Are you sure? Or you pull that from your backside? Different strokes for different folks. Of course, there's another drug that "intellectuals" partake in. Baseless indignation.
Luck still has a lot to do with it. The sweat of your brow alone will only get you so far. No excuses for the folks that aren't reaching for better, but there's a reason it's called a "trap"
The article is absolutely correct. But it also fails to take into account that the new jobs are lower paying while inflation decreases the value of the new wages.
I'm calling shenanigans on this one. Here in the US, KBR and Halliburton along with other defense contractors put out the lowest budget product with the largest profit margin possible... that does not make for responsible uses of our tax dollars. Hold your government accountable for its ineptitude and change the culture sounds like a pipe dream, but why go for the easy targets that give us short term roi and long term continued failings? I don't want my government perverted by a profit motive. Its been happening for the past few decades in earnest and it's gotten us nowhere positive.
If I were getting put away for a long time, I'd have a few people with a thumb drive and as soon as the conviction fell, it'd be blasted to every sharing site on the web. Let em spend their cash trying to contain that collateral they use to borrow millions against. It'd be interesting to see what the math geeks and analysts make of the code.
If they're gonna be frying him like this, why don't he let everyone get a peek at what's so important? They're gonna keep hammering him til something sticks, why not spill the beans?
Man, that's some good righteous condemnation right there. Instead of wrapping your brain around the idea of depriving someone of life being immoral in itself, you lambast the guy as if he's taking part in "honor" killings himself. Then you proceed to call him a child. Do you get nosebleeds that high up on your horse?
We can get legal amphetamines, legal gamblings, but folks can't smoke a bowl without the Feds busting up the place... I wonder why that is? If our country is running out of money, why are our politicians getting so stinking rich?
Once a bank reaches critical mass and they can afford to lose customers, their game changes. It goes from gaining/serving customers to maximizing profits. At that point, it's about cutting services and raising prices. After all, your stock price HAS to continue to climb, even if they aren't bringing in new customers. It doesn't matter if you drop ~1000 customers if you make up the difference on the backside. At least the new regulation is giving people a reason to diversify their banking.
It's said that people are ultimately responsible for their actions, and I agree. Wholeheartedly... Because in the end, when someone if boned, it's their reality. Thankfully, we've got the division of labor thing going so people don't have to be lenders or real estate agents to get a home. Whose burden of responsibility is it to say "No, you can't have that home"? I keep hearing that it's government regulation with the Community Reinvestment Act that caused it, but the act was only compulsory to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which handled roughly 33% of the secondary loans to low income families. That left 66% loosening up their underwriting standards and giving loans to people that were guaranteed to not be able to afford them. The 66% were companies not covered under the CRA, which did not have to give out the loans. The only reason the loans were a good investment was because they could be repackaged into CDOs and sold off, leaving the risk with the last sucker holding the bag, which was not the underwriting firm. They didn't have a pound of flesh in the game after the securities were sold. The individuals who could not pay the mortgage lacked the sophistication to tell they couldn't afford it was only part of the problem. I know if Tyrone Biggums walked up to me asking me for a loan, while I knew he had no job and a $300/week crack habit, would make me the asshole for giving it to him. Sure, he shouldn't have asked for it, but that doesn't put that money back in my pocket. Maybe there should be a fiduciary duty in the housing and lending markets to ensure the loan meets the expectations.
tl;dr making bad loans was not compulsory to private lending instututions. They did it because they saw dollar signs instead of what it really was: a plan designed to fail for private institutions due to the inherent risk. Subprime means less than optimal. If you're putting your own money up, you're not going for subprime.
Damn. I modded you funny but it just put you at +5 Insightful! Dude, that's some funny paranoid nonsense. I'm sure there's a rubber room free of commies somewhere with your name on it!
I agree, The Market would handle this handily. I mean, those people could just pack up and move on, right? There are plenty of other jobs in 'merica? The Free Market operates properly when there are viable alternatives. Given the skillset required for this job, the jobs they'd qualify for are already taken. Sure, they could get educated, but that's a different story altogether where the market is also failing people.
The Free Market works when people have a choice. Doesn't seem like a lot of choice out there these days.
Are you poor? What are you doing squandering your life away working hard and having nothing? You, too could have it all. More and more people each day are making their way to the good life. All you have to do is slide into poverty! Hell, if its so great, why aren't you trying it, instead of badmouthing those freeloaders on the internet?
Really? It's a pretty popular business model to run a municipal exchange just like a for-profit does, just without the profit part.
Honestly, I have a hard time buying the line that its everyone riding off someone else's dime. If the system worked and people like you actually worked to a sensible solution instead of decrying any progress as the second coming of Karl Marx, we'd probably be a lot further along.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you sure? Or you pull that from your backside? Different strokes for different folks. Of course, there's another drug that "intellectuals" partake in. Baseless indignation.
If it's to the detriment to society on the whole, why not? Honest question. None of that "slippery slope" nonsense.
If your foot had inoperable cancer, would you let the cancer grow? Or would you cut it off?
By your own account, those problems aren't medical. They're cultural.
Gay rights are rights to gay people. I thought "conservatives" were all about rights and limited government?
Luck still has a lot to do with it. The sweat of your brow alone will only get you so far. No excuses for the folks that aren't reaching for better, but there's a reason it's called a "trap"
Is that why Unemployment Insurance was a big point of contention in the last budget debate?
The article is absolutely correct. But it also fails to take into account that the new jobs are lower paying while inflation decreases the value of the new wages.
I'm calling shenanigans on this one. Here in the US, KBR and Halliburton along with other defense contractors put out the lowest budget product with the largest profit margin possible... that does not make for responsible uses of our tax dollars. Hold your government accountable for its ineptitude and change the culture sounds like a pipe dream, but why go for the easy targets that give us short term roi and long term continued failings? I don't want my government perverted by a profit motive. Its been happening for the past few decades in earnest and it's gotten us nowhere positive.
Correct you? Nope... seems like you pretty much nailed it.
If I were getting put away for a long time, I'd have a few people with a thumb drive and as soon as the conviction fell, it'd be blasted to every sharing site on the web. Let em spend their cash trying to contain that collateral they use to borrow millions against. It'd be interesting to see what the math geeks and analysts make of the code.
If they're gonna be frying him like this, why don't he let everyone get a peek at what's so important? They're gonna keep hammering him til something sticks, why not spill the beans?
Man, that's some good righteous condemnation right there. Instead of wrapping your brain around the idea of depriving someone of life being immoral in itself, you lambast the guy as if he's taking part in "honor" killings himself. Then you proceed to call him a child. Do you get nosebleeds that high up on your horse?
We can get legal amphetamines, legal gamblings, but folks can't smoke a bowl without the Feds busting up the place... I wonder why that is? If our country is running out of money, why are our politicians getting so stinking rich?
Judging from your comment, it wasn't the drugs. You and the guys in your shop were just assholes being irresponsible with other peoples' property. /DBG
Maybe carriers would reduce their crazy pricing models for SMS messages!
Lol, you said death panel... "I don't always watch FoxNews, but when i can't find time for it, I get my dose of talking points from Slashdot"
Dollar gas and low unemployment? You miss Clinton too, huh? It's okay... I won't tell.
Where's the +1 Sad moderation when you need it? an American
Once a bank reaches critical mass and they can afford to lose customers, their game changes. It goes from gaining/serving customers to maximizing profits. At that point, it's about cutting services and raising prices. After all, your stock price HAS to continue to climb, even if they aren't bringing in new customers. It doesn't matter if you drop ~1000 customers if you make up the difference on the backside. At least the new regulation is giving people a reason to diversify their banking.
It's said that people are ultimately responsible for their actions, and I agree. Wholeheartedly... Because in the end, when someone if boned, it's their reality. Thankfully, we've got the division of labor thing going so people don't have to be lenders or real estate agents to get a home. Whose burden of responsibility is it to say "No, you can't have that home"? I keep hearing that it's government regulation with the Community Reinvestment Act that caused it, but the act was only compulsory to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which handled roughly 33% of the secondary loans to low income families. That left 66% loosening up their underwriting standards and giving loans to people that were guaranteed to not be able to afford them. The 66% were companies not covered under the CRA, which did not have to give out the loans. The only reason the loans were a good investment was because they could be repackaged into CDOs and sold off, leaving the risk with the last sucker holding the bag, which was not the underwriting firm. They didn't have a pound of flesh in the game after the securities were sold. The individuals who could not pay the mortgage lacked the sophistication to tell they couldn't afford it was only part of the problem. I know if Tyrone Biggums walked up to me asking me for a loan, while I knew he had no job and a $300/week crack habit, would make me the asshole for giving it to him. Sure, he shouldn't have asked for it, but that doesn't put that money back in my pocket. Maybe there should be a fiduciary duty in the housing and lending markets to ensure the loan meets the expectations.
tl;dr making bad loans was not compulsory to private lending instututions. They did it because they saw dollar signs instead of what it really was: a plan designed to fail for private institutions due to the inherent risk. Subprime means less than optimal. If you're putting your own money up, you're not going for subprime.
Damn. I modded you funny but it just put you at +5 Insightful! Dude, that's some funny paranoid nonsense. I'm sure there's a rubber room free of commies somewhere with your name on it!
Drat! Beat me to it!
I agree, The Market would handle this handily. I mean, those people could just pack up and move on, right? There are plenty of other jobs in 'merica? The Free Market operates properly when there are viable alternatives. Given the skillset required for this job, the jobs they'd qualify for are already taken. Sure, they could get educated, but that's a different story altogether where the market is also failing people.
The Free Market works when people have a choice. Doesn't seem like a lot of choice out there these days.
Are you poor? What are you doing squandering your life away working hard and having nothing? You, too could have it all. More and more people each day are making their way to the good life. All you have to do is slide into poverty! Hell, if its so great, why aren't you trying it, instead of badmouthing those freeloaders on the internet?
Really? It's a pretty popular business model to run a municipal exchange just like a for-profit does, just without the profit part.
Honestly, I have a hard time buying the line that its everyone riding off someone else's dime. If the system worked and people like you actually worked to a sensible solution instead of decrying any progress as the second coming of Karl Marx, we'd probably be a lot further along.