discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
Book GuyI write it like I mean it, but mostly they just want my money.
"But I think someone else would have found a way to convince uneducated borrowers to get in to a pool way too deep, over their heads"
They didn't need convincing. They needed opportunity. That is what was so wonderful about about the government's CRA. At the time my concern wasn't the loans, which were barely affordable; heaven forbid poor people get the opportunity to buy a home instead of renting themselves to everlasting poverty. My concern was the adjustable rate mortgages----remember their supposed to be helping these poor people by giving them opportunity to borrow----NOT screwing 'em with ARMS. Another well intentioned government program ends up screwing those it was supposed to help---no surprise there! :(
As the game was explained to me, the bankers planned on just refinancing every few years. That still would have been a better deal then renting by and large.
Many of those borrowers were given a Hobson's choice and, imo, it was the only real choice in at least there was hope. Paying skyrocketing rent would have left moving in with their friends or families. I had a complete family, Husband, Wife, and Two Children, living in my neighbor's tiny filthy garage----which they got kicked out of as soon as the Husband was away. But, hell they were there over a year. Think they would have refused a subprime loan? :) No, a subprime loan is wonderful to them compared to rents that were heading one way thanks to the government's printing presses.
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
Book GuyI write it like I mean it, but mostly they just want my money.
"Where would I have my money in the 70's? I'm not even going try and play that game? Deflation is the bigger worry right now, not hyperinflation."
Deflation seems like a very solvable problem. Government prints whatever amount of money is needed so that it can fund all manner of spending programs or "tax refunds" and boom before you know it full employment and rising prices.
My point was the double edge sword that the government's printing press creates. You can either invest in "appreciating" real assets by *whatever* means are available i.e. ARM loans as more money is pumped into the economy or you can wait. In the 70s waiting would have financially devastated you because the costs of living were rising so dramatically. Those who grabbed "expensive" loans and "expensive" property did very well by comparision because the inflation bailed them out. Even when the market corrected prices were much higher than in the 70s. So the bloke who didn't jump into a home he couldn't afford in the 70s was pretty much screwed big time. He wasted his money on ever rising rent and his dollar savings (what little was left after the cost of living was skyrocketing) was worth pennies due to inflation; again even after the market corrected years later.
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
Book GuyI write it like I mean it, but mostly they just want my money.
Seems like the good old days non-electronic transfers weren't even taking that long. Besides that seems like a problem government can solve without giving away hundreds of billions of dollars.
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
Book GuyI write it like I mean it, but mostly they just want my money.
"But I could see the market prices were over inflated, and I knew that it was not a good investment so I held off."
And, would you have held off buying during hyper inflation of the 70s? Where would you have put your money? In the stock market? Gold?
The game could have played out with even higher housing prices and ever higher rents. I remember the brutal inflation of 70s and a lot of people, especially those not invested in real estate, got screwed big time waiting for "lower prices." Even when the prices corrected they were still very high (much higher than the start of the inflationary spiral) and person waiting to buy got screwed by expensive rent payments while waiting for this magical correction.
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
Book GuyI write it like I mean it, but mostly they just want my money.
"Of course they were scared to lend to each other. Did ever you try transferring money between banks at this time, electronically? Especially away from one of the "bad" banks? Normally this just happens instantly because good bank gives bad bank credit. But this time around it took forever because the bad bank wasn't trusted to cover the transfer."
No, I haven't tried transferring money electronically from bank to bank. So because electronic transfers were delayed a few days that brings down the banking system? :) True, it isn't efficient and seems like an area the government could do a lot of good, but hardly seems like the cotter pin of the U.S. economy. If the economy is that fragile, then damn this country is far more messed up than I believed.
My point about AIG is that people trusted it for damn good reason. The government is going to allow it to collapse? Remember there is a history with Long Term Capital and other financial concerns were the rule is too big to allow to fail. That is a government decision and breeds both confidence and recklessness. Additionally, I'm sure AIG created different financial products, but it is highly regulated. And, the government was put on alert years earlier (hell, if nothing else LTC should have been a good slap in the face), but maybe the right choice was for the government to do nothing and let the game play out. Remember a lot of good was done with all that money.
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
Book GuyI write it like I mean it, but mostly they just want my money.
The borrower isn't even 1% responsible because the government created a situation where a person could easily get screwed if he doesn't borrow (by government printed money i.e. inflation) or if he does borrow (the economy tanks taking housing and jobs with it). It horrible position to be placed in, but the smart choice, imo, was to gamble on rising prices---at least you aren't getting clobbered by expensive rent.
A friend many years ago was working his tail off---not a bright guy, but a very hard worker---and saving his pennies while paying expensive rent. So he has about $10,000 in the bank (and remember he is wasting money on rent while he is saving pennies) and at the time it is enough for a downpayment. Oh no, the "brain surgeon" wants to pay all cash and besides he is always worried about losing his job and not being able to meet the mortgage payment.
Of course, you know what happened? The housing prices inflated to such an extent that his $10,000 in savings thanks to government inflation was essentially worthless. It is extremely risky to keep your money in savings like T-Bills, etc. if you have a government that believes (President Bush, the supposed conservative repeatedly chirped about how wonderful a cheaper (read inflated) dollar would be) in devaluing its currency via its printing press.
So what is the poor borrower to do? He can either face his savings being destroyed by government inflation or he can gamble on getting a little bit of security in the form of homeownership. BOTH are gambles, iows, it is a gamble to hold the cash and it is a gamble to borrower.
The government, imo, is 100% responsible for creating this NO WIN situation for many borrowers. In the 70s people who gambled on buying a home were richly rewarded while those who held cash got screwed by the government's inflation big time. :(
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
Book GuyI write it like I mean it, but mostly they just want my money.
"Many companies that caught up in the whole mess were coerced into accepting the bad debt. I'm sure you've heard of ACORN and others of the type."
Seems like a straight forward point to address or dispute. The Wall Street did story after story about how the banks were being "wrongly" threatened by the likes of ACORN.
Thumbs up to the government on this one---the banks needed a heavy hand directed at them, imo. (In a free market, I would say the banks need to be left alone and make loans to whoever they wish. For example, no loans to females? No problem. No loans to asians? No problem. It isn't a free market, especially banking, so thumbs up to the government pushing a helpful social program on the banks.)
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
Book GuyI write it like I mean it, but mostly they just want my money.
"such that banks got scared to lend to lend to each other due to inability to collect knowledge about each other's exposure to subprime MBSs."
I've head this repeated ad nauseum in media and I doubt there is any validity to it. Banks are depending on other banks (besides the FED) for their money? NO, my understanding and I could be wrong is that it was the feds job to provide liquidity to the banking system----they have the "printing press" so turn the spigot on unless there are ulterior motives at work such as screwing smaller banks. :)
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
Book GuyI write it like I mean it, but mostly they just want my money.
Why would these private businessmen care about their companies? That is just unusual thinking, imo, givern the goverment framework and foundation that has evolved. It is like Burke Mills. Supposedly, its quick sale asset value was $15 to $18 a share for just its real estate holdings, for years and years it traded at about a $1 a share. In a free country the problem of the shareholders being screwed could have been remedied by a LBO, which the media mainly like lemmings frowned upon and the government passed laws to "solve the problem" of LBOs. Burke Mills is 20 or so years later going bankrupt after the businessmen looted the company and of course the shareholders will receive $0.
Before the much heralded $700 billion dollar bailout the media was reporting that the Fed injected a half trillion into the banking system. Considering the difficulty of valuing these "assets" it is possible that if the government is paying 5 cents on the dollar a profit is being made. :)
AIG is highly deregulated? Next you'll be telling me banking is highly deregulated. Besides if these mortgages behind the CDOs are actually secured implicitly or explicity by the government then it seems like problem solved---government just pays in full. A friend of mine has 2 homes going into foreclosure---it seems like again the government is the problem (assuming I'm getting the straight story from the mortgage servicer; yes, a big assumption). Anyway, it would make more sense to cut her interest to 6% so that she can afford the mortgages---seems like the "parties" are in agreement that is the best solution. The problem supposedly is that government "rules" prohibit the lending for more than properties are worth---normally a prudent rule. Not, so prudent in the face of RE market collapse so she will lose and mortgagee will lose assuming the government doesn't bail 'em out. No, I'm not sure the mortgage servicing company is correct either in good faith or factually.
It isn't a question of ideology. It is more like the proof is in pudding. Besides, the government can do a lot of good and private businesses can screw up even if the government is nowhere in sight. I was reading about this problem years and years before "the shit hit the fan." This wasn't some deep dark secret that suddenly sprang upon the government. For good or bad (remember the boom did a lot of good) the government chose to let the game continue and people depended on the government being Mr. Printing Press/Mr. Guarantor if things got bad.
Some people are going to lose money? Yes, I think if the investors of Long Term Capital weren't SUPER RICH the government would have let them go broke. It is sort of like how the 100,000 FDIC is actually unlimited---your deposits are protected for millions IF you choose the right big bang. Choose the wrong bank i.e. a smaller bank the government is only going to give you $100,000. :) Is that equal protection of the laws? Who knows.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Over at The Trap a couple of years ago one of the customers got drunk and really made a huge scene. The two security guys had to finally take him out yelling and screaming.
The manager's reaction was pretty much oh well, I hope he isn't having real problems at work or home. I said to the manager after that scene you're worried about his job or home life? He said, well people do go off the deep end or need to let off steam.
I did have a problem over at RolLexx with an obnoxious DJ and bartender and was threatened with removal from the club. I definitely didn't want any trouble---I'm old and sickly---so I let things calm down. On my return everyone was in a good mood----no problems at all. I always try and remember to "turn the other cheek" (actually more like try and keep a low profile) because the person could be having a bad day or whatever. It isn't about right or wrong in the least . . . it is about not making a bad situation worse.
I doubt in a few weeks anyone will remember too much or care too much.
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
Book GuyI write it like I mean it, but mostly they just want my money.
"Once again I am impressed with the intelligence and knowledge of the regulars on this quasi-blog. If the girls only knew!"
Exactly. :) Alas, the dancers got better things to do like washing their hair or starring in videos.
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
Book GuyI write it like I mean it, but mostly they just want my money.
One unusual and perhaps unwarranted ripple effect is that my employer who was always rah rah rah Buy American lost that zeal. He had always bought American made cars for himself and his family and his business and even for his employees.
Most people, perhaps correctly, would think that being screwed by a corrupt court system has NOTHING to do with whether a person chooses to Buy American. I see my former employer's point and actually applaud it. There is an old rule in economics and I think in law? that beware of the unintended consequences. Anyway, in court case that had absolutely nothing to with them the American auto manufacturer saw hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of business forever switched to the foreign auto manufacturers. :) Life just ain't fair, but he really shouldn't have been buying American in the first place, imo.
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
Book GuyI write it like I mean it, but mostly they just want my money.
My former employer had purchased some type of business insurance that would pay the bills (employee salaries, for example) in the case where the business couldn't continue operations due to disaster. Well, a hurricane hit and this expensive insurance was looking like a very good buy. The power meter had been ripped from the wall, but other than that the building suffered very little damage---yes, a "new roof" was needed, but that can be done dirt cheap depending on what and who you know.
Of course, my former employer had a bunch of employees who needed to be paid even though they couldn't do productive work without power----it took months to get the power back. Fortunately, the employer believed in saving for an emergency even though he had expensive insurance so when the insurance company refused to pay, the employer stepped up and kept paying with NO money coming in. Very painful and basically it depleted his hard earned savings. :(
He asked me to read the relevant portion of the insurance contract and I basically said that he needed to hire a lawyer. He said that he'd already hired a lawyer, but just wanted my opinion. My opinion was that he had a very good case (the contract language was surprisingly clear), but don't have any faith in the courts. He says his attorney told him exactly the same thing.
How many years did the employer spend in court? Seven years. And, he got got screwed royally. The court system is basically a giant fraud----yes, you can win, but win or lose it is a giant fraud. The positive news is that he only carries insurance that is mandated by the government. Why pay expenwsive premiums if the insurance companies are just going to use the courts to rip you off?
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
Book GuyI write it like I mean it, but mostly they just want my money.
To buy (assuming you have a choice) Windstorm insurance or not? Well, one neighbor was extremely under insured (he is low income) and another neighbor had NO insurance (also low income). Of course, both the homes were "destroyed" in a hurricane.
They both got screwed?--especially the homeowner with NO insurance, right? Nope. You need to add government to the equation and that includes not only the corruptness of its courts, but also its probable responses in a catastrophe. The homeowner with NO insurance got a brand new home much better than the original, while the underinsured homeowner got royally raped.
(Even those who are fully insured can get royally screwed thanks to government's courts, btw. Yes, I know difficult to believe and it might be only a few cases----but, even after buying "full coverage" insurance a homeowner can be royally screwed in the government's courts. A very wealthy man had his home, more than a mansion, severly damaged by tornadoes during a hurricane. Unfortunately, for him he owned the home free and clear. The expensive insurance premiums that he had paid for decades were finally going to pay and he would be protected? Yeah, right! LOL! No, he found himself in the government's courts for years and years and years spending huge amounts for lawyers, which is how the scam is supposed to work. So, first pay expensive insurance premiums for years and years and then pay expensive lawyers for years and years.)
discussion comment
16 years ago
I don't see any harm in trying to go back unless you made a super scene and if that is the case give it a few weeks.
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
Book GuyI write it like I mean it, but mostly they just want my money.
"Many companies that caught up in the whole mess were coerced into accepting the bad debt. I'm sure you've heard of ACORN and others of the type."
That was definitely part of the problem, however, it went a lot deeper than that. Why not treat the business as a giant gamble? Why be prudent? What exactly are penalties of failure?
Going out of business? Well, yes to little fish who had nothing to with the failure that is a huge penalty, but the big boys pockets were already stuffed with cash by the time the game was shown to imprudent and or a fraud. Even better, failure might bring in even more $$$$$$$$$ from the government like it was raining from heaven. :) So the government screws around with the "free market" with not only a legal sword where dumb decisions may be the best decision to save your ass, but there is also the reward of short term profits. Failure? Well government could make even that rewarding for the top dogs. :)
In the court system often the more an attorney screws up the case the more heavily he is rewarded. Is this a failure of the "free market"? Nope, it is basically a huge government fraud. I had a very simple case that went on for years and years. It should have been decided in less than a couple hours. It was just a government scam by the government judge so that he could award thousands and thousand in "reasonable attorneys' fees." It is just 100% corruption and then more corruption. :) I had the Judge tell me there was "No difference between a Warranty Deed and a Quit Claim Deed." :) The Judge definitely knew the difference, but he was a hoodlum who is above the law.
Basically, my opinion is screw the alleged "free market" and put the government 100% in charge with everyone being a government employee. :)
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
Book GuyI write it like I mean it, but mostly they just want my money.
"Nope, the deregulated free market self-destructed just fine on its own here."
It wasn't and isn't a free market and it definitely wasn't deregulated. :) Sorry, but I was watching a Senator get "uppity" with Treasury Secretary Paulson who didn't take even a little BS at that point and with contempt he told the Senator the taxpayers are already on the hook. :) Now, the Congress according to a 5-4 Supreme Court decision isn't bound by its own contracts so technically the Treasury Secretary was wrong.
And, why were these CDOs being purchased by non-government investors? Could it have anything to do with the "implicit" government guarantees? :) Could it have anything to with the fact the insurance industry in the US is highly regulated AND again there are either explicit or implicit government guarantees. Gee, you really think the nitwit government is going to let insurance giant AIG go under? :) NO, NO, NO! It just wasn't going to happen and if it did, then the Great Depression might look like a small correction.
The private profit maximizers did exactly what they should have been doing and that is to trust AIG was backed 100% by the government. That was just good business and their pockets were lined with millions as a result.
Way back, The Wall Street Journal did a series of articles on Long Term Capital and I believe its worst annual return for its super wealthy investors was 40% and over a 100% return wasn't unusual. Of course it collapsed and its "assets" were worthless; something like 3% of its pre crash value. Anyway, were these private profit maximizers stupid? :) Gee, depends on who you ask. Some saw it as a failure of the free market-----funny how those free market types got the government to pick up the tab and the investors got ALL their money returned PLUS ALL their interest. :) The free market types didn't fail they took advantage of the game---the government's game.
Now, before you infer that I believe the profit maximizers never fail or are never stupid let me say that just isn't the case. However, with the recent failure it was profit maximizers doing their best given the rules of the government's game. And, the profit maximizers were generally right. In fact, I can see some of these guys doing better failing than if the bets hadn't soured. :) Failure can be smart and winning if the government is around with billions or trillions of free money. :)
100% blame goes to the nitwit government!!! :)
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
Book GuyI write it like I mean it, but mostly they just want my money.
Doesn't seem like a problem with a lack of regulation from what you described. Sounds like incompetent and or corrupt government again. A good businessman will maximize profits and if the government is too stupid or inept to avoid getting burnt, then it hardly seems like a clarion call for more regulation or a blame of deregulation.
Not a big deal----there is an endless supply of government money. :)
discussion comment
16 years ago
![]()
Book GuyI write it like I mean it, but mostly they just want my money.
Deregulation is the problem? Or, maybe it government guarantors such as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, as well as the government's legal framework such as corporations (are directors actually responsible to their shareholders?) as well as the government's mandates such as the CRI (community reinvestment act).
It is difficult believe that deregulation was the problem when there were tons of government regulations on the books (maybe lack of enforcement?)-----it sounded like when the mess came to light years earlier government just looked the other way. :)
More regulation is going to make the government do a better job? Or, perhaps the country just needs more government employees . . . I think about 100% of the population is a good number. :)
discussion comment
16 years ago
Sounds about right as long as you aren't physically addicted.
discussion comment
16 years ago
I always thought it was on of the deader nights like Valentines and Mother's Day.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Without boxers or briefs.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Yes, in one case where a man got a severe prison sentence he had according to the government (take with bucket of salt) written over the data with a program designed for "cleaning" ---- 27 TIMES!!! Talk about paranoid, but with cause apparently.
I looked into just encrypting my computer (not there is anything interesting, but with hackers who knows), but since I'm not a techie it was a little beyond my comfort level. Also, I was thinking even if it was encrypted that won't stop a bunch of scum who beyond corrupt.
discussion comment
16 years ago
If I grabbed a hold of it without seeing it first, then it definitely give me a scare especially if I was in an area notorious for chicks with dicks. I'd be thinking that I'd grabbed one of those micro penises.
The sad thing is when a chick with dick looks better than the regular dancers. That happened at Angels. The HUGE dancer was dancing and despite her massive size she wasn't a typically blubber blob. Unfortunately, for those who want a big woman who isn't a blubber blob this woman was actually a man. Blubber blob or a better looking man? Damn, again I have to wonder about my hetero status if those were the only forced choices.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Hi evilcyn,
Over at Angels some of the dancers are crazy about trying to stretch their labia minora to huge sizes. They think it is attractive--I prefer smaller of just about everything except the clit.
This one young scorcher had me thinking maybe I'm gay. Her clit was humongous. Definitely bigger than some guys penises. Anyway, irrationally, I'm thinking this girl is built for receiving pleasure---because it is so developed. Unfortunately, for me, she was one of those girls who would not stay at this club--not enough money for her. Surprisingly, she didn't realize how hot she was, which in this day and age is a pleasant surprise. She had my heart pounding BOOM BOOM BOOM just on sight. If she wanted to play GFE, then she'd could probably give me a heart attack. :)
So when comparing pussies in the dressing room what in the world are they looking for? Huge labias like at Angels?