barely passed high school gets for picking up downed trees at the DPW. Then prepare to punch yourself in the head when you realize he's probably getting benefits you could only dream of and he'll get $50k-ish a year for life on his pension when he retires after 20-25 years at fucking 55.
On a local, county and state level, the biggest expenditures are almost always for government employees, who get ridiculous benefits that they contribute next to nothing for. To say that it isn't a major issue means you are a goddamn idiot.
Michael Moore being a fat douchebag aside, I don't understand the bitterness toward government workers. Yes, they have cushy jobs, but why is that a problem fundamentally? If this action in Wisconsin goes through it has a good chance of putting the nail in the coffin on unions, which have shrunk from almost 35% of the workforce to only 8% in recent years. That's just less good jobs the middle class can look forward to. Whether or not public servants make as much as they should is debatable (I think they might have too nice of a job situation myself), but those behind this precedent-setting legislation have already stated that substantial pay cuts aren't enough - complete demolition of the unions' power to negotiate is the bare minimum, and that's just terrible for the present but even more so for the future.
What do you think?
I think the backlash against public workers, especially unionized ones, partially comes from the fact that private unions have been disappearing. The private sector has been getting much better at getting around unions, especially since globalization gives corporations the best union-busting tool possible: the third world (India and China are churning out so many goddamn skilled workers); consequently, the people who used to be able to rely on working in the private sector have become bitter towards the public sector, which has had no such hostile turn of events. Can't outsource public jobs.
I read an article which had the offhand comment by some Taiwanese dude that America's middle class probably needs to take a pay cut in light of globalization, and it makes sense to me. If the rest of the world gets paid on average, say, $20k usd a year for some job requiring skill set X, and the US has historically paid $60k a year for it, how do you reconcile the fact that corporations can outsource now?
So to answer your question, yeah the entirety of the US middle class might need to take a slight pay cut, including gov't workers, but fuck if we can't start taxing the ultrarich a lil bit more.
The idea that the mortgage crisis was caused by people signing mortgages they "knew they couldn't afford" is too simple an interpretation. It takes two to tango: the banks offering the morgages knew (without a doubt) that the people they were selling to were too risky a bet, and didn't even bother asking for documentation (no-doc loans).
On top of that, any "people living beyond their means" or "they knew they couldn't afford it" explanation completely avoids the re-packaging and sale of these mortgages into securities and Moody's role in giving fraudulent AAA ratings to toxic assets, and how these ratings led A.I.G to insure something it would not have if Moody's had assigned a real rating.
On March 09 2011 00:05 Hawk wrote: Also funny is that he is acting as if public employees aren't the single biggest drain on any municipality or state. Attend your local budget meeting. See just how much salary some retard who barely passed high school gets for picking up downed trees at the DPW. Then prepare to punch yourself in the head when you realize he's probably getting benefits you could only dream of and he'll get $50k-ish a year for life on his pension when he retires after 20-25 years at fucking 55.
On a local, county and state level, the biggest expenditures are almost always for government employees, who get ridiculous benefits that they contribute next to nothing for. To say that it isn't a major issue means you are a goddamn idiot.
Michael Moore being a fat douchebag aside, I don't understand the bitterness toward government workers. Yes, they have cushy jobs, but why is that a problem fundamentally? If this action in Wisconsin goes through it has a good chance of putting the nail in the coffin on unions, which have shrunk from almost 35% of the workforce to only 8% in recent years. That's just less good jobs the middle class can look forward to. Whether or not public servants make as much as they should is debatable (I think they might have too nice of a job situation myself), but those behind this precedent-setting legislation have already stated that substantial pay cuts aren't enough - complete demolition of the unions' power to negotiate is the bare minimum, and that's just terrible for the present but even more so for the future.
What do you think?
It's a problem because they're paid by the tax payers. No one gives a shit if it were a private company.
The only thing that is regrettable about all this is the changing in bargaining power. But at the same time, they still have it for wages. It is related to benefits, which unions are traditionally huge cocksuckers about (look at how little they contribute vs a private employee). I'm not sure how that works out, but it hardly renders the unions impotent as claimed.
The possible contribution that would result in about 5-7% in take home pay, that's simply a correction for a thing that was long overdue.
On March 09 2011 00:05 Hawk wrote:... prepare to punch yourself when you realize he's (govt worker) probably getting benefits you could only dream of and will get (upwards of) $50k-ish a year for life on his pension when he retires after 20-25 years at fucking 55.
On a local, county and state level, the biggest expenditures are almost always for government employees, who get ridiculous benefits that they contribute next to nothing for. To say that it isn't a major issue means you are a goddamn idiot.
So so true. I belong to a local golf club team that travels to play other courses. We have a fire chief and a city building inspector who are always shoe-ins for the 12 member team because they can ALWAYS get the time off! To top that off, they always poke fun "lol, I'm getting paid to do this". Great guys, but as an independent contractor, I have to cringe a bit with these guys and their subsidized lives. I definitely insist they pay for the drinks joking about their government welfare checks as going to good use. Ya, pretty ridiculous how much money is dished out for government employees.
Personally, I think it's fine for cops & firefighters to get high pay and what not. But even they too need to learn to make concessions in this economy.
The more egregious offenses are the DPW workers and secretaries who pick up 60-70k a year and full benefits to boot. Fuck, many places gave part time govt employees full benefits up until the economic clusterfuck.
I just glanced at my city's budget for the prior year. Well over 60% is tied up in salaries, benefits and pensions. I'm sure it's not much different elsewhere. When my taxes go directly towards paying rich dudes, I'll worry about that more.
The reason Wisconsin is trying to deal with the unions is because they have no money. Do you think Governor Walker would be so adamant about cutting their collective bargaining power if they could actually afford it?
I'm also loving the irony of Michael Moore bashing the rich and capitalism when he gets rich off of the average person.
As far as personal responsibility goes, the government seems to want us to have none. Waive the bank fees for bouncing a check? Sure! its not your fault...
I mean cmon, when I was 19 I bounced 3 checks in a row and ended up paying around $100 in fees from it. Haven't bounced since and I am 24 now. Their should be a penalty for stupidity. I believe Dave Ramsey calls it "stupid tax".
On March 09 2011 01:50 UnRealXenoth wrote: The reason Wisconsin is trying to deal with the unions is because they have no money. Do you think Governor Walker would be so adamant about cutting their collective bargaining power if they could actually afford it?
Destroying collective bargaining has nothing to do with the budget, it is fully ideological. You don't have to destroy collective bargaining to balance the budget in Wisconsin.
On March 09 2011 01:50 UnRealXenoth wrote: The reason Wisconsin is trying to deal with the unions is because they have no money. Do you think Governor Walker would be so adamant about cutting their collective bargaining power if they could actually afford it?
Destroying collective bargaining has nothing to do with the budget, it is fully ideological. You don't have to destroy collective bargaining to balance the budget in Wisconsin.
Thats fine. Let the firings begin. The ones that stay can keep the collective bargaining.
I enjoyed lots of your points Hawk but I just wanted to let you (and others who seem to not know this) know: (I'm in Madison, state capitol, go to school there)
the unions officially stated that they were 100% WILLING to take all paycuts and even benefit cuts as long as they kept their bargaining rights....
Walker said no.
this is more ideological, using the budget balancing that is needed to support something that would otherwise not fly.
On March 09 2011 00:22 Luddite wrote: I'm really starting to think that there will be some sort of revolution soon in the US. Not like Egypt or Libya of course, but something drastic. There's just too much inequality, and everybody is pissed that we live in "the richest country in the world" and yet still feel poor.
yeah man, what would we do without our $300 smartphones and $50/month data plan to surf facebook with???
A shocking number of people lack health care, good education for their kids, and have recently lost their house. Compared to that, a cool little electronic gismo is nothing.
On March 09 2011 02:02 nath wrote: I enjoyed lots of your points Hawk but I just wanted to let you (and others who seem to not know this) know: (I'm in Madison, state capitol, go to school there)
the unions officially stated that they were 100% WILLING to take all paycuts and even benefit cuts as long as they kept their bargaining rights....
Walker said no.
this is more ideological, using the budget balancing that is needed to support something that would otherwise not fly.
Well I think their bargaining rights got them in the situation they are in. I'll have to admit that R's and D's push through their ideological agendas in differing crises. I guess its a power issue. What if they want to raise benefits and salaries to unsustainable levels in the future, though. Then what?
The same guy that calls rich people's wealth a "national resource", and is also a multimillionaire. The guy himself is a monument to the capitalist consumerist ideology he claims to despise.
If you want reasoned analyses/value judgments on wealth inequality...I'd look elsewhere.
the unions officially stated that they were 100% WILLING to take all paycuts and even benefit cuts as long as they kept their bargaining rights....
Define your terms. You're talking about public sector unions, something that in reasonable company even among old-school liberals, would have been completely banned.
Collective bargaining is the problem, as the union representative is not bargaining against the taxpayer, but "against" politicians he/she can buy off with campaign donations.
Don't take my word for it. Try Victor Gotbaum, leader of the AFSCME 37 (large public union in NYC):
"We have the ability to elect our own boss"
Problem? I guess not, after all, who needs economics when you have unicorns, rainbows, hope and change, yes we can? :/
So basically, Scott Walker is to the left of Franklin Delano Roosevelt on this.
All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.
Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government."
Admittedly he's talking about federal unions, but the concept is the same.
Contrary to what those in power would like you to believe so that you'll give up your pension, cut your wages, and settle for the life your great-grandparents had, America is not broke. Not by a long shot. The country is awash in wealth and cash. It's just that it's not in your hands. It has been transferred, in the greatest heist in history, from the workers and consumers to the banks and the portfolios of the uber-rich.
Today just 400 Americans have the same wealth as half of all Americans combined.
Let me say that again. 400 obscenely rich people, most of whom benefited in some way from the multi-trillion dollar taxpayer "bailout" of 2008, now have as much loot, stock and property as the assets of 155 million Americans combined. If you can't bring yourself to call that a financial coup d'état, then you are simply not being honest about what you know in your heart to be true.
Except our Debt is quickly approaching that of our GDP, which should be significantly higher than any amount of wealth that anyone has.
Let put it this way. Moore blames that the "400 richest" run the economy. Even if they all donated every cent of everything they had, it would not be enough to cover even for the latest stimulus plan, let alone Obama care (I'm assuming on average they have < 1.5 billion, which is quite reasonable).
Of course, it's so easy to blame something like the bailout -- it's TOO easy in fact, since it already happened and so we likely averted the very worst of what could have happened. Since we're past that, we can just blame the very policy that likely saved our asses from another great depression. It's pure utter ignorance and a great way of appealing to the ignorant populace.
I have nothing more than a high school degree. But back when I was in school, every student had to take one semester of economics in order to graduate. And here's what I learned: Money doesn't grow on trees. It grows when we make things. It grows when we have good jobs with good wages that we use to buy the things we need and thus create more jobs. It grows when we provide an outstanding educational system that then grows a new generation of inventors, entrepreneurs, artists, scientists and thinkers who come up with the next great idea for the planet. And that new idea creates new jobs and that creates revenue for the state. But if those who have the most money don't pay their fair share of taxes, the state can't function. The schools can't produce the best and the brightest who will go on to create those jobs. If the wealthy get to keep most of their money, we have seen what they will do with it: recklessly gamble it on crazy Wall Street schemes and crash our economy. The crash they created cost us millions of jobs. That too caused a reduction in tax revenue. Everyone ended up suffering because of what the rich did.
Why is he appealing to economics when he has zero economic intuition what so ever. The rich already pay more taxes than the poor percentage wise. How is that not their fair share? And the implication that all of these people just blow it all on Wall Street as a "Scheme"? Sounds like someone has zero idea of how the financial system works. How does he have the gall to imply that the economy runs on innovations but never mention that innovation comes with risks, which is exactly what happened with wall street?
People like this make me sick. I can't even get myself to read the rest of this bullshit ~_~
It grows when we provide an outstanding educational system that then grows a new generation of inventors, entrepreneurs, artists, scientists and thinkers who come up with the next great idea for the planet.
And how does one provide an outstanding education system?
Let me put it this way, Washington DC has the third highest per pupil spending in the nation (I'm guessing of the 50 states + DC), yet their (public) schools are an unmitigated disaster.
On March 09 2011 02:02 nath wrote: I enjoyed lots of your points Hawk but I just wanted to let you (and others who seem to not know this) know: (I'm in Madison, state capitol, go to school there)
the unions officially stated that they were 100% WILLING to take all paycuts and even benefit cuts as long as they kept their bargaining rights....
Walker said no.
this is more ideological, using the budget balancing that is needed to support something that would otherwise not fly.
Yeah I thought I had read that too.
I'd imagine that the governor's stance is based on how far left arbitrators and courts lean should negotiations ever make it that far. And the fact that the union will surely come back at the end of this deal or next once the economy has improve and try to compensate for taking a hit here
For instance, in the height of the recession, local govts here in NJ were still getting hammered at negotiation because most of the instances that had gone to an arbitrator, the unions came away with most of what they were asking.
The system is effectively gamed so that union have way more leverage than the government in negotiation. I think this goes towards restoring that balance a bit.
On March 09 2011 00:18 Hawk wrote: If you can't be bothered to do your own, independent research on mortgages prior to agreeing on a purchase of several hundred thousands of dollars, yes, you are an idiot. Plain and simple, it is a lack of accountability.
Can you point me to an example of said research that would've discouraged someone from gettting a shitty adjustable mortgage? Preferably one that was up before the collapse. I'm not sure the "THIS IS BULLSHIT" sign was so easy to find. Especially when the banks themselves were offering stupideasy versions of the "pros and cons" of fixed vs adjustable mortgages or whatnot. I actually don't know the details of the predatory aspects, do you?
Adjustable rate mortgages were the culprit I believe?? Google comes up with a ton of stuff on that and other options. This isn't stuff that was hidden prior to the crash. All stuff that, if you're serious about spending $500k or something of that nature, you'd look at before hand.
Variable rate mortgages didn't cause the financial crisis. I'm not even sure where you guys got that information.
If you want to simplify the entire asset-backed security meltdown, it was because the property bubble burst. People were borrowing beyond their means (as you guys mentioned and how this is related to the topic) and when their "speculative" house decreased in value, they were fucked or they walked away from it. Everyone from consumers to bankers to legislators were to blame.
On topic: America isn't broke; the country just creates money out of nothing. America is insolvent though and based on Obama's budget and future projections, it'll only get worse.
On March 08 2011 19:51 Romantic wrote: I really hate Michael Moore. Everything about him is wrong.
But yeah, even if indirectly they benefited for sure. Then again, so did everyone else. That really isn't the central theme either way.
On March 08 2011 19:17 BrTarolg wrote: I mean, you really, REALLY wanna know what started it? It was the idea that you could own things that you couldn't afford - in particular, a house. A man known as bill clinton started this idea
Or those bankers. Delighted at the concept.
Also funny is that he is acting as if public employees aren't the single biggest drain on any municipality or state. Attend your local budget meeting. See just how much salary some retard who barely passed high school gets for picking up downed trees at the DPW. Then prepare to punch yourself in the head when you realize he's probably getting benefits you could only dream of and he'll get $50k-ish a year for life on his pension when he retires after 20-25 years at fucking 55.
On a local, county and state level, the biggest expenditures are almost always for government employees, who get ridiculous benefits that they contribute next to nothing for. To say that it isn't a major issue means you are a goddamn idiot.
I've already seen the aggregate numbers for public\private employees (Public are underpaid for education). Took up your offer anyway:
I live in one of the most heavily unionized states. Salaries and benefits are 23% of state expenditures.
States are currently suffering from a drop in revenue, no magic involved. The Feds were picking up the tab for two years, but Republicans will never sign on to another stimulus, even if it is just transfer payments.
Maybe states could just enlarge their slave labor program and we can compete with prisoners for wages.
On March 09 2011 00:22 Luddite wrote: I'm really starting to think that there will be some sort of revolution soon in the US. Not like Egypt or Libya of course, but something drastic. There's just too much inequality, and everybody is pissed that we live in "the richest country in the world" and yet still feel poor.
yeah man, what would we do without our $300 smartphones and $50/month data plan to surf facebook with???
On March 09 2011 00:18 Hawk wrote: If you can't be bothered to do your own, independent research on mortgages prior to agreeing on a purchase of several hundred thousands of dollars, yes, you are an idiot. Plain and simple, it is a lack of accountability.
Can you point me to an example of said research that would've discouraged someone from gettting a shitty adjustable mortgage? Preferably one that was up before the collapse. I'm not sure the "THIS IS BULLSHIT" sign was so easy to find. Especially when the banks themselves were offering stupideasy versions of the "pros and cons" of fixed vs adjustable mortgages or whatnot. I actually don't know the details of the predatory aspects, do you?
Adjustable rate mortgages were the culprit I believe?? Google comes up with a ton of stuff on that and other options. This isn't stuff that was hidden prior to the crash. All stuff that, if you're serious about spending $500k or something of that nature, you'd look at before hand.
Variable rate mortgages didn't cause the financial crisis. I'm not even sure where you guys got that information.
If you want to simplify the entire asset-backed security meltdown, it was because the property bubble burst. People were borrowing beyond their means (as you guys mentioned and how this is related to the topic) and when their "speculative" house decreased in value, they were fucked or they walked away from it. Everyone from consumers to bankers to legislators were to blame.
On topic: America isn't broke; the country just creates money out of nothing. America is insolvent though and based on Obama's budget and future projections, it'll only get worse.
while i may have had the type of mortgage wrong, I still think the same concept of not getting into shit you can't possibly afford/understand still applies. That was more in response to someone implying that the mess was entirely on the backs of bankers
On March 09 2011 03:00 Milkis wrote: Why is he appealing to economics when he has zero economic intuition what so ever. The rich already pay more taxes than the poor percentage wise. How is that not their fair share? And the implication that all of these people just blow it all on Wall Street as a "Scheme"? Sounds like someone has zero idea of how the financial system works. How does he have the gall to imply that the economy runs on innovations but never mention that innovation comes with risks, which is exactly what happened with wall street?
People like this make me sick. I can't even get myself to read the rest of this bullshit ~_~
Lol.. How ignorant are you, by the way? You say that innovation comes with risks, that should be well above obvious. What you fail to understand is that these highly intellectual and well educated 'wallstreets' take the risk with no risk for themselves, and all the risk on the public people; in other words they are corporate psychopaths. This is the cause for the 'bubble' and the 2008 market collapse. If you don't read enough, maybe tackle something easier, and try watching the documentary 'Inside Job.' By the sounds of it, you'll think its a conspiracy film, but that's up for your closed-minded brain to decide..
Also, I need to lol at the Michael Moore millionaire hate. If you don't like the guy, so be it. He is rather bias on a lot of things, but it's always for the better of the people. But to attack the fat bastard because he has a few million? Lol..... Perhaps people don't fully understand the concept of a million vs a billion: A million seconds is 13 days. A billion seconds is 31 years. Do we somewhat see the difference here?
Darwin did say "The mind cannot possibly grasp the full meaning of the term of even a million years..." Of course he was right.
Anyway... after reading all the posts, I best fit in with what Tuna has to say. I think Hawk has some strong opinions, but they are just opinions backing up opinions
It grows when we provide an outstanding educational system that then grows a new generation of inventors, entrepreneurs, artists, scientists and thinkers who come up with the next great idea for the planet.
And how does one provide an outstanding education system?
Let me put it this way, Washington DC has the third highest per pupil spending in the nation (I'm guessing of the 50 states + DC), yet their (public) schools are an unmitigated disaster.
You may not have been informed, which is ok. I want you to try and get over the concept that, if you throw money at something, that something probably won't do anything but pick the money up. But if you tell that something to do what they are suppose to do, they will use that money to do it.
The reason tests scores are so low in DC is because the unions are the strongest there and protect worthless scum teachers. There has been a recorded case of a teacher dunking a students head into a toilet, for whatever reason, and the teacher is protected because of tenure. The concept 'lemon dance' was created because of these unions and because of tenure.
Education grows a better economy. Education WILL fix America without a question, and I challenge anyone to say otherwise. And throwing money at it is not the correct way. The correct way is to abolish tenure, and get real with the really bad teachers. I'm not even saying firing the teachers (some of them, yes) will do the trick. Training teachers properly; using technology to watch what children are doing in the classroom, so experts can give advice; fixing the public education system.
Without public education, stupid people will get stupider. And the rich will get richer, but fewer. Eventually these drop out factories will close down, and foreign labor will be way above the vast majority. Here is a fun fact: 123 million jobs will be high skilled, high paid by 2020. Only 50 million Americans will be qualified to preform those jobs. It's time to for American's to fix their public education system.
What is worst of all, American politics don't give a shit about education. Every president since, what, JFK has said education is #1 and I will fix it. And every president doesn't do shit about education because it's not good for their party. There is no direct reward to spending a couple years and taking a huge massive risk and lots of their resources to help their children of tomorrow. Instead they tackle war on drugs and terrorism. So really, it's left to a few individuals who care about tomorrow, but they are left to go against a union that is basically unbeatable.
Almost every city or state has searchable public employee salaries. Look up a few before you start talking about slave labor
If you are going to exaggerate compensation I will exaggerate the prison industry *crosses arms*. 80 Cents an hour is a lot closer to slavery than public employees are to grossly over payed.
And 8% rise in pensions doesn't tell me anything. What portion of their budget is devoted to pensions? An 8% rise in 10% of the budget is a tiny amount of the overall budget. What does your overall budget look like? If your government failed to hire accountants that could tell them that public sector labor costs are shifted down the road that is their bad.
Yearly compensation for public employees in aggregate and adjusted for educational attainments is low. Maybe you could adjust for compensation per hour worked and public sector employees would come out ahead... but I can't find that and it just means private employees work too much and need their own unions >
On March 09 2011 01:22 Tuneful wrote: The idea that the mortgage crisis was caused by people signing mortgages they "knew they couldn't afford" is too simple an interpretation. It takes two to tango: the banks offering the morgages knew (without a doubt) that the people they were selling to were too risky a bet, and didn't even bother asking for documentation (no-doc loans).
On top of that, any "people living beyond their means" or "they knew they couldn't afford it" explanation completely avoids the re-packaging and sale of these mortgages into securities and Moody's role in giving fraudulent AAA ratings to toxic assets, and how these ratings led A.I.G to insure something it would not have if Moody's had assigned a real rating.
I don't believe that people signed mortgages they knew that they couldn't afford, I believe that they were ignorant. And I'm sorry, but ignorant isn't an excuse. When you are signing a contract, it is YOUR responsibility to understand it and YOU are taking the responsibility of fulfilling it. That means, you need to look at what it says and understand it, and most importantly, asses your ability to comply ESPECIALLY IF THINGS GO BAD! If you don't understand, then you need to not sign the contract until you do.
I don't disagree with you that saying stupid people signed mortgages they shouldn't have is an oversimplification of the issue, but the fact is, if they'd hadn't signed them that problem wouldn't have happened.
I'm one of those idiots who listened to people when I was young and have tried very hard my entire life to stay out of debt. Boy do I feel like a fool now. I could have stuck my head in the sand, bought a mansion, and then after the crash sat around complaining about how I was "duped."
I have nothing more than a high school degree. But back when I was in school, every student had to take one semester of economics in order to graduate. And here's what I learned: Money doesn't grow on trees. It grows when we make things. It grows when we have good jobs with good wages that we use to buy the things we need and thus create more jobs. It grows when we provide an outstanding educational system that then grows a new generation of inventors, entrepreneurs, artists, scientists and thinkers who come up with the next great idea for the planet. And that new idea creates new jobs and that creates revenue for the state. But if those who have the most money don't pay their fair share of taxes, the state can't function. The schools can't produce the best and the brightest who will go on to create those jobs. If the wealthy get to keep most of their money, we have seen what they will do with it: recklessly gamble it on crazy Wall Street schemes and crash our economy. The crash they created cost us millions of jobs. That too caused a reduction in tax revenue. Everyone ended up suffering because of what the rich did.
Why is he appealing to economics when he has zero economic intuition what so ever. The rich already pay more taxes than the poor percentage wise. How is that not their fair share? And the implication that all of these people just blow it all on Wall Street as a "Scheme"? Sounds like someone has zero idea of how the financial system works. How does he have the gall to imply that the economy runs on innovations but never mention that innovation comes with risks, which is exactly what happened with wall street?
People like this make me sick. I can't even get myself to read the rest of this bullshit ~_~
How is it not their fair share? Well, interestingly enough, it deals with innovation and the financial system (although gov't too). See, the rich on wallstreet often aren't paying for those risks, at least, not their full extent. They know that bailouts are inevitable, therefore they take in more risk than they should, negative externalities in other words. Of course, when those risks pay off, they take the money. When they don't, they pay some, but when they REALLY screw up, the gov't(tax payers, not just rich) pays. http://www.minneapolisfed.org/pubs/eppapers/10-3/eppaper10-3_taxrisk.pdf http://www.minneapolisfed.org/pubs/region/10-06/taxrisk.pdf
Kinda off topic, but please, please, please don't lump all government employees together when talking about overcompensation. I can't say that none are. But I entered federal service as a CS graduate and am being paid minimum 20K less than I could be making in the private sector (substantiated by actual job offers, and colleagues who have bailed). It is incredibly aggravating to read and hear every day about how overcompensated I am.
Eh whatever. Most of those people also give jobs to the vast majority of the country. It's not like it's impossible to start your own enterprise anyway. I really fucking hate people who will just look at numbers and protest or do anything but be productive.
Money isn't something that should be equally distributed. And wealth can be created by anyone.
Lol.. How ignorant are you, by the way? You say that innovation comes with risks, that should be well above obvious. What you fail to understand is that these highly intellectual and well educated 'wallstreets' take the risk with no risk for themselves, and all the risk on the public people; in other words they are corporate psychopaths. This is the cause for the 'bubble' and the 2008 market collapse. If you don't read enough, maybe tackle something easier, and try watching the documentary 'Inside Job.' By the sounds of it, you'll think its a conspiracy film, but that's up for your closed-minded brain to decide..
Please don't act like I failed to understand anything. My point was a more general one pointing out the fact that the risks came from a financial innovations, which is what caused the crisis. It did not matter in the end if the government bailed them out (which does create twisted incentives, but that is hardly besides the point).
It's obvious that liberal hacks like you who like to paint this utterly biased picture of the world who like to twist things around to bring support to their story. I guess that isn't hard, considering that most people aren't actually educated enough to understand economics. But it's utterly hilarious how you believe you know what caused the bubble (hint: there was no guarantee that the banks would be bailed out -- in fact, many banks did fail at this point).
The world isn't as simple as you think it is, but calling someone "closed minded" is utterly hilarious especially when you're buying into the entire michael moore bullshit anyway. Then again, I don't expect too much from brainwashed hypocritical liberals anyway.
How is it not their fair share? Well, interestingly enough, it deals with innovation and the financial system (although gov't too). See, the rich on wallstreet often aren't paying for those risks, at least, not their full extent. They know that bailouts are inevitable, therefore they take in more risk than they should, negative externalities in other words. Of course, when those risks pay off, they take the money. When they don't, they pay some, but when they REALLY screw up, the gov't(tax payers, not just rich) pays.
Again, that wasn't even my point when I said things about innovation. My point is completely unrelated to people with twisted incentives or else I would have mentioned it.
My point is that while Michael Moore charades about how innovations are important in the Economy he fails to realize that it is the same type of innovations that come with risks and at times blow up the economy. It didn't matter that yes, there were perverse incentives, but perverse incentives is hardly the entire picture -- it was more closer to the fact that people didn't understand how much at risk they were since they did not fully understand the innovations they were using. Do not act as if these "inevitable bailouts" were the cause of the financial system's downfall -- there were much deeper issues than that.
On March 09 2011 00:18 Hawk wrote: If you can't be bothered to do your own, independent research on mortgages prior to agreeing on a purchase of several hundred thousands of dollars, yes, you are an idiot. Plain and simple, it is a lack of accountability.
How is that any different than going car shopping and being like 'oh well the salesman told me this car is way under value and it's totally fine, let me skip all inspection, research and screw shopping to compare prices'
People buying things they can't afford is a tradition in this country, as is passing the blame.
What's even more wonderful is that the people who did live within their means and don't carry insane, unpayable debt don't get the government to help them out.
e; if you don't understand the logic that goes into a $500,000 transaction, you shouldn't be buying a house until you figure out the process. The whole thing can be summed up as a bunch of dumbasses buying on a whim instead of doing research.
Totally Agree. For the most part, state and local workers are overpaid, but there are exceptions. Example
My dad has a masters. He makes 79k/yr before taxes. They hire consultants who make 160k a year to do the same job he could do, because they are furloughing him. It's pretty stupid.
Also, the IT guy at our school who knows 900% less than I do gets 130k/yr. Government just sucks at determining pay.
Lol.. How ignorant are you, by the way? You say that innovation comes with risks, that should be well above obvious. What you fail to understand is that these highly intellectual and well educated 'wallstreets' take the risk with no risk for themselves, and all the risk on the public people; in other words they are corporate psychopaths. This is the cause for the 'bubble' and the 2008 market collapse. If you don't read enough, maybe tackle something easier, and try watching the documentary 'Inside Job.' By the sounds of it, you'll think its a conspiracy film, but that's up for your closed-minded brain to decide..
Please don't act like I failed to understand anything. My point was a more general one pointing out the fact that the risks came from a financial innovations, which is what caused the crisis. It did not matter in the end if the government bailed them out (which does create twisted incentives, but that is hardly besides the point).
It's obvious that liberal hacks like you who like to paint this utterly biased picture of the world who like to twist things around to bring support to their story. I guess that isn't hard, considering that most people aren't actually educated enough to understand economics. But it's utterly hilarious how you believe you know what caused the bubble (hint: there was no guarantee that the banks would be bailed out -- in fact, many banks did fail at this point).
The world isn't as simple as you think it is, but calling someone "closed minded" is utterly hilarious especially when you're buying into the entire michael moore bullshit anyway. Then again, I don't expect too much from brainwashed hypocritical liberals anyway.
How is it not their fair share? Well, interestingly enough, it deals with innovation and the financial system (although gov't too). See, the rich on wallstreet often aren't paying for those risks, at least, not their full extent. They know that bailouts are inevitable, therefore they take in more risk than they should, negative externalities in other words. Of course, when those risks pay off, they take the money. When they don't, they pay some, but when they REALLY screw up, the gov't(tax payers, not just rich) pays.
Again, that wasn't even my point when I said things about innovation. My point is completely unrelated to people with twisted incentives or else I would have mentioned it.
My point is that while Michael Moore charades about how innovations are important in the Economy he fails to realize that it is the same type of innovations that come with risks and at times blow up the economy. It didn't matter that yes, there were perverse incentives, but perverse incentives is hardly the entire picture -- it was more closer to the fact that people didn't understand how much at risk they were since they did not fully understand the innovations they were using. Do not act as if these "inevitable bailouts" were the cause of the financial system's downfall -- there were much deeper issues than that.
While I agree with what you said fundamentally I don't think creating money out of thin air then gambling on fake money using the pocket of the middle class as your bankroll is a good form of innovation. That is to say, it's been a while since we had a really good example - I might cite the rise of Google as the last 'good' example of innovation.
Banking and mathematics/engineering students are a bad mix, though. That shit has to stop.
Lol.. How ignorant are you, by the way? You say that innovation comes with risks, that should be well above obvious. What you fail to understand is that these highly intellectual and well educated 'wallstreets' take the risk with no risk for themselves, and all the risk on the public people; in other words they are corporate psychopaths. This is the cause for the 'bubble' and the 2008 market collapse. If you don't read enough, maybe tackle something easier, and try watching the documentary 'Inside Job.' By the sounds of it, you'll think its a conspiracy film, but that's up for your closed-minded brain to decide..
Please don't act like I failed to understand anything. My point was a more general one pointing out the fact that the risks came from a financial innovations, which is what caused the crisis. It did not matter in the end if the government bailed them out (which does create twisted incentives, but that is hardly besides the point).
It's obvious that liberal hacks like you who like to paint this utterly biased picture of the world who like to twist things around to bring support to their story. I guess that isn't hard, considering that most people aren't actually educated enough to understand economics. But it's utterly hilarious how you believe you know what caused the bubble (hint: there was no guarantee that the banks would be bailed out -- in fact, many banks did fail at this point).
The world isn't as simple as you think it is, but calling someone "closed minded" is utterly hilarious especially when you're buying into the entire michael moore bullshit anyway. Then again, I don't expect too much from brainwashed hypocritical liberals anyway.
How is it not their fair share? Well, interestingly enough, it deals with innovation and the financial system (although gov't too). See, the rich on wallstreet often aren't paying for those risks, at least, not their full extent. They know that bailouts are inevitable, therefore they take in more risk than they should, negative externalities in other words. Of course, when those risks pay off, they take the money. When they don't, they pay some, but when they REALLY screw up, the gov't(tax payers, not just rich) pays.
Again, that wasn't even my point when I said things about innovation. My point is completely unrelated to people with twisted incentives or else I would have mentioned it.
My point is that while Michael Moore charades about how innovations are important in the Economy he fails to realize that it is the same type of innovations that come with risks and at times blow up the economy. It didn't matter that yes, there were perverse incentives, but perverse incentives is hardly the entire picture -- it was more closer to the fact that people didn't understand how much at risk they were since they did not fully understand the innovations they were using. Do not act as if these "inevitable bailouts" were the cause of the financial system's downfall -- there were much deeper issues than that.
While I agree with what you said fundamentally I don't think creating money out of thin air then gambling on fake money using the pocket of the middle class as your bankroll is a good form of innovation. That is to say, it's been a while since we had a really good example - I might cite the rise of Google as the last 'good' example of innovation.
Banking and mathematics/engineering students are a bad mix, though. That shit has to stop.
I don't think you understand what the financial system is nor do you understand what it does and what kind of innovations occur in there :|
Lol.. How ignorant are you, by the way? You say that innovation comes with risks, that should be well above obvious. What you fail to understand is that these highly intellectual and well educated 'wallstreets' take the risk with no risk for themselves, and all the risk on the public people; in other words they are corporate psychopaths. This is the cause for the 'bubble' and the 2008 market collapse. If you don't read enough, maybe tackle something easier, and try watching the documentary 'Inside Job.' By the sounds of it, you'll think its a conspiracy film, but that's up for your closed-minded brain to decide..
Please don't act like I failed to understand anything. My point was a more general one pointing out the fact that the risks came from a financial innovations, which is what caused the crisis. It did not matter in the end if the government bailed them out (which does create twisted incentives, but that is hardly besides the point).
It's obvious that liberal hacks like you who like to paint this utterly biased picture of the world who like to twist things around to bring support to their story. I guess that isn't hard, considering that most people aren't actually educated enough to understand economics. But it's utterly hilarious how you believe you know what caused the bubble (hint: there was no guarantee that the banks would be bailed out -- in fact, many banks did fail at this point).
The world isn't as simple as you think it is, but calling someone "closed minded" is utterly hilarious especially when you're buying into the entire michael moore bullshit anyway. Then again, I don't expect too much from brainwashed hypocritical liberals anyway.
How is it not their fair share? Well, interestingly enough, it deals with innovation and the financial system (although gov't too). See, the rich on wallstreet often aren't paying for those risks, at least, not their full extent. They know that bailouts are inevitable, therefore they take in more risk than they should, negative externalities in other words. Of course, when those risks pay off, they take the money. When they don't, they pay some, but when they REALLY screw up, the gov't(tax payers, not just rich) pays.
Again, that wasn't even my point when I said things about innovation. My point is completely unrelated to people with twisted incentives or else I would have mentioned it.
My point is that while Michael Moore charades about how innovations are important in the Economy he fails to realize that it is the same type of innovations that come with risks and at times blow up the economy. It didn't matter that yes, there were perverse incentives, but perverse incentives is hardly the entire picture -- it was more closer to the fact that people didn't understand how much at risk they were since they did not fully understand the innovations they were using. Do not act as if these "inevitable bailouts" were the cause of the financial system's downfall -- there were much deeper issues than that.
While I agree with what you said fundamentally I don't think creating money out of thin air then gambling on fake money using the pocket of the middle class as your bankroll is a good form of innovation. That is to say, it's been a while since we had a really good example - I might cite the rise of Google as the last 'good' example of innovation.
Banking and mathematics/engineering students are a bad mix, though. That shit has to stop.
I don't think you understand what the financial system is nor do you understand what it does and what kind of innovations occur in there :|
Lol.. How ignorant are you, by the way? You say that innovation comes with risks, that should be well above obvious. What you fail to understand is that these highly intellectual and well educated 'wallstreets' take the risk with no risk for themselves, and all the risk on the public people; in other words they are corporate psychopaths. This is the cause for the 'bubble' and the 2008 market collapse. If you don't read enough, maybe tackle something easier, and try watching the documentary 'Inside Job.' By the sounds of it, you'll think its a conspiracy film, but that's up for your closed-minded brain to decide..
Please don't act like I failed to understand anything. My point was a more general one pointing out the fact that the risks came from a financial innovations, which is what caused the crisis. It did not matter in the end if the government bailed them out (which does create twisted incentives, but that is hardly besides the point).
It's obvious that liberal hacks like you who like to paint this utterly biased picture of the world who like to twist things around to bring support to their story. I guess that isn't hard, considering that most people aren't actually educated enough to understand economics. But it's utterly hilarious how you believe you know what caused the bubble (hint: there was no guarantee that the banks would be bailed out -- in fact, many banks did fail at this point).
The world isn't as simple as you think it is, but calling someone "closed minded" is utterly hilarious especially when you're buying into the entire michael moore bullshit anyway. Then again, I don't expect too much from brainwashed hypocritical liberals anyway.
How is it not their fair share? Well, interestingly enough, it deals with innovation and the financial system (although gov't too). See, the rich on wallstreet often aren't paying for those risks, at least, not their full extent. They know that bailouts are inevitable, therefore they take in more risk than they should, negative externalities in other words. Of course, when those risks pay off, they take the money. When they don't, they pay some, but when they REALLY screw up, the gov't(tax payers, not just rich) pays.
Again, that wasn't even my point when I said things about innovation. My point is completely unrelated to people with twisted incentives or else I would have mentioned it.
My point is that while Michael Moore charades about how innovations are important in the Economy he fails to realize that it is the same type of innovations that come with risks and at times blow up the economy. It didn't matter that yes, there were perverse incentives, but perverse incentives is hardly the entire picture -- it was more closer to the fact that people didn't understand how much at risk they were since they did not fully understand the innovations they were using. Do not act as if these "inevitable bailouts" were the cause of the financial system's downfall -- there were much deeper issues than that.
While I agree with what you said fundamentally I don't think creating money out of thin air then gambling on fake money using the pocket of the middle class as your bankroll is a good form of innovation. That is to say, it's been a while since we had a really good example - I might cite the rise of Google as the last 'good' example of innovation.
Banking and mathematics/engineering students are a bad mix, though. That shit has to stop.
I don't think you understand what the financial system is nor do you understand what it does and what kind of innovations occur in there :|
Then educate me. o:
Are you aware of derivatives, packaging of debt, etc?
Lol.. How ignorant are you, by the way? You say that innovation comes with risks, that should be well above obvious. What you fail to understand is that these highly intellectual and well educated 'wallstreets' take the risk with no risk for themselves, and all the risk on the public people; in other words they are corporate psychopaths. This is the cause for the 'bubble' and the 2008 market collapse. If you don't read enough, maybe tackle something easier, and try watching the documentary 'Inside Job.' By the sounds of it, you'll think its a conspiracy film, but that's up for your closed-minded brain to decide..
Please don't act like I failed to understand anything. My point was a more general one pointing out the fact that the risks came from a financial innovations, which is what caused the crisis. It did not matter in the end if the government bailed them out (which does create twisted incentives, but that is hardly besides the point).
It's obvious that liberal hacks like you who like to paint this utterly biased picture of the world who like to twist things around to bring support to their story. I guess that isn't hard, considering that most people aren't actually educated enough to understand economics. But it's utterly hilarious how you believe you know what caused the bubble (hint: there was no guarantee that the banks would be bailed out -- in fact, many banks did fail at this point).
The world isn't as simple as you think it is, but calling someone "closed minded" is utterly hilarious especially when you're buying into the entire michael moore bullshit anyway. Then again, I don't expect too much from brainwashed hypocritical liberals anyway.
How is it not their fair share? Well, interestingly enough, it deals with innovation and the financial system (although gov't too). See, the rich on wallstreet often aren't paying for those risks, at least, not their full extent. They know that bailouts are inevitable, therefore they take in more risk than they should, negative externalities in other words. Of course, when those risks pay off, they take the money. When they don't, they pay some, but when they REALLY screw up, the gov't(tax payers, not just rich) pays.
Again, that wasn't even my point when I said things about innovation. My point is completely unrelated to people with twisted incentives or else I would have mentioned it.
My point is that while Michael Moore charades about how innovations are important in the Economy he fails to realize that it is the same type of innovations that come with risks and at times blow up the economy. It didn't matter that yes, there were perverse incentives, but perverse incentives is hardly the entire picture -- it was more closer to the fact that people didn't understand how much at risk they were since they did not fully understand the innovations they were using. Do not act as if these "inevitable bailouts" were the cause of the financial system's downfall -- there were much deeper issues than that.
While I agree with what you said fundamentally I don't think creating money out of thin air then gambling on fake money using the pocket of the middle class as your bankroll is a good form of innovation. That is to say, it's been a while since we had a really good example - I might cite the rise of Google as the last 'good' example of innovation.
Banking and mathematics/engineering students are a bad mix, though. That shit has to stop.
I don't think you understand what the financial system is nor do you understand what it does and what kind of innovations occur in there :|
Then educate me. o:
Are you aware of derivatives, packaging of debt, etc?
Pretty fluent, I suppose. I'm an econ student at a top 30 business school and before that I was in the Industrial Engineering program in that school which was top 3 when I enrolled in 2008. I spent a semester last spring in a five-person class learning why the meltdown happened and what systems perpetrated it, so I'm curious what I'm missing but completely open minded.
Lol.. How ignorant are you, by the way? You say that innovation comes with risks, that should be well above obvious. What you fail to understand is that these highly intellectual and well educated 'wallstreets' take the risk with no risk for themselves, and all the risk on the public people; in other words they are corporate psychopaths. This is the cause for the 'bubble' and the 2008 market collapse. If you don't read enough, maybe tackle something easier, and try watching the documentary 'Inside Job.' By the sounds of it, you'll think its a conspiracy film, but that's up for your closed-minded brain to decide..
Please don't act like I failed to understand anything. My point was a more general one pointing out the fact that the risks came from a financial innovations, which is what caused the crisis. It did not matter in the end if the government bailed them out (which does create twisted incentives, but that is hardly besides the point).
It's obvious that liberal hacks like you who like to paint this utterly biased picture of the world who like to twist things around to bring support to their story. I guess that isn't hard, considering that most people aren't actually educated enough to understand economics. But it's utterly hilarious how you believe you know what caused the bubble (hint: there was no guarantee that the banks would be bailed out -- in fact, many banks did fail at this point).
The world isn't as simple as you think it is, but calling someone "closed minded" is utterly hilarious especially when you're buying into the entire michael moore bullshit anyway. Then again, I don't expect too much from brainwashed hypocritical liberals anyway.
How is it not their fair share? Well, interestingly enough, it deals with innovation and the financial system (although gov't too). See, the rich on wallstreet often aren't paying for those risks, at least, not their full extent. They know that bailouts are inevitable, therefore they take in more risk than they should, negative externalities in other words. Of course, when those risks pay off, they take the money. When they don't, they pay some, but when they REALLY screw up, the gov't(tax payers, not just rich) pays.
Again, that wasn't even my point when I said things about innovation. My point is completely unrelated to people with twisted incentives or else I would have mentioned it.
My point is that while Michael Moore charades about how innovations are important in the Economy he fails to realize that it is the same type of innovations that come with risks and at times blow up the economy. It didn't matter that yes, there were perverse incentives, but perverse incentives is hardly the entire picture -- it was more closer to the fact that people didn't understand how much at risk they were since they did not fully understand the innovations they were using. Do not act as if these "inevitable bailouts" were the cause of the financial system's downfall -- there were much deeper issues than that.
While I agree with what you said fundamentally I don't think creating money out of thin air then gambling on fake money using the pocket of the middle class as your bankroll is a good form of innovation. That is to say, it's been a while since we had a really good example - I might cite the rise of Google as the last 'good' example of innovation.
Banking and mathematics/engineering students are a bad mix, though. That shit has to stop.
I don't think you understand what the financial system is nor do you understand what it does and what kind of innovations occur in there :|
Then educate me. o:
Are you aware of derivatives, packaging of debt, etc?
Pretty fluent, I suppose. I'm an econ student at a top 30 business school and before that I was in the Industrial Engineering program in that school which was top 3 when I enrolled in 2008. I spent a semester last spring in a five-person class learning why the meltdown happened and what systems perpetrated it, so I'm curious what I'm missing but completely open minded.
I don't know what milkis is getting at: just was asking a question that a majority of the people on these forums cant' answer >.>
What business school are you going to? (and what program was industrial engineering...)
Lol.. How ignorant are you, by the way? You say that innovation comes with risks, that should be well above obvious. What you fail to understand is that these highly intellectual and well educated 'wallstreets' take the risk with no risk for themselves, and all the risk on the public people; in other words they are corporate psychopaths. This is the cause for the 'bubble' and the 2008 market collapse. If you don't read enough, maybe tackle something easier, and try watching the documentary 'Inside Job.' By the sounds of it, you'll think its a conspiracy film, but that's up for your closed-minded brain to decide..
Please don't act like I failed to understand anything. My point was a more general one pointing out the fact that the risks came from a financial innovations, which is what caused the crisis. It did not matter in the end if the government bailed them out (which does create twisted incentives, but that is hardly besides the point).
It's obvious that liberal hacks like you who like to paint this utterly biased picture of the world who like to twist things around to bring support to their story. I guess that isn't hard, considering that most people aren't actually educated enough to understand economics. But it's utterly hilarious how you believe you know what caused the bubble (hint: there was no guarantee that the banks would be bailed out -- in fact, many banks did fail at this point).
The world isn't as simple as you think it is, but calling someone "closed minded" is utterly hilarious especially when you're buying into the entire michael moore bullshit anyway. Then again, I don't expect too much from brainwashed hypocritical liberals anyway.
How is it not their fair share? Well, interestingly enough, it deals with innovation and the financial system (although gov't too). See, the rich on wallstreet often aren't paying for those risks, at least, not their full extent. They know that bailouts are inevitable, therefore they take in more risk than they should, negative externalities in other words. Of course, when those risks pay off, they take the money. When they don't, they pay some, but when they REALLY screw up, the gov't(tax payers, not just rich) pays.
Again, that wasn't even my point when I said things about innovation. My point is completely unrelated to people with twisted incentives or else I would have mentioned it.
My point is that while Michael Moore charades about how innovations are important in the Economy he fails to realize that it is the same type of innovations that come with risks and at times blow up the economy. It didn't matter that yes, there were perverse incentives, but perverse incentives is hardly the entire picture -- it was more closer to the fact that people didn't understand how much at risk they were since they did not fully understand the innovations they were using. Do not act as if these "inevitable bailouts" were the cause of the financial system's downfall -- there were much deeper issues than that.
While I agree with what you said fundamentally I don't think creating money out of thin air then gambling on fake money using the pocket of the middle class as your bankroll is a good form of innovation. That is to say, it's been a while since we had a really good example - I might cite the rise of Google as the last 'good' example of innovation.
Banking and mathematics/engineering students are a bad mix, though. That shit has to stop.
I don't think you understand what the financial system is nor do you understand what it does and what kind of innovations occur in there :|
Then educate me. o:
Are you aware of derivatives, packaging of debt, etc?
Pretty fluent, I suppose. I'm an econ student at a top 30 business school and before that I was in the Industrial Engineering program in that school which was top 3 when I enrolled in 2008. I spent a semester last spring in a five-person class learning why the meltdown happened and what systems perpetrated it, so I'm curious what I'm missing but completely open minded.
I don't know what milkis is getting at: just was asking a question that a majority of the people on these forums cant' answer >.>
What business school are you going to? (and what program was industrial engineering...)
Oh, shit. Sorry for my tone, man.
I'm in Smeal at Penn State. Industrial Engineering was there, too, but the only reason that was so highly ranked is that PSU was the first school to pioneer it in the U.S.
Lol.. How ignorant are you, by the way? You say that innovation comes with risks, that should be well above obvious. What you fail to understand is that these highly intellectual and well educated 'wallstreets' take the risk with no risk for themselves, and all the risk on the public people; in other words they are corporate psychopaths. This is the cause for the 'bubble' and the 2008 market collapse. If you don't read enough, maybe tackle something easier, and try watching the documentary 'Inside Job.' By the sounds of it, you'll think its a conspiracy film, but that's up for your closed-minded brain to decide..
Please don't act like I failed to understand anything. My point was a more general one pointing out the fact that the risks came from a financial innovations, which is what caused the crisis. It did not matter in the end if the government bailed them out (which does create twisted incentives, but that is hardly besides the point).
It's obvious that liberal hacks like you who like to paint this utterly biased picture of the world who like to twist things around to bring support to their story. I guess that isn't hard, considering that most people aren't actually educated enough to understand economics. But it's utterly hilarious how you believe you know what caused the bubble (hint: there was no guarantee that the banks would be bailed out -- in fact, many banks did fail at this point).
The world isn't as simple as you think it is, but calling someone "closed minded" is utterly hilarious especially when you're buying into the entire michael moore bullshit anyway. Then again, I don't expect too much from brainwashed hypocritical liberals anyway.
How is it not their fair share? Well, interestingly enough, it deals with innovation and the financial system (although gov't too). See, the rich on wallstreet often aren't paying for those risks, at least, not their full extent. They know that bailouts are inevitable, therefore they take in more risk than they should, negative externalities in other words. Of course, when those risks pay off, they take the money. When they don't, they pay some, but when they REALLY screw up, the gov't(tax payers, not just rich) pays.
Again, that wasn't even my point when I said things about innovation. My point is completely unrelated to people with twisted incentives or else I would have mentioned it.
My point is that while Michael Moore charades about how innovations are important in the Economy he fails to realize that it is the same type of innovations that come with risks and at times blow up the economy. It didn't matter that yes, there were perverse incentives, but perverse incentives is hardly the entire picture -- it was more closer to the fact that people didn't understand how much at risk they were since they did not fully understand the innovations they were using. Do not act as if these "inevitable bailouts" were the cause of the financial system's downfall -- there were much deeper issues than that.
While I agree with what you said fundamentally I don't think creating money out of thin air then gambling on fake money using the pocket of the middle class as your bankroll is a good form of innovation. That is to say, it's been a while since we had a really good example - I might cite the rise of Google as the last 'good' example of innovation.
Banking and mathematics/engineering students are a bad mix, though. That shit has to stop.
I don't think you understand what the financial system is nor do you understand what it does and what kind of innovations occur in there :|
Then educate me. o:
Simply put the financial system is something that is designed to spread the risk that comes from everyday actions involving credit. Whenever you lend to someone the lender is taking some sort of a risk on whether they will get it back or not. Innovations in the financial sector involves new ways of dealing with these risks, packaging and repacking these things. Understanding these risks was pretty much the primary motivation behind these things.
One of the innovations is securitization, a process where you package many of the loans in a certain way and repackage it. The risk is effectively normalized when you do this, but the thing was that when you normalize it (with improper assumptions) you miss out on some of the correlated risks that go on.
So what happened was that when people started lending to the "subprime" (ie, more risky) individuals this was effectively clouded by the process and in the end people just didn't know how much these packages were really worth but they thought they did. There was a lot of bad incentives going on within this securitization process since it wasn't really transparent so yeah.
So what happened was that many of these loans started going busts and people began to see that there was a correlated risk (ie, when everyone starts selling, prices of the houses go down, meaning more people walk away on their loans) so suddenly you have no idea what these securities are actually worth. Since MBS were the hot item in those days nearly every bank had them so basically banks started collapsing due to their effects.
Basically when people thought they were normalizing risks they missed a lot of things that could/actually go on and missed much of the correlated risks. The idea is that people failed to value the risks and the actual value of the securities properly due to this oversight.
One more thing to note is that some of the banks who received bailouts did not actually need the bailouts -- this was done so bankruns dont happen (ie: people who receive bailouts are perceived to be weaker so people flock away from these banks and shutting them down). Note that letting these banks fail isn't so hot since they did actually try letting lehman brothers just fail and that created a whole shockwave on the economy and made the whole shit worse since the financial system is very very intertwined since it's people competing for the tiniest profits.
Also yes, it's true that many of these investment banks did gamble big (they leveraged) which literally magnified the effects of this fall. But this has less to do with them knowing "they're too big to fail" and more has to do with principal agent problems of many of these corporations, which is what happens when incentives of the CEO and the company holders are quite different. This is why people did not give a damn that there was a bubble since even if it's a bubble no one knows when they pop so they just tried to maximize short run profits by riding the bubble since CEOs are very well compensated even if they're fired for fucking up.
So yes, innovations like these are dangerous since people tend to misvalue them (especially since it's kinda new cause everything takes time). But remember that these innovations also did a lot of positive things (before people fucked it up anyway) like got a lot of people houses and such. Basically innovation is a double edge sword in all kinds of systems and they can go horribly horribly wrong.
Also note that I talked a lot about incentives and you are probably wondering "why didn't they fix these incentive systems then" but the answer is that often times people don't know things can be a problem until they actually become big enough problem.s
Lol.. How ignorant are you, by the way? You say that innovation comes with risks, that should be well above obvious. What you fail to understand is that these highly intellectual and well educated 'wallstreets' take the risk with no risk for themselves, and all the risk on the public people; in other words they are corporate psychopaths. This is the cause for the 'bubble' and the 2008 market collapse. If you don't read enough, maybe tackle something easier, and try watching the documentary 'Inside Job.' By the sounds of it, you'll think its a conspiracy film, but that's up for your closed-minded brain to decide..
Please don't act like I failed to understand anything. My point was a more general one pointing out the fact that the risks came from a financial innovations, which is what caused the crisis. It did not matter in the end if the government bailed them out (which does create twisted incentives, but that is hardly besides the point).
It's obvious that liberal hacks like you who like to paint this utterly biased picture of the world who like to twist things around to bring support to their story. I guess that isn't hard, considering that most people aren't actually educated enough to understand economics. But it's utterly hilarious how you believe you know what caused the bubble (hint: there was no guarantee that the banks would be bailed out -- in fact, many banks did fail at this point).
The world isn't as simple as you think it is, but calling someone "closed minded" is utterly hilarious especially when you're buying into the entire michael moore bullshit anyway. Then again, I don't expect too much from brainwashed hypocritical liberals anyway.
How is it not their fair share? Well, interestingly enough, it deals with innovation and the financial system (although gov't too). See, the rich on wallstreet often aren't paying for those risks, at least, not their full extent. They know that bailouts are inevitable, therefore they take in more risk than they should, negative externalities in other words. Of course, when those risks pay off, they take the money. When they don't, they pay some, but when they REALLY screw up, the gov't(tax payers, not just rich) pays.
Again, that wasn't even my point when I said things about innovation. My point is completely unrelated to people with twisted incentives or else I would have mentioned it.
My point is that while Michael Moore charades about how innovations are important in the Economy he fails to realize that it is the same type of innovations that come with risks and at times blow up the economy. It didn't matter that yes, there were perverse incentives, but perverse incentives is hardly the entire picture -- it was more closer to the fact that people didn't understand how much at risk they were since they did not fully understand the innovations they were using. Do not act as if these "inevitable bailouts" were the cause of the financial system's downfall -- there were much deeper issues than that.
While I agree with what you said fundamentally I don't think creating money out of thin air then gambling on fake money using the pocket of the middle class as your bankroll is a good form of innovation. That is to say, it's been a while since we had a really good example - I might cite the rise of Google as the last 'good' example of innovation.
Banking and mathematics/engineering students are a bad mix, though. That shit has to stop.
I don't think you understand what the financial system is nor do you understand what it does and what kind of innovations occur in there :|
Then educate me. o:
Simply put the financial system is something that is designed to spread the risk that comes from everyday actions involving credit. Whenever you lend to someone the lender is taking some sort of a risk on whether they will get it back or not. Innovations in the financial sector involves new ways of dealing with these risks, packaging and repacking these things. Understanding these risks was pretty much the primary motivation behind these things.
One of the innovations is securitization, a process where you package many of the loans in a certain way and repackage it. The risk is effectively normalized when you do this, but the thing was that when you normalize it (with improper assumptions) you miss out on some of the correlated risks that go on.
So what happened was that when people started lending to the "subprime" (ie, more risky) individuals this was effectively clouded by the process and in the end people just didn't know how much these packages were really worth but they thought they did. There was a lot of bad incentives going on within this securitization process since it wasn't really transparent so yeah.
So what happened was that many of these loans started going busts and people began to see that there was a correlated risk (ie, when everyone starts selling, prices of the houses go down, meaning more people walk away on their loans) so suddenly you have no idea what these securities are actually worth. Since MBS were the hot item in those days nearly every bank had them so basically banks started collapsing due to their effects.
Basically when people thought they were normalizing risks they missed a lot of things that could/actually go on and missed much of the correlated risks. The idea is that people failed to value the risks and the actual value of the securities properly due to this oversight.
One more thing to note is that some of the banks who received bailouts did not actually need the bailouts -- this was done so bankruns dont happen (ie: people who receive bailouts are perceived to be weaker so people flock away from these banks and shutting them down). Note that letting these banks fail isn't so hot since they did actually try letting lehman brothers just fail and that created a whole shockwave on the economy and made the whole shit worse since the financial system is very very intertwined since it's people competing for the tiniest profits.
Also yes, it's true that many of these investment banks did gamble big (they leveraged) which literally magnified the effects of this fall. But this has less to do with them knowing "they're too big to fail" and more has to do with principal agent problems of many of these corporations, which is what happens when incentives of the CEO and the company holders are quite different. This is why people did not give a damn that there was a bubble since even if it's a bubble no one knows when they pop so they just tried to maximize short run profits by riding the bubble since CEOs are very well compensated even if they're fired for fucking up.
So yes, innovations like these are dangerous since people tend to misvalue them (especially since it's kinda new cause everything takes time). But remember that these innovations also did a lot of positive things (before people fucked it up anyway) like got a lot of people houses and such. Basically innovation is a double edge sword in all kinds of systems and they can go horribly horribly wrong.
Also note that I talked a lot about incentives and you are probably wondering "why didn't they fix these incentive systems then" but the answer is that often times people don't know things can be a problem until they actually become big enough problem.s
Pretty much all of what you say is true and I still think we agree on everything.
Something worth adding to your analysis of the situation is that a lot of the smaller banks failed because they were sold derivatives based off of subprime loans and packaged together with math invented by Goldman Sachs in particular. So a lot of these smaller institutions, eager to get in on the big investment bank money, were using subprime mortgages to invest in dangerous loans hidden by a curtain of equations and a AAA stamp. That all falls back to the upper 1% and is one of the few spots Moore's tirade has credit, because the 'financial products' market has long-been unregulated and 'unregulatable' according to the people that deal in it.
The point I was trying to make, and I see now I could have made more clearly, is there is 'good' and 'bad' innovation. Bad innovation is taking the securities market and adding more layers of complexity (imo). Good innovation would be looking at a company like Google who monetized a search engine and in becoming a superpower not only provided a wealth of free services but also helps the average guy monetize a blog or small website or whatever (again, imo).
edit: and people who nuke the country's middle class and take all their money should be thrown in jail or punished in some other way than getting a few million less in bonuses on Christmas. goddamn crooks.
The thing I disagree with is how you try to paint everything as if they knew what they were doing. There is a very few who actually knew what was going on and I don't think it was exactly on purpose. I also disagree that the financial system creates money out of "thin air" -- that's not exactly the fault of the financial system, but more of the effect of bubbles. The point is that the world is a lot more complex than what a lot of people perceive it to be so in the end it's hard to exactly know what happened until you have complete hindsight after everything blows up.
Basically I don't think there is a good way of determining what is a "Bad" innovation and a "Good" innovation until they are put in practice -- unless of course, you can prove that banks such as GS did everything they did on purpose with the knowledge in mind (which I don't know since I don't follow the ibanking dramas), then it's fraud, not an innovation.
On March 09 2011 16:58 Milkis wrote: The thing I disagree with is how you try to paint everything as if they knew what they were doing. There is a very few who actually knew what was going on and I don't think it was exactly on purpose. I also disagree that the financial system creates money out of "thin air" -- that's not exactly the fault of the financial system, but more of the effect of bubbles. The point is that the world is a lot more complex than what a lot of people perceive it to be so in the end it's hard to exactly know what happened until you have complete hindsight after everything blows up.
Basically I don't think there is a good way of determining what is a "Bad" innovation and a "Good" innovation until they are put in practice -- unless of course, you can prove that banks such as GS did everything they did on purpose with the knowledge in mind (which I don't know since I don't follow the ibanking dramas), then it's fraud, not an innovation.
Okay, that's cool. I'll say my peace but beyond that I'm down with agreeing to disagree.
The evidence that points toward malicious intent and is sufficient enough for me was the credit rating bureaus like Moody's and Standard & Poor's giving things like credit default swaps a AAA credit rating - meaning, these were certified as one of the safest investments possible. However, anyone with even menial knowledge of their structure would have known they were far, far more risky because a CDS was a package of bits and pieces of incredibly volatile mortgages.
Also super-suspicious is the unregulated nature of the derivatives market. Even after the meltdown, excessive lobbying has kept derivatives from the magnifying glass of government regulation agencies and the repeated sentiment is that they are 'too complex' to be regulated.
I know that's somewhat vague but I lost all my references for this particular topic, it's been almost a year since I researched/wrote up a term paper for it. o_o
Even more nebulous, but influencing my position, is the more I learn about monetary systems and banking, the more impossible it is to believe that what occurred was a naive mistake.
The biggest banks can take the riskiest risks they want , if they get it wrong they just get a bailout from the taxpayer.
Whilst those biggest banks have been bailed out something like 2-300 smaller banks have gone bust or been bought out (with the money they got from the taxpayer) by the bigger banks since the start of the GFC in the US.
Well you are only broke once you start paying what you owe. Is America paying for it yet? I don't know. I think if a small pacific or African country had even a fraction of what America owes they would of sank by now but America still seems ok, As shit as the country looks now I dont think America has ever really been THAT great for the last decade or so.
On March 09 2011 00:18 Hawk wrote: If you can't be bothered to do your own, independent research on mortgages prior to agreeing on a purchase of several hundred thousands of dollars, yes, you are an idiot. Plain and simple, it is a lack of accountability.
How is that any different than going car shopping and being like 'oh well the salesman told me this car is way under value and it's totally fine, let me skip all inspection, research and screw shopping to compare prices'
People buying things they can't afford is a tradition in this country, as is passing the blame.
What's even more wonderful is that the people who did live within their means and don't carry insane, unpayable debt don't get the government to help them out.
e; if you don't understand the logic that goes into a $500,000 transaction, you shouldn't be buying a house until you figure out the process. The whole thing can be summed up as a bunch of dumbasses buying on a whim instead of doing research.
The banks traditionally acted in a way where they worked for their customers though, and actually wanted their money back eventually. I don't see how you can justify banks deliberately giving out loans they knew would never be paid back, solely so they could sell the debt onto investment banks to make totally ridiculous gambles with.
Yes people were irresponsible. But there was ridiculous situations where banks were acting as loan sharks pretty much and you heard stories of people buying 5 houses on mortgages on the advisement of banks that it was a good investment. Even despite all this, even if you did blame the homebuyers, you really just cannot ignore what the investment banks and ratings companies did with the loans turned into CDOs. It was basically fraud. Well not basically, it just was obfuscated fraud. If they weren't taking insane risks with the bonds made then it would never have got to the extreme situation it did. I believe previously before the 1980's and looser regulations, lenders had to actually have the funds to cover every loan given out, meaning it could never have affected more than the lender and homebuyer. Once that changed it was open season.
I have no idea how the ratings companies and Goldman Sachs got away with it all, from what i've read it seems like they were the prime culprits as to why it spiraled out of control (I suppose AIG as well for their nonsensical moves). Goldman Sachs by 2008 were even betting AGAINST the CDOs they created in the first place by buying insurance on them, which cause the downfall even quicker. Some people definitely knew what was going on imo.
Edit: I forgot to mention another blatant problem not involving the homebuyers; The possibility of loan fraud was basically completely ignored. You had loans inside supposedly AAA rated investments, the highest possible, wherein some loanees didn't even have documents/proof of earnings. So they were giving money out without even checking if the people were legitimate, selling these loans to investment banks on simply the promise of money in the future. Not to mention you had Goldman Sachs repackaging up BBB rated CDOs into yet another CDO, and somehow getting an AAA rating on them. The idea that no of these people could see what was happening is far-fetched the way i see it.
I see people mentioned a few of these things though.