Okay, many actors to blame. I can accept that. But ACORN? Seriously? They have absolutely nothing to do with home loans, they are a non-profit, non-partisan group dedicated to registering people to vote. You know McCain was a key note speaker at their conferences, right?
As for the CRA, that is a voluntary program. In fact, banks that adopt the CRA program tend to do several things right. They are much less likely to repackage and resell the debt, and as a result they are less likely to make dangerous loans. The default rate of loans issues under the CRA is actually less than the average default rate.
Okay, what proportion of the blame belongs to the loan buyers and what proportion belongs to the sellers, in this case? Why even emphasize the buyers' role? A cautionary tale? What is the point of apportioning fault in this case? Is it to excuse the bankers? Or hurt the people who lost their homes? Perhaps you don't want to have to feel sorry for them? Maybe you want to feel smugly superior to them? I just don't get why you are emphasizing the portion of the blame belonging to the home buyers.
So, the victims are to blame, not the con artists? Where do you, personally, draw the line? If you get shot, is that your fault for walking in the wrong neighborhood? If a drunk driver hits you, is it your fault for not looking both ways crossing the street?
Given that home prices were rising, isn't the con plausible? What is there to research? The banker, who you THINK has a vested interest in you paying off your loan (he doesn't, because he's reselling it to some other sucker) is telling you it will all work out. Sounds great, right? I mean, why would he lie to you? Maybe YOU understood all this before the crash (hindsight is perfect, eh?) but most people are not educated in finance, so they just have to trust that the person offering them a loan is not lying.
This is just more blaming the victims. I find it reprehensible.
The folks who bought ARMs were sold a bill of goods: sure it SEEMS like a bad deal, but real estate is going up, up, up! You can always refinance in a year or two using the equity from the increase in property price! It's like printing money!
Don't try to cover up being a pussy by being an asshole, women see right through that. It doesn't matter if you are angry and desperate or kind and desperate. Desperation is a turn off. You don't need to be an ass, you need self confidence. I know, easier said than done, right? Just remember, there are plenty of women out there just as desperate as you are.
Subprime lending has very little to do with the current recession. The default rate is only slightly higher than average. The real problems have to do with derivatives, naked shorting and other financial shenanigans that Washington has refused to regulate. When we repackage debt, and insurance on said debt, and resell both dozens of times over, even a slight increase in defaults will knock over the whole house of cards. When we allow people to sell stocks they don't even own, and haven't even borrowed as in regular shorting, nothing but chaos can ensue.
In short, it is not the poor, who were simply patsies, who caused this mess. It was, as always, the greedy rich. Blaming the poor and those who try to help them get a fair shake is simply despicable.
You will convince more people if you refrain from lashing out in anger. If all you are trying to do is feel better about yourself by putting other people down, your strategy is sound. If you are trying to, you know, argue a point, calling someone a moron is hardly the most effective strategy. Take it from someone who has been calling people morons for decades, it doesn't work.
This right here is why you never get laid. Getting angry at all women because none of them will ever have sex with you is a surefire way to stay a virgin forever.
And you are just shouting "Shut up! Everything's fine! Don't rock the boat!" which is even more content-free than the original post. People are going to speak out about unfairness, you may as well get used to it. Because whining about whiners won't change anything unless whining is an effective strategy, in which case, why whine about it?
There's a wide range of IT jobs in between 'help desk worker' and 'PhD Computer Scientist,' and in most of those in-between jobs, experience counts for more than a college degree.
Oh my god! A REAL anarcho-capitalist! I have absolutely no problems with your brand of anarcho-capitalism, as you do not endorse government backed property rights. Which is rare among anarcho-capitalists. Forgive me for making assumptions. Nothing in your system precludes me from doing my anarcho-syndicalist thing. I don't want a huge anarcho-syndicalist nation, I want to do things on a local level.
That is so close to being a haiku, how about: I use the Lifebook For two years and it seems it Will last a few more
Or if you want it to be more like a real haiku, we change the last line to incorporate a season: I use the Lifebook For two years and it seems it Will last through the spring
Density is key to efficient mass transit. In order to encourage riders, transit needs many routes going where they want to go, and that can't be efficient if there are only a few people on each route. I'm interested to find out your sources for the claim that government encouraged low density planning.
As for natural monopolies, of course it's more complicated than I've made it. I understand that in the long term, anti monopolistic forces in the market will put a cap on what even a monopoly can charge. But that doesn't negate the concept, which is itself more complicated than simply 'one company in the market.' The definition has more to do with the marginal cost of entry into a market.
I also understand that freedom is more important to you than market efficiency. It is to me too. We just have different ideas about what hinders freedom more. You worry that government will reduce freedom, I worry that businesses will use economic force to reduce freedom. As Adam Smith said, "Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all." And in a libertarian system, that is all government is for: to protect the property of the rich from the poor. Again, I ask: what does your system offer non-property owners? Why should they agree to it? Because of course we both agree, a system imposed by force is no valid system at all.
Roads, or rail both are natural monopolies. You can't run two of them from the same place, to the same place. Roads were subsidized, and this let transit operators profit. Your analysis of mass transit versus auto usage is flawed, as it does not take into account the many other factors at play. Do you know who bought up and crushed many of those lovely free market mass transit systems? Oil and car companies. The free market allows manipulation of entire markets. Government control doesn't.
Roads are a great example of a natural monopoly, and thus unsuitable candidates for the free market. Even at the turn of the century, the roads were mostly publicly owned. Mass transit is a great example of an externality, a public good. When someone rides mass transit, that is a benefit to everyone else in the region, as it relieves congestion on the roads and reduces pollution. But as everyone else is not required to subsidize your trips, they are getting that benefit for free in a free market situation. Benefit is not maximized.
Technically, Wall Street is the Capo di tutti Capi directing their Uomini D'onore, Congress, on who to shake down. Leave it to a troll who's name is deliberately reminiscent of 'hairy vagina' to defend Wall Street.
No, most pirates were not privateers. But most privateers were also pirates. The reason being, privateers could only get Letters of Marque and Reprisal when their country was at war, and the letters only covered attacking enemy shipping. What did privateers do during the times their country was not at war? They turned to outright piracy.
The idea of modern countries handing out letters of Marque is ridiculous. Implying the pirates are after oil is just dumb. Saying the pirates don't have a lot to gain in the long run is also stupid, and shows how uneducated you are on the matter. Just look at the ransoms they receive. You only have to do it once. This is not some kind of Pirates of the Caribbean secret order of pirates. This is groups of starving desperate men trying for the Big Score. They take what they can get, and hope the shipping company will pay a ransom rather than see their ship sunk. They aren't selling oil and goods on the black market.
The Pinkertons shot first in the Homestead strike. There was no cannon. No scabs were hurt. In the final standoff, workers did throw dynamite, after several were wounded by fire from the Pinkertons' barges. You've bought the Pinkerton propaganda hook, line, and sinker. The early history of the labor movement is full of brutality from the owning class, you need to read more history.
I don't believe we should necessarily destroy all private rights to own the means of production, but I do think we need to guarantee that everyone has access to some means of production. As I said, the free market works well for some thing. But in all places where the free market naturally fails, we should have democratic control.
No, the government didn't set the standards. They just said, you can't have two sets of standards, one for whites, one for minorities. They did not say everyone gets a loan. Having two sets of standards is the ONLY thing that will get you sued for discrimination. If you have tough standards, they apply to everyone.
So, because we still have a Fed, nothing anyone did was based on the Austrian school. See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. If we got rid of the Fed, it would be something else. It's always something.
Hahaha, you libertarians. Anytime your plans don't work, you claim they weren't followed correctly. Neo-cons, starting with Reagan, enacted many Austrian based policies. They have failed, and you can't credibly claim that is was because they weren't Austrian enough.
Of course. All I am saying is that, on average, if you get money for something, whatever motivation you had for doing it aside from receiving money is decreased.
Show me a real oligopoly that even pretends to be democratic, or allows any public oversight. When government sucks, it is because we let it suck. We have the tools to make it great.
Thankfully, the Austrian school has totally discredited themselves b screwing up the world economy with their self-serving 'theories,' and nobody listens to them anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the kind of reaction that makes it all worthwhile. You really made my day, thanks.
Okay, many actors to blame. I can accept that. But ACORN? Seriously? They have absolutely nothing to do with home loans, they are a non-profit, non-partisan group dedicated to registering people to vote. You know McCain was a key note speaker at their conferences, right?
As for the CRA, that is a voluntary program. In fact, banks that adopt the CRA program tend to do several things right. They are much less likely to repackage and resell the debt, and as a result they are less likely to make dangerous loans. The default rate of loans issues under the CRA is actually less than the average default rate.
Okay, what proportion of the blame belongs to the loan buyers and what proportion belongs to the sellers, in this case? Why even emphasize the buyers' role? A cautionary tale? What is the point of apportioning fault in this case? Is it to excuse the bankers? Or hurt the people who lost their homes? Perhaps you don't want to have to feel sorry for them? Maybe you want to feel smugly superior to them? I just don't get why you are emphasizing the portion of the blame belonging to the home buyers.
So, the victims are to blame, not the con artists? Where do you, personally, draw the line? If you get shot, is that your fault for walking in the wrong neighborhood? If a drunk driver hits you, is it your fault for not looking both ways crossing the street?
Given that home prices were rising, isn't the con plausible? What is there to research? The banker, who you THINK has a vested interest in you paying off your loan (he doesn't, because he's reselling it to some other sucker) is telling you it will all work out. Sounds great, right? I mean, why would he lie to you? Maybe YOU understood all this before the crash (hindsight is perfect, eh?) but most people are not educated in finance, so they just have to trust that the person offering them a loan is not lying.
This is just more blaming the victims. I find it reprehensible.
The folks who bought ARMs were sold a bill of goods: sure it SEEMS like a bad deal, but real estate is going up, up, up! You can always refinance in a year or two using the equity from the increase in property price! It's like printing money!
Don't try to cover up being a pussy by being an asshole, women see right through that. It doesn't matter if you are angry and desperate or kind and desperate. Desperation is a turn off. You don't need to be an ass, you need self confidence. I know, easier said than done, right? Just remember, there are plenty of women out there just as desperate as you are.
Subprime lending has very little to do with the current recession. The default rate is only slightly higher than average. The real problems have to do with derivatives, naked shorting and other financial shenanigans that Washington has refused to regulate. When we repackage debt, and insurance on said debt, and resell both dozens of times over, even a slight increase in defaults will knock over the whole house of cards. When we allow people to sell stocks they don't even own, and haven't even borrowed as in regular shorting, nothing but chaos can ensue.
In short, it is not the poor, who were simply patsies, who caused this mess. It was, as always, the greedy rich. Blaming the poor and those who try to help them get a fair shake is simply despicable.
You will convince more people if you refrain from lashing out in anger. If all you are trying to do is feel better about yourself by putting other people down, your strategy is sound. If you are trying to, you know, argue a point, calling someone a moron is hardly the most effective strategy. Take it from someone who has been calling people morons for decades, it doesn't work.
This right here is why you never get laid. Getting angry at all women because none of them will ever have sex with you is a surefire way to stay a virgin forever.
And you are just shouting "Shut up! Everything's fine! Don't rock the boat!" which is even more content-free than the original post. People are going to speak out about unfairness, you may as well get used to it. Because whining about whiners won't change anything unless whining is an effective strategy, in which case, why whine about it?
There's a wide range of IT jobs in between 'help desk worker' and 'PhD Computer Scientist,' and in most of those in-between jobs, experience counts for more than a college degree.
Oh my god! A REAL anarcho-capitalist! I have absolutely no problems with your brand of anarcho-capitalism, as you do not endorse government backed property rights. Which is rare among anarcho-capitalists. Forgive me for making assumptions. Nothing in your system precludes me from doing my anarcho-syndicalist thing. I don't want a huge anarcho-syndicalist nation, I want to do things on a local level.
That is so close to being a haiku, how about:
I use the Lifebook
For two years and it seems it
Will last a few more
Or if you want it to be more like a real haiku, we change the last line to incorporate a season:
I use the Lifebook
For two years and it seems it
Will last through the spring
Density is key to efficient mass transit. In order to encourage riders, transit needs many routes going where they want to go, and that can't be efficient if there are only a few people on each route. I'm interested to find out your sources for the claim that government encouraged low density planning.
As for natural monopolies, of course it's more complicated than I've made it. I understand that in the long term, anti monopolistic forces in the market will put a cap on what even a monopoly can charge. But that doesn't negate the concept, which is itself more complicated than simply 'one company in the market.' The definition has more to do with the marginal cost of entry into a market.
I also understand that freedom is more important to you than market efficiency. It is to me too. We just have different ideas about what hinders freedom more. You worry that government will reduce freedom, I worry that businesses will use economic force to reduce freedom. As Adam Smith said, "Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all." And in a libertarian system, that is all government is for: to protect the property of the rich from the poor. Again, I ask: what does your system offer non-property owners? Why should they agree to it? Because of course we both agree, a system imposed by force is no valid system at all.
Roads, or rail both are natural monopolies. You can't run two of them from the same place, to the same place. Roads were subsidized, and this let transit operators profit. Your analysis of mass transit versus auto usage is flawed, as it does not take into account the many other factors at play. Do you know who bought up and crushed many of those lovely free market mass transit systems? Oil and car companies. The free market allows manipulation of entire markets. Government control doesn't.
Roads are a great example of a natural monopoly, and thus unsuitable candidates for the free market. Even at the turn of the century, the roads were mostly publicly owned. Mass transit is a great example of an externality, a public good. When someone rides mass transit, that is a benefit to everyone else in the region, as it relieves congestion on the roads and reduces pollution. But as everyone else is not required to subsidize your trips, they are getting that benefit for free in a free market situation. Benefit is not maximized.
Technically, Wall Street is the Capo di tutti Capi directing their Uomini D'onore, Congress, on who to shake down. Leave it to a troll who's name is deliberately reminiscent of 'hairy vagina' to defend Wall Street.
No, most pirates were not privateers. But most privateers were also pirates. The reason being, privateers could only get Letters of Marque and Reprisal when their country was at war, and the letters only covered attacking enemy shipping. What did privateers do during the times their country was not at war? They turned to outright piracy.
The idea of modern countries handing out letters of Marque is ridiculous. Implying the pirates are after oil is just dumb. Saying the pirates don't have a lot to gain in the long run is also stupid, and shows how uneducated you are on the matter. Just look at the ransoms they receive. You only have to do it once. This is not some kind of Pirates of the Caribbean secret order of pirates. This is groups of starving desperate men trying for the Big Score. They take what they can get, and hope the shipping company will pay a ransom rather than see their ship sunk. They aren't selling oil and goods on the black market.
The Pinkertons shot first in the Homestead strike. There was no cannon. No scabs were hurt. In the final standoff, workers did throw dynamite, after several were wounded by fire from the Pinkertons' barges. You've bought the Pinkerton propaganda hook, line, and sinker. The early history of the labor movement is full of brutality from the owning class, you need to read more history.
I don't believe we should necessarily destroy all private rights to own the means of production, but I do think we need to guarantee that everyone has access to some means of production. As I said, the free market works well for some thing. But in all places where the free market naturally fails, we should have democratic control.
No, the government didn't set the standards. They just said, you can't have two sets of standards, one for whites, one for minorities. They did not say everyone gets a loan. Having two sets of standards is the ONLY thing that will get you sued for discrimination. If you have tough standards, they apply to everyone.
So, because we still have a Fed, nothing anyone did was based on the Austrian school. See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. If we got rid of the Fed, it would be something else. It's always something.
Hahaha, you libertarians. Anytime your plans don't work, you claim they weren't followed correctly. Neo-cons, starting with Reagan, enacted many Austrian based policies. They have failed, and you can't credibly claim that is was because they weren't Austrian enough.
Of course. All I am saying is that, on average, if you get money for something, whatever motivation you had for doing it aside from receiving money is decreased.
Show me a real oligopoly that even pretends to be democratic, or allows any public oversight. When government sucks, it is because we let it suck. We have the tools to make it great.
Thankfully, the Austrian school has totally discredited themselves b screwing up the world economy with their self-serving 'theories,' and nobody listens to them anymore.