More factually incorrect claims from jablake. CDSs cover more than mortgages. Credit cards and CDOs are other examples. You could use them for speculating on any default risk. A no, they weren't just sold by the insurance industry. Any type of unregulated speculator could get in, which was a big part of the problem.
It's obvious you have no idea what a CDS even is. But just for fun why don't you tell me where you acquired your "knowledge" about them? What books did you read? (I know you're going to lie here because the real answer would be straight out of your ass.)
Your assertion that they have "the stench of government all over" them, is just that an assertion. You provide absolutely no evidence to back up your claim, precisely because you have no idea what a CDS is. It's just an idea you pulled out of your ass without even studying the market because you already know your conclusion in advance "it's the government's fault".
Go study and learn before you make more factually incorrect statements.
"The Southern customs take on the appearance of being more friendly,"
Those customs sure weren't part of the Southerns that I grew up with---yes, I met some friendlies-----seemed, imo, like they'd learned that from the blacks. Friendliness was seen as black culture and it seemed genetic. Didn't seem right or ordinary. And, peacefulness was also seen as black culture. The blacks just seemed very strange---especially their wanting to be near whites at all.
"Ok, jablake, go study the unregulated CDS market. I can't wait to see how you twist and turn and grasp at straws"
No need to twist and grasp at straws. That insurance market has the stench of government all over it. These defaults do happen to recall which sector they be coming from? That's right . . . the mortgage sector and what entity is all mixed up in the mortgage sector? That's right . . . government.
In my experience, girls of the southeast are much friendlier and easier than girls of the southwest. Must have something to do with being in the bible belt.
Everybody in the south is warmer and friendlier. It's part of the way of life there. I think it's mostly superficial. Beneath the surface, northerners aren't much different. When you're talking about strippers, however, the superficial is pretty important.
this thread reminds me of that beach boy songs "i wish they all could be california girls" when they discuss girls from all different parts of the country.
how: In my younger day, I worked for political parties on both extremes of the spectrum. I must say that the infighting was equally vicious in both camps. And vicious it was. Howver, because the stereotype is that the "left" ought to be more peaceful and co-operative and all that, I was more surprised to learn of their inner viciousness.
samsung: don't know about that. the conservative ones can be ultra freaky IME. maybe if you are talking so conservative they actually believe in bs like Christianity.
"In more "conservative" areas, people are nicer. Liberals are often vicious and hateful, in part because they cannot stand themselves."
The extremely conservative folks that I knew from Angels weren't friendly at all. I liked them. I liked the fact that they were always hostile. That was just the culture.
As far as vicious and hateful---seems like I've met plenty of conservatives and liberals who fit that bill. Doesn't really seem to matter the politics, ime. I haven't met any liberals whose basic culture was non-friendliness. The super conservatives at Angels---the culture was extreme non-friendliness. As I said, I liked those conservatives. Also, by and large it seemed like most were very hardcore racists.
Normally, ime, the liberals in general give much better dances. Who knows, maybe I just grew up among the wrong type of conservatives. Not saying you couldn't have a good time----just a lot more work normally. I prefer the girl is already taking her clothes off even before my mind had gone in that direction---imo, that is an excellent experience and it has only happened with liberals.
Can't really say about Southern U.S. girls. The people I knew from the South, definitely weren't standard issue. The white Southern U.S. girls that I knew definitely didn't have the friendly gene by and large----more interested in being warriors or plain ornery for god knows what reasons. Now the black Southern U.S.----wow, some of those girls were so nice they were beyond belief. I just couldn't/can't understand that extreme niceness. Don't get me wrong. It was like pure sugar. I just could believe it was possible. How can a culture like that exist in the U.S. Maybe the black Southern girls that I knew weren't standard issue either. One huge difference in cultures.
"In more 'conservative' areas, people are nicer. Liberals are often vicious and hateful, in part because they cannot stand themselves."
LOL...only *you* "how" could turn a simple question like this into a Right-wing rant...too funny...
I haven't been to a strip club north of the Mason/Dixon line (with the exption of San Francisco). Having lived in California, I find the girls friendly, but superficial. They're more interested in your money than anything else. I lived in New Mexico for years too. The girls there are actually cruel and distant. In Texas, I find the strippers to be caring. There are a number of them who want the LD to be a satisfying experience. Your feelings matter to them.
After living in SO CAL for 45 years I got transplanted to Atlanta in 1987. The 1st thing that I noticed was how friendly everyone was. And I don't mean just strippers. As one dancer put it "It's the way I was brought up". The NEW SOUTH is constantly being infiltrated by people from everywhere. They soon get adapted to the environment and become southerners. I was in Kmart last week and saw the cutest black baby that I have ever seen. She was with her mother and grand mother.I had to tell her mother how beautiful she was. I would never have been that bold in California. Maybe there is something in the water.
Well as an outsider and based on very little knowledge I would say that the accent on a southern girl is a lot sexier than the northern girls. Over here it's the other way around to a certain degree.
People say Boston is liberal, but it's not. It's just politically left-wing. There's a huge difference.
Boston: "we're more tolerant than you. See how much better we are? One of the reasons we're so much better, is that other people LIKE YOU aren't as good as us, and another reason, is that we never mention how much better we are than you. Look at us not mentioning it right now. Now, go follow all the rules and be a good little open-minded tolerant perfect person like me. DO AS I SAY AND CONFORM TO MY OPINION TO BE TOLERANT GODDAMMIT!"
My take on whether "conservative" or "liberal" locations are more friendly is kind of skewed from the general view. I'd say that LIBERTARIAN locations are probably more tolerant of eccentricities and social differences. Sometimes, therefore, libertarians are also aligned with the left-wing political positions on gay marriage, prostitution, and freedom to smoke marijuana. To the contrary, some authoritarian areas are very conservative, socially. In Jackson, MS, people stare, point, and publicly verbally deride you for asking directions at a gas station because "it just isn't done." And they vote very far right-wing.
But it doesn't always line up that way for the "friendliness" of strip-club girls. Dallas and Houston and Tampa girls can be very "up close and friendly" in two ways -- by turning on Southern charm, with a nice brush up against your thigh, and batting eyes, and all sorts of other stripper shit that makes you feel like the two of you have been best friends for decades; or, by actually giving greater sexual services for a lower price.
Which kind of "friendly" do you mean?
Conservative strippers are not so unusual where I live at. I know some go to church and vote republican too. I will agree that Southern girls overall are alot friendlier. That's not to say that I haven't met several friendly girls from other parts of the country though. Met some friendly girls from Brazil and other places too. I've had some South Korean girls literally grab and drag me into their club and get real friendly. Now when it comes to the most aggressive girls, I would say korean girls and southern black girls. hmmm, the two most aggressive I've met were actually white and possibly hispanic. I mean sexually aggressive not angry aggressive.
We used to have church and strip clubs across the street from each other in some places until the liberals passed all these national laws restricting locations of strip clubs. It was all so simple. The strippers could strip at night, then go to church in the morning and tell the priest all about it in confession. Just joking about the confession stuff.
Sorry BookGuy, but Libertarians are no more tolerant than anyone else. Take a look at how and his (often out of the blue) "socialists are either stupid or evil" posts. And they have the same unfounded sense of superiority that any other subscribers to a political philosophy do.
If fact, I would say due to their inherent non-socialness ("individualism" they may call it) Libertarians rank as less friendly than your run of the mill conservative. You can gage Libertarian friendliness, however, by how they treat people of different political beliefs on the big Libertarian hideout from normal society, i.e. Internet discussion boards.
Hmmm . . . I think Libertarians are much more tolerant in the important sense. Sure a Libertarian may think socialists are evil, Bible thumpers are vile, gays are an disgusting, etc. The important point as far as tolerance is, imo, does the Libertarian wish to enforce his views by passing all manner of laws threatening others. There are even Libertarians who are hardcore racists. So, basically if tolerance is define as not having any strong beliefs as to what is moral and what is immoral, then yes a Libertarian probably isn't anymore tolerant than anyone else, imo. If tolerance is defined as not resorting to law and government to shove your values down other peoples throats via penalties of law, then I'd say on average Libertarians are much tolerant than others.
Socialists are generally very stupid. :) Sorry. However, with sufficient technology these stupid socialists may actually be correct. The game can change radically just with a little natural tweaking here an there.
jablake: After watching the market self destruct over the last couple of years, Libertarians who did not change their beliefs or became even more deeply entrenched are, by far, the stupidest ones of all. That just proves that they already came to the wrong conclusions in advance and no amount of contrary evidence could change their minds. They are the true fanatics. Just as bad as any true believing religious sect.
Hi Dougster,
The market self destructed. So what? Most Libertarians that I knew (I don't know many) were predicting a market melt down. To not see the government as the main evil doer or facilitator is just blindness or ignorance. The market behaved beautifully given the government's framework. Businessmen took the proper measures/risks given the game----I'd have done the same with GUSTO!!! :)
This shouldn't imply even a tiny tweeny tot that the market will not fail if the government merely stays the hell out of the way. Just in the example at hand, it was a government game. A government game that may have done tremendous amounts of good by the way----a collapse doesn't mean the game wasn't the best that could be set.
jablake: "Businessmen took the proper measures/risks given the game"
Right... I assume you are referring to the businessmen at Bears Sterns and Lehman who destroyed the firms that had been in business for decades, or, in Lehman's case, over a century. Excellent and appropriate risk management won't you say?
You and the Libertarians seriously don't think the risk models were broken by not factoring in correlations between defaults?
As I said, only fanatics who have decided in advance that's it's always the governments fault cannot see the mistakes the market made on its own on this one. I would surmise they have some deep needed psychological need to hate the government and that blinds them to all reality. Nothing will change their religious fanaticism.
jablake: Does blaming the government for everything absolve you from taking responsibility for mistakes you've made in your own life? Is that why you hate the government so much, and can never come to a conclusion other than "it was the government's fault" no matter how strong the evidence?
Hi Dougster,
It is the government's fault. This mortgage fraud was NOT even a little bit of a secret. The government knew. The media knew. It was a game. A game that did a lot of good, btw.
I've never bothered to read long triads blaming the government for everything that has gone wrong in your life, but given your lack of objectivity I would be willing to lay money that it was not
"the government's fault"
things got so screwed up for you. I would put my money on it being "jablake's fault".
Hi Dougster,
Yep, that is the easy cop out. Blame the victim. Sometimes the victim should be blamed by the way. :) Depends on the game.
Anyway, that really isn't the issue. The issue is what are the rules and who made 'em and what would free market theory indicate is a likely result.
"The current mess would never have occurred in the absence of ill-conceived federal policies. The federal government chartered Fannie Mae in 1938 and Freddie Mac in 1970; these two mortgage lending institutions are at the center of the crisis. The government implicitly promised these institutions that it would make good on their debts, so Fannie and Freddie took on huge amounts of excessive risk."
Gee, government agrees to accept the losses and businessmen go wild. A big surprise? LOL! If I'm a businessman, then I'd be lending millions to burger flippers. It is good business. Let the government take the losses if the market collapses. It is a joke, a game, a fraud. It wasn't even secret. Here in Miami, some burger flippers were able to buy $300,000----thanks to government. I like that. I want the government to do more of that. Please don't blame "greedy" businessmen, however. It is just good business and a lot people benefit. Government prints a bunch of new money and play the game again. Everybody wins longer term. Appreciate the game. :)
Not even mentioning the government's Community Reinvestment fraud. Yes, an obvious joke with good businessmen willing to play the game. I'd definitely play. :) The country is a fraud and should be treated as such---a fraud that may accomplish a lot of good by the way---let us never forget all the good these government frauds accomplish.
You think the businessman who got NINE (9) mortgages could have done it without the help of government? :) Who knows maybe he could have figured a legal way to do that fraud without the government's help. I don't know. I did get to see the joke played out again and again many years earlier. Government guarantees real estate loans and surprise surprise businessmen come a calling. Free market working beautiful. Some nitwit such as government guarantees a loan and businessmen take advantage of the opportunity. Free markets 101. :)
Screw the free market, btw. Let the government guarantee, finance, do everything. I don't believe in the free market even a little bit thanks to President Bush. :) Hey, the man opened my eyes. I want more government programs and the bigger and more generous the better. Let burger flippers buy $3 million dollar homes---that is good government, imo. :)
Come on jablake, think!
If there was really this supposed implicit guarantee on all mortgages and, hence, no risk, why did Lehman and WAMU go bankrupt? Why did Bear Sterns and Wachovia practically go bankrupt and all but wipe out their shareholders?
Have you decided the conclusion in advance "it's always the governments fault". Can you look at anything objectively now (have you ever been able to?), or is that already your foregone conclusion?
You obviously have a deep seated need not to see the truth, but if you are ever able to take off the veil look at the screwed up risk models if you want to know what went wrong. And then, if you want to look even deeper, ponder the question of how such obvious flaws could have got by everyone. (Hint: they wanted to believe in the model to justify what they wanted to do anyway.)
--> burger flippers were able to buy $300,000 houses----thanks to screwed free market risk models
"If there was really this supposed implicit guarantee on all mortgages and, hence, no risk, why did Lehman and WAMU go bankrupt? Why did Bear Sterns and Wachovia practically go bankrupt and all but wipe out their shareholders?"
Oh gee! The shareholders are important? :) A few or lot of shareholders getting screwed proves exactly ZERO. :) Did the boys playing the government for a sucker truly get screwed?
My guess is they took a lot of that money and it is very safe and sound. A lot of this game is mere facade. Like phony U.S. debt auctions . . . government needs to borrow money that it can't print non-stop . . . please get real. It is an open fraud. :)
Many of these "failures" are exactly what the big boys wanted. And, government is an eager helper. You remember the old saying. He who has the gold makes the rules? You remember? Well he who owns the money creating machine makes the rules. A few rich victims thrown out for show impresses not a bit.
"--> burger flippers were able to buy $300,000 houses----thanks to screwed free market risk models"
Hardly. :) Thanks to businessmen who saw the government opportunity and ran with it big time. And, they'll do it again and again. Unless the big boy is truly risking his own money it is a game that truly should end the same way every time.
BTW, let us say government was totally out of the picture. No idiotic rules or freebies or anything. A Libertarian dream economy.
I don't believe that such a dream economy would not collapse. I don't know. I'd have to look at the Libertarian dream economy very closely. I think ultimately no matter how perfectly crafted it to would collapse.
However, the government game mandates collapse. That is part of the game. BTW, the government game might be a better game all things considered than the Libertarian game. I don't know. I'd have to look at it very closely.
jablake: "Oh gee! The shareholders are important? :) "
jablake you are a complete idiot.
The board members are often big shareholders in their own company. Take Jimmy Cayne of Bear Sterns who lost close to a billion dollars, nearly all his wealth, when Bears Sterns went bust.
What exactly are you trying to say here? The Bear Stern risk models were good, because they pretty much bankrupted the company including the shareholders on the board, for most of whom BSC stock comprised nearly all their wealth?
You also completely ignore the original question which is why if there was this implicit guarantee that you imagine (but that does not exist in reality) the companies I mentioned went broke?
You are making claims, i.e. implicit guarantee with no basis in reality. Then you get called down on your BS, you go off on some other insane but equally counter-factual tangent.
How do these ideas get into your mind in the first place? Again it's because you have no objectivity in the matter due to the fact that you a strong psychological need to reach the conclusion "it was the government's fault".
Sure jablake. Anything that goes wrong in your life or in the market was the government's fault. No one, especially you, has to take responsibility for anything. Just blame the government.
Hopefully the evasion of responsibility gives you some comfort but rest assured, everyone can see through your idiocy.
"You also completely ignore the original question which is why if there was this implicit guarantee that you imagine (but that does not exist in reality) the companies I mentioned went broke?"
Are you for real? It was more like an explicit guarantee. Almost like the explicit guarantee the U.S. government gave for its Silver Certificates or its Gold backed bonds. Did the government honor those contracts? Of course, not! Did some people rely on the honesty of the U.S. government. Yes. The country is filled with flag wavers who believe in the U.S. government.
Furthermore, I don't need to dig into particulars when it is the framework/system that is at issue. This wasn't a free market---at all. Only government lovers would wish to pretend that it was. So you would like to pretend that the government was a bit player in the U.S. mortgage market. That is 100% asinine.
As far as big shareholders losing 100% of their wealth, please. That is as absurd as the government having to borrow the money it creates out of thin air. I owned few shares of this textile company and the company went bankrupt. Did the big shareholders lose everything? Yes, if you are the most innocent sheep in the world. The reality was it was a fraud from beginning to end. I didn't get out solely due to extreme laziness and my holding was tiny---besides I kept telling myself I wanted to see how the game played out. It played out like I thought. Big shareholders cry crocodile tears and make off with their ill gotten gains. This was a company that for years was supposed to have a net real estate asset value of $15----normally it traded for $1 or $2. The big shareholders moved operations to Mexico about 2 years before looting the company----I guess less regulation is in place over there. Anyway, maybe I held the shares 40 years? I don't know it was a long time and it never looked right. The only people making money for all those decades was the big shareholders. I feel that I deserve the loss for not selling a couple decades earlier.
"The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) (NYSE: FNM), commonly known as Fannie Mae, is a stockholder-owned corporation chartered by Congress in 1968 as a government-sponsored enterprise (GSE), but founded in 1938 during the Great Depression. The corporation's purpose is to purchase and securitize mortgages in order to ensure that funds are consistently available to the institutions that lend money to home buyers.[2]
On September 7, 2008, James Lockhart, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), announced that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were being placed into conservatorship of the FHFA. The action is "one of the most sweeping government interventions in private financial markets in decades".[3][4][5] As of 2008[update], Fannie Mae and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) owned or guaranteed about half of the U.S.'s $12 trillion mortgage market.[6]" [view link]
Oh yes, and a reasonable person would conclude the U.S. government was just completely out of the picture when it came to mortgages! HELLO THERE, PLEASE WAKE UP!!! This was just another government frauds in a long long long line of government frauds. Flag wavers will take any and all opportunity to blame capitalism when the guilty party over and over is the government. Yes, the government should also get the credit for the widespread home ownership in the U.S. So you keep drinking that Kool Aid that the government wasn't twisted every which way in this government sponored scam. :)
My long time neighbors lost their home to foreclosure. They had a "normal" mortgage from a local private bank. The loan was sold to some private bank in the Mid West and that bank foreclosed on them. Pretty straight forward it would seem. Looked at the documents available online---I just didn't see any government fingerprints at all. It just appeared to be a standard loan----not sold to any of the federal whatevers.
What is interesting is that within a few months of booting my neighbors----guess who the new owner is? Yep, you hit the bullseye most likely . . . it was the government. Should this come as some big shock? Well, maybe if you believe some nonsense about the government not being completely twisted up in the mortgage market. It is a government game and no one except perhaps flag wavers or innocent sheep should be surprised to the government was the new owner! The government game is just in your face. New owners----government involved? I don't think so---but, I don't know. The government has so many tentacles that you can't be 100% sure. New owners lose the home and government may again be the new owner.
And, you think this is a free market? Yes, and I suppose you believe in God also. :)
How many times does the government get to pull a total fraud before ordinary people wake up and recognize that government is very fraudulent.
"But in the place of federal funds the government provides considerable unpriced benefits to the enterprises... Government-sponsored enterprises are costly to the government and taxpayers... the benefit is currently worth $6.5 billion annually.".[30] Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are allowed to hold less capital than normal financial institutions: e.g., it is allowed to sell mortgage-backed securities with only half as much capital backing them up as would be required of other financial institutions. Specifically, regulations exist through the FDIC Bank Holding Company Act that govern the solvency of financial institutions. The regulations require normal financial institutions to maintain a capital/asset ratio greater than or equal to 3%.[31] The GSEs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are exempt from this capital/asset ratio requirement and can, and often do, maintain a capital/asset ratio less than 3%. The additional leverage allows for greater returns in good times, but put the companies at greater risk in bad times, such as during the current subprime mortgage crisis. FNMA is also exempt from state and local taxes. In addition, FNMA and FHLMC are exempt from SEC filing requirements; however, both GSEs voluntarily file their SEC 10-K and 10-Q." [view link]
Exempt from state and local taxes . . . Gee, no government fingerprints there. LOL! A person would have to be totally blind not see how involved the government was directly and indirectly in the mortgage mess. I'll repeat: This government involvement regardless of the size of the collapse did provide massive benefits. IOWs, not only do I blame the government for the mortgage mess---I also give the government credit for the benefits that the mortgage markets yielded. This was government to the right, government to the center, government to the left, government from above, government from below; just government everywhere. And, the fraud was not a secret---from what has been reported. And, the smartest thing may have been to ignore the fraud! IOWs, the government may have done the right thing by ignoring The Wall Street Journal and others who were yelping for "adult" supervision i.e. even more government. Congress had hearings and in its wisdom---nothing was done. That as I'll repeat may have been good government. Fixing a problem ain't always the brightest move by long shot.
***The government, imo, did right despite the resulting collapse.***
Keep dreaming if you believe the mortgage market was a free market. :)
jablake: "Are you for real? It was more like an explicit guarantee. Almost like the explicit guarantee the U.S. government gave for its Silver Certificates or its Gold backed bonds."
I'm I for real? Are you?
Do you know what the fuck you are talking about at all? FNE, FRE, and AIG were nationalized precisely so they could meet their obligations. Have they defaulted? No. Did BSC, WAMU and others go bankrupt or near bankrupt despite this guarantee? Yes. Does that prove that their risk model sucked and there was more to it than FNE, FRE, and AIG implicit guarantees? Yes.
Will you ever be able to see past your blind hatred of the government to what really happened? No.
Is jablake a complete idiot? Definitely!
It hardly proves this wasn't a government game. You run from the issue. The mortgage market had government everywhere you looked. And, for good reason. To encourage home ownership and development. The government market collapsed---sorry, as much as you wish it, it wasn't a free market. Next you'll be telling the stripclubs here in Miami represent a free market. I'd laugh, but it isn't funny. The stories behind individual companies and what their risk models may or may not have been means ZERO. This is was and will be a government game at least for the next decade. The government is the King and was before the companies were "nationalized."
jablake:
Why don't you just admit you don't know enough about the subject and are pulling "facts" out of your ass? That's why you keeping getting things wrong, and making false claims. I'm surprised you are as confident as you are given your shaky grasp of the facts here.
Do you think it's possible that your lack of factual knowledge has kept you from knowing important facts that shows this was not, primarily, "the government's fault"?
I know you can't put down your ideology because it protects you from taking responsibility for your own mistakes and screwed up life. But if you could you might ask yourself this question... Hmmm... FNE and FRE have been around for a long time. How come this whole mortgage thing didn't blow up sooner? Was there an important new, unregulated market that came into existence just in the last decade that sent the system out of equilibrium and caused it to rapidly meltdown?
If it was the new unregulated market that caused the meltdown doesn't the blame primarily lie there rather than with the government?
jablake, do you even know enough about the situation to know what market I'm alluding? If not, I suggest you STFU, and go do some studying before continuing to spew your false "facts" and other idiocy here.
You wish to pretend the government didn't dominate the mortgage market as well as banking from A to Z. I consider that ridiculous. Your credibility is zero.
"How about that stripper?"
Well, the nicest that I've met are Southern black strippers by a landslide. Perhaps if I had more $$$ or lived in a different part of the country, then I'd have a different opinion.
jablake: as I said there was a very important new market that was unregulated, so no they did not dominate "a to z". See if you can find out what that market was then we can talk.
Until then, I will take it as demonstrated that you do not have enough factual knowledge to intelligent discuss the subject here.
Have a nice day!
"Yet the financial services industry is probably the most heavily regulated sector of the American economy, saddled with hundreds of laws, thousands of regulations and a plethora of government agencies. If red tape were the answer, this problem never would have happened." [view link]
See that is the government that I see day in and day out. You see a free market? Where?
Wall Street and the banks are highly regulated---it is as I've said a government game. The problem didn't go unseen. It was in the open for Congress to deal with especially since my reading of the hearings it centered primarily around the CRA. For a pundit or politician to speak of the "unregulated" markets is either misinformed or just an outright misstatement. I'd love to see substantial "unregulated" markets, btw.
jablake: Go study! Learn what the new unregulated market that came on the scene in just the last decade was. Then we can talk.
Put in a little effort here, would yah?
I'll tell you what, though, if you are still clueless by June 17th, come back here, admit you don't know (and, hence, that you have been talking out of you ass all thread). Then I'll give you a little hint to get you going.
Now run along and study up!
No Dougster,
There isn't an "unregulated" market. There are federal laws, state laws, court decisions, regulations, and more. Furthermore, even where there is *allegedly* an "unregulated" market the government sticks its nose in the as was the case with Long Term Capital. That encourages others to follow the same game in the belief government will come with free moneys.
Not only that corporations are creations of the government----very sleazy the way courts have applied the law to these government creations. It is what? A government game! It is how I got ripped off a few thousand dollars---true, I could have sold the shares and chose not to. Still everything in this country has the heavy stink of government---directly or indirectly---including stripclubs.
You came up with this lame ass garbage that I'm to blame. I'm to blame for the vile government shutting down the little stripclubs along W. Dixie Hwy? No, the government is to blame. The government is usually to blame whether it be adulterated TV programs (gov. anti-drug propaganda) or a censored craigslist. The mortgage mess was totally a government game.
As I said your credibility is zero.
I'll wait until the 17th. :) I don't believe in this country there is any financial business that doesn't have the stench of government on it. Some would claim Long Term Capital was such a venture----yeah sure that is why the government bailed it out.
lg- Southern girls more friendly?? Couldn't say for sure , but if you'll front some $$, I'd be glad to conduct some "research" into that question.
lp- California girl= universal melting pot. C'mon, I know that you adore Eastern Europeans just as much as "typical beach blonde", or petite, perky Peruvian Indian, or...............
Southern Charm ... whether she's from Detroit or Mobile ...
One thing I like about "Southern Girls" and the "traditional Southern approach," is that the girls seem to be able to somehow create an interpersonal connection with me, even though I know that there really shouldn't be one there based on the short time we've actually encountered each other.
I don't know if this is literally a Southern cultural (or genetic?) skill, or simply something we nowadays tend to associate with Southern charm and lifestyle. But, I have to say, I often feel like people are full of aggro, and out to make a conflict where there doesn't have to be one, when there's not a charming Southern Belle in the room. I really like this "automatic friendship" that some people seem to be able to instigate. There's one woman at Visions who just GETS the concept -- she and I are "very compatible"; then, five minutes after our mind-bending session together, she's magically "very compatible" with another guy who is totally different from me; and then with another. All of us pay her obscene amounts of money for her company, and I'm willing to bet that mostly we don't really mind, that it's probably an artificially created sense of compatibility. We're enjoying it, and she's making it happen. I wish I had her skills.
Maybe it's just me. Maybe I piss people off. But then, I'm going to the strip club and paying my money in order to have people interact with me and not get ruffled, and act like they approve of my company, even if they don't literally like me. But, I'd like for all my strip club experiences to include more women like the one I described, above, who dances at Visions. That's what I would call "Southern charm," even though it probably doesn't actually matter whether the girl is from South of the Mason-Dixon Line or not.
lol minnow - you got me. You're right - my preferences tend to run along the athletic/Russian/brunette or asian lines. But since they all live here in Cali, I lumped tham all in as California girls.
Never went in much for the blonde beach bunny. But I'm willing to learn!
I think that governmnent is friendlier in the south than in the north.
I think that strippers are also friendlier in the south than in the north. It's in the culture. Excuse me for not getting into the other matters. except fore this...
Libertarians have more fun.
Liberals have more guilt.
Conservatives usually have more money to have more fun.
Well, idiot jablake. Did you find the name of that unregulated market that was primarily responsible for the real estate bubble and bust? Did you even try and figure it out? Or are you so certain in your religion that you don't want to upset your belief that "it's always the government's fault"?
I didn't try. I don't believe every bit of nonsense that government tries to spread as the truth. Are you talking about the supposedly unregulated hedge funds?
It is the government's fault.
What religion? I want to see socialism on a massive scale.
The Southern customs take on the appearance of being more friendly, but they're just the same as people as anywhere else when it comes down to it. I stood next to a bartender the other day in a Southern club that started in with a waitress on how the club had too many blacks in it that day...right after smiling to a customer's face who fit the demo.
Take what you like about a place for what it's worth and understand that there's always another side you may or may not see.
jablake: your religious belief that "it's always the government's fault". No matter what the evidence that you are wrong nothing can convince you otherwise. You have no objectivity in the matter. When proven wrong you just pull made up "facts" out of your ass to support your conclusion. Even though your "facts" can easily be shown to be BS you convince yourself they must be true. It's comical that you believe your own BS on the subject.
You are a complete idiot, complete ignorant on the subject of the financial meltdown, but, worst of all, you aren't even troubled by the huge gaps in your factual knowledge.
Well bad news, idiot, your lack of factual has lead you to the wrong conclusion, again. But it's the conclusion you always want to believe. jablake can take no responsibility for his fucked up life so he knows in advance "it's the government's fault".
Ok, jablake, go study the unregulated CDS market. I can't wait to see how you twist and turn and grasp at straws and come to your incorrect but psychologically comforting conclusion "it's the government's fault".
I picked up tidbits on the propaganda channels. I also read a few articles via google. Here is a sample link of a story that I skimmed: [view link].
Here is a snippet from the article: "Regulators let the market grow unchecked. In the end, far too much of this insurance was written at way too cheap a cost. Now, with Wall Street and the economy in tatters, the fear that already-hobbled financial companies may have to pay off huge amounts on C.D.S. arrangements hangs like a cloud over the markets. C.D.S.’s have already figured prominently in taxpayer bailouts. The $150 billion rescue of the American International Group, for example, came about because of swaps the insurer had written on mortgage securities."
"Regulators let the market grow unchecked." What!!!!???? Regulators in this allegedly free market? LOL! Yep, more stench from government.
And, when the mortgages are go bad in your world people keep paying their credit card bills? No, it was the government's mortgage mess which there was more than ample warning about----however, the smart course of action may have been for the government to do nothing. That is right the government, imo, may have taken the correct course of action.
jablake: "Regulators let the market grow unchecked." What!!!!???? Regulators in this allegedly free market?
You are truly an idiot jablake. First of all which regulators? Which markets were they responsible for? And your very quote says these regulators left the CDS market alone, i.e. it was unregulated.
Are you now saying it was the government's fault for not regulating? So if they do regulate then it's there fault for regulating, and if they don't regulate then it's their fault for not regulating?
Hi Dougster,
No doubt there were regulators on top of regulators in this country. It wasn't a free market just as the stripclub market isn't a free market. I'm saying it is governments' fault for being in the market period. The government creates perverse incentives. The "implicit" guarantees in the mortgage market are a perfect example. The past government bailouts are a perfect example. Also, let's be clear even if the vile government got out that doesn't mean all problems would disappear. And, the government screwing around also creates wealth. A perfect example is the money from "thin air." I could be wrong, but I doubt there were would be nearly the wealth if government merely had honor its gold and silver backed money and obligations. The government fraud i.e. dishonoring its "full faith and credit" and its "explicit guarantees" also did a lot of harm in creating all manner of perverse incentives----its a government game. Look at many of the frauds and good old government is right there as cheerleader at the very least.
"Are you now saying it was the government's fault for not regulating?"
BTW, this is very backward thinking, imo. The backward thinking is it assumes that if only there was more regulation and more government then the problem would be solved or lessened. For example, if cocaine results in deaths, then government control will reduce the number of deaths. Fine and dandy, but a whole slew of new problems arise thanks to government. It is a government game. That doesn't mean the world would be perfect if you had a free market.
BTW, they were REGULATED markets that is shown by the fact that there were government regulators. These regulators can give innocent investors the very wrong impression of safety. The insurance markets are highly regulated so people believe government is protecting them when in fact the "protection" is on a whimsy or is flimsy----a government mess yet again.
jablake: "BTW, they were REGULATED markets that is shown by the fact that there were government regulators."
Your logic is pretty broken here, jablake. Other markets were regulated and had regulators. Therefore there are market regulators in this country. One little problem though. Not all markets were regulated by them. The CDS market was an exception. But if your claim it the CDS market was regulated why don't you tell us exactly who was regulating it and cite a reference to back up your claim? Once you realize you can't do that, do a search on "unregulated CDS market" to figure out why.
Despite the evidence, you seem to think that the CDS market market was as regulated as typical insurance markets. It was not. Why? As the very article you cited points out it was being used as least as much for pure speculation as it was for legitimate hedging. e.g. You could buy a CDS contract even if you no other interest that stood to lose if the underlying entity defaulted. Any example would be someone knowing that jablake is bad driving and thus making a "bet" that jablake gets into an accident. It gets even worse because, someone could buy so much insurance that it would reach the point that it was in his interest to do things to cause jablake to get into an accident.
Yes, they were regulated. The articles refer to the regulators *allowing* reduced capital requirements or allowing this or allowing that. Also, the perception is important and you seem to discount that totally. It is like the *implicit* government guarantee of Freddie and Fannie. You believe people would be taking these bets if the didn't see how regulated the business and exchanges and everything is in this country? Maybe or maybe on a much smaller scale. When a normal business person thinks AIG they rightfully believe the government will come to the rescue if things go bad----which increases acceptance and risk taking (the risk taking is probably inadvertent for the buyers because they think it is safe insurance thanks to government).
jablake: When it says "allow" it is by way of choosing not regulate. So the CDS market was unregulated. I read the article and saw something nothing about "allowing reduced capital requirements". That is claim you pulled straight out of your ass.
Again
***> tell me who the regulators of the CDS market were and cite a source to back up your claim <***
If cannot you need to STFU about this imagined regulation which did not exist in reality. Google will pull you up thousands of sources to show the CDS market was unregulated.
As for the "implicit guarantees". There were no such thing. Mortgages have been foreclosing all through this crisis. It's a big reason we have the crisis.
If there this "implicit guarantee" by FNE and FRE why is this happening? Again, instead of just conjecturing things (i.e. pulling them straight out of your ass) you need to cite exactly what this "implicit guarantee" was and provide some evidence. Give me some details. Did FNE and FRE implicit say the won't default on their bonds. That they would make payments for borrowers who defaulted? What was it implicitly understood to be?
Also please tell me why with all these implict guarentees did WAMU, and Lehman go bankrupt? Why Bear and Wachovia come within inches of bankruptcy?
jablake you really need to increase your factual knowledge of the situation before your flap your trap and utter your utter BS here.
I don't need STFU. If you asked me who the regulators of the insurance industry are I wouldn't be able to tell you and I wouldn't look it up. It is a government regulated market. People relied on the fact that AIG and the other insurers and banks and brokerages were heavily regulated. That is the point you keep missing---probably intentionally. :)
Now you're denying their was an implicit guarantee? Absurd. Besides just because there is a guarantee doesn't mean the government will honor it. You remember the silver backed currency and gold back government bonds that the government dishonored? Government isn't and hasn't been exactly honest in case you haven't figured that out----heaven forbid that I point out the obvious that government was to blame.
jablake: You are saying the CDS market was regulated just like the insurance market. You have absolutely no evidence to backup this claim, you just know, and you refuse to look at evidence to the contrary.
Unfortunately your claim is wrong and there is tons of evidence to demonstrate this, but you are unwilling to look at it. Thus, there is no point in discussing the matter with you since you are so obviously determined to keep your head in the sand.
No the CDS market was not a subset of the insurance market. I've explained this to you. Unregulated entities could deal CDS, even without an evidence of ability to pay in the case of credit events. You could buy unlimited insurance even if you stood to loose no loss from the credit events. Gee, jablake, do you think maybe all the regulation of the insurance industry came about in the first place not because the government is evil and out to get you, because they had learned from problems in the past? Do you think? Nah, your moronic conspiracy theory must be the real answer.
Also you better fucking believe I am denying your claim that FRE and FNM implicitly guaranteed no mortgage in the country would default. Given the number of foreclosures in the last few years it's completely obvious there was no such guarantee. If you claim that is because FNE and FRE did not honor their implicit guarantee you need to cite a source that such a guarantee existed in the first place. Either that or you need to STFU.
In fact, since you aren't willing to look at any evidence that your claims are wrong, you have no business thinking that you are right. You are worse than the worst religious fanatic. You might as well say you know because God whispered it in your "brain" (probably an abuse of the languge to call all that shit you have between your ears a brain) and you have "faith" in these voices.
Since you aren't willing to "put up" in my call to "put up or shut up" you know what you need to do, you fuckin' moron.
I wonder, which nation has the best strip clubs:
Socialist, Capitalist, Theocratic, Communist, or some other form of government and economic arrangement? I'm going to have to say anarchy plus socialism seems the best bet ...
82 comments