| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On October 29 2015 13:21 notesfromunderground wrote: Ever heard of subprime mortgage loans? I'm reasonably sure you're trying to be facetious or something like that, but there's a massive difference between subprime mortgages and the Lucent deal. | ||
|
notesfromunderground
188 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
Subprime mortgage is when a bank makes a mortgage to someone who has questionable credit-- they either have a short credit history, or it's just not all that great. To make up for the higher risk (esp. if you have a low/nonexistent down payment) you charge higher interest. Add on an adjustable rate and you're in business. They key here is the guy who gets the mortgage has a dodgy credit history, but can generally afford the loan payments even if they end up not paying for whatever reason. The mortgage is also secured by the house, so if the guy can't pay the bank can repossess his house and be made whole (or close). I forget the default rates, but I'm guessing at least some of those subprime mortgages closed with the mortgagee owning their house. The Lucent loan was a $2.1B loan to a very small company. I forget the name, but it had $1.6M in revenue. That means unless the interest on the credit facility was insanely small and payments were also insanely small, the company's entire revenue would be swallowed up by loan payments. Heck, let's say the company had a profit margin of 25% (pretty high), meaning after they paid the bills and everything they had 400K. I have no idea what the debt to assets ratio was, but it's likely that it was in the 1000's. There was nothing to be used as collateral. The company eventually filed for bankruptcy. In essence, it's kind of a cheap accounting trick. You're effectively moving cash off your balance sheet to another company, then you get to recognize it as revenue as it flows back to you (minus taxes, but corporate tax is kind of a joke). It looks like you're making money and moving product, except in reality you're just paying yourself to make shit no one buys. Were both deals driven by greed? Yes. Were they both stupid? Yes. But only in subprime mortgages did the lenders actually expect to be paid. Those deals made sense, even if a rather twisted way. The latter was horseshit and basically fraud. | ||
|
notesfromunderground
188 Posts
There's no difference between Lucent's revenue being swallowed up by debt service and the recipients of NINA loans being unable to service their debt on... zero income. It's just all about teaser rates and 'pray and punt.' You are describing literally the same situation. The only difference is one of scale | ||
Falling
Canada11607 Posts
What the hell kind of debate question is this? Laundry list of Trump's promises, then "Let's be honest, is this a comic book version of a presidential campaign?" a) This is a yes or no answer b) He's only going to say no, unless he's going for laughs and then say no... and then he's going back to his talking points. c) How is this a good question, ever? The opening 'weakness' question was also pretty weak. Here was the opening question for the 2015 Canadian Munk foreign policy debate: "Right now the world is witnessing the largest humanitarian crisis since the second world war as the conflict in Syria and northern Iraq rages on. Mr Mulcair, you have pledged to pull Canada's military forces out from the international coalition fighting ISIS. The question for you is, if the threat the Islamic state represents doesn't justify a military response, when would an NDP government use military force?" It acknowledges the NDP's past pledges, but then asks an interesting question that is not horrendously biased, nor a yes/no. If not now, then when? There's all sorts of room for interesting answers that moves away from the talking point of "We're pulling out of the coalition." Are the rest of the questions like this? I have been very unimpressed with the quality of questions in the Republican debates and whatever the faults of the candidates, bad questions are not their fault. I've been annoyed with past US election debates where candidates completely ignored questions and jumped to whatever talking point they had in mind, but this time around there seems to be a legitimate reason to ignore the moderator's questions. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
Personally, I would have liked people to answer the weakness question, as I like people who can recognize their own weaknesses. Unsurprisingly few answered it of course. | ||
|
notesfromunderground
188 Posts
On October 29 2015 14:37 zlefin wrote: Not all of the rest of the questions are like that, but it's definitely an unimpressive moderation performance. Personally, I would have liked people to answer the weakness question, as I like people who can recognize their own weaknesses. Unsurprisingly few answered it of course. that's a silly neoliberal truthiness job interview question. fuck that question. | ||
|
Grettin
42416 Posts
| ||
|
Falling
Canada11607 Posts
| ||
|
Fighter
Korea (South)1531 Posts
On October 29 2015 12:50 LuckyFool wrote: Carson seemed a bit out of it, flubbed on the tax question and I agree with caelym, closing statement was awful. I see his numbers dropping after tonight. I have to quote this, because this is one of the things that just blows me away. Every time I've seen Carson in these debates, I've felt like he's ALWAYS out of it. Like, his personality makes him just seem like he's not quite all the way there. I would have NEVER expected him to be in or even near the front runner position. My guess is that he's just so likable that his poll numbers started creeping up during the non-debate weeks when there wasn't much room to make him look bad. But I do suspect that his numbers will drop after this debate as well. | ||
|
notesfromunderground
188 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
Jeb and Kasich just looked bad to be perfectly honest. Fiorina and Christie close behind (but lol fantasy football). The others were a mixed bag of zings and standard slop. I'd argue that's the best you could hope for with the questions and format. 'Look at the questions: "Donald Trump, are you a comic-book villain?" "Ben Carson, can you do math?" "John Kasich, will you insult two people over here?" "Marco Rubio, why don't you resign?" "Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen?"' 'How about talking about the substantive issues that people care about?' ~ Cruz Describe your greatest weaknesses ... is this CNBC or CNBC's HR department? | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
notesfromunderground
188 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States5029 Posts
| ||
|
Cush
United States646 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24354 Posts
On October 29 2015 16:19 xDaunt wrote: I get the sense that Cruz is fairly well-positioned to make a run at the nomination right now. I wouldn't be surprised if he starts to gain some serious traction in the polls soon. Cruz is exactly the kind of person Donald Trump would pick on in any other situation. You think Trump is bad so far, let Cruz pass him in the polls. As it stands though, Cruz is still not even in the top two in his own state so I wouldn't get your hopes too high. | ||
|
ampson
United States2355 Posts
On October 29 2015 15:17 notesfromunderground wrote: Watching the rerun of this shitshow. If I were an actual republican (instead of an ironic republican for Donald Trump) I would vote for fiorina in a second. She's the only intelligent one Fiorina is the second worst candidate the Republicans can offer. She's not as good a businessperson, isn't as brash, and doesn't have as much money as Trump. She can't out-woman Hillary. Her ideas on foreign policy are woeful and she looks like she has no idea what she's doing whenever she's asked a question outside of her talking points. I have no idea why people here rate her highly. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22577 Posts
Sure there are some people (crazy) who actually stand by his points. Who think a tithe is a good idea, that medicare should be abolished entirely but most, I suspect, simply look at the lineup and go "hey, isn't that guy a neurosurgeon? I bet he is smart". I refuse to believe a large selection of Americans hears Carson speak and make ridiculous statement after statement and say "Yes, he should be president". | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
For example, here's a quote from one such fan, a fellow law student: Bernie's mad because he's falling by the wayside. Billionaires have one vote, like anyone else. What's so bad about having money? Being successful by your own ability and work, and maybe some help from family, - things liberals (or in this case, socialists) hate. teehee. | ||
| ||
|
|
OSC
Replay Cast
IntoTheTV X SOOP
RotterdaM Event
Replay Cast
GSL
Replay Cast
GSL
Shopify Rebellion Sundays
Spirit vs Mixu
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
