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 ~_~
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KZFQa.jpg)
