jjamie12
-
Posts
622 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by jjamie12
-
-
NOT typical liberal thinking. I think it's horrible that gas prices are going up the way they are and so far it seems like no one has an answer on how to get them under control and lowered.
Then stop buying so much effing gas! Organize car pools, take mass transit, walk somewhere. Stop going out 5 times a day for everything. Everything isn't supposed to be easy. Sometimes you have to make a choice. If people stop buying so much gas, I promise you, Pbills, the price will go down.
-
I would think more than lyrbob.
Boy, I sure hope so!
Care to attack my position, or just me?
Well, Rob - I'm going to point out that I haven't attacked you or your position. Of course, you'd need to have a position on this for me to attack it but, unfortunately "...If you're talking about Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, then yes, I think Taibbi is fine with letting them "solve" the problem." isn't actually a position.
I'm just trying to understand who I'm talking to, because the things I would say to, for example, GG if he were to respond with the quote you did would be miles apart from the response I'd have for Keukasmiles or RKFast if they said the same thing. In other words, I'm trying to understand what your knowledge of the mortgage markets is. Fair?
-
If you're talking about Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, then yes, I think Taibbi is fine with letting them "solve" the problem.
Just so I understand: What kind of expertise do you have in the mortgage markets?
-
I'm going to go ahead and play Devil's Advocate here.
A couple of things:
1- Giving Taibbi just a little bit of credit yields the following -- Perhaps Taibbi is using the most egregious of things (the Mack and Karches wives Club) to illuminate the absurdity of the situation. The very same people (often literally as GG explained above) who packaged, structured and sold our way into the crisis are the ones profiting from the programs created to solve the problem!
2- We put taxpayer dollars at risk (or more precisely, we gave banks liquidity for awhile -- and at a steep price, I have to add; there was always a good chance we'd make money on that part of the deal) and didn't do any real reform. If anything, we codified the idea that if any of these large institutions fails (or is in danger of failing) we'll take care of them! Not only that, but we do lend them all sorts of money (at near-zero interest rates -- hopefully to spur commercial and consumer lending) and what do they do with it? They sit on it, lend it back to the gov't and take a risk-free 3% -- with the magic of leverage, banks are now back to making big $$ and paying out huge bonuses to the same people (remember - there were no real reforms here) who put the rest of the economy into the tank in the first place!
Whether he explains the purpose of TALF or not, whether or not there were any other choices that the government could make is beside the point. The result is: The very same people who created the mess (save for a few folks at Bear and Lehman) are the ones making bank off the programs designed to fix that mess. Again, whether or not there were better options out there is somewhat beside the point of the narrative. Taibbi leaves the larger macro-economic reasoning and discussion to those who are more able to really understand the ripple-effects of Fed and Treasury policy and explores a few absurdities of the results of those policy initiatives. Frankly, I find it a compelling narrative as more people should have a firmer grasp on what, why, and how this whole thing went down.
One of my best friends created ~30 2nd lien mortgage deals that have all (every single one) blown up. He got financial backing to get in on TALF and is making a ton of money to do so. Is that right? wrong? A good outcome? bad? I don't know, and I don't much care... The big guys said this was the best option, so I tend to side with them, however I recognize that there's a chance they were wrong and that we're enriching people on the backs of the taxpayers and can understand that there are many people out there who find it wrong.
Anyway -- that's my Devil's Advocate view. Tom and GG need to be challenged around here more often by people who aren't morons or ego-maniacs.
-
He's not exactly *wrong*, though, is he? I mean -- in general what he says is true (it's too bad he doesn't understand the difference between the Fed and the budget, but hey-- who's perfect?)
The really big problem I have with him is that he's not one to follow this to its logical conclusion -- he's one to argue for MORE government oversight. For MORE unintended consequences, for MORE of the exact thing he claims to be upset about. I mean, really -- this whole article is about how the *government* is screwing over the little guy. The response to that? More government. It's too bad he doesn't seem to get it, because he really is the only person (I've seen) writing about this stuff...
-
Columbia Business School's Dean Glenn Hubbard is upset about not getting Alan Greenspan's job that went instead to New Fed Chair Ben Bernanke.
youtube.com/watch?v=3u2qRXb4xCU
I love B-School... With time to create stuff like that, who wouldn't?!?!
Check out "Dean Dean Baby" and "Baby Got WACC". My personal favorites.
Edit: M-R-S is making me re-think my top 2. That one is pretty excellent.
-
This does not sound at all like Donald Trump.
Seriously. He's such a low-key, Warren Buffet kind of guy... this seems so out of character.
-
I guess taking a step back and looking at this objectively I would have to to guess at Trump's motive for bringing this up...
A- he either has some serious information that one of his minions has discovered which would have a huge impact on current government.
or
B- he is attempting to gain more attention for a potential 2012 and if this turns out to be false would be a total waste of just beating a political dead horse and embarrassing himself.
The most likely (in my mind):
C- He has absolutely no interest in running, he's just marketing himself and his brand right now. If Trump had any interest in running, he wouldn't be out there talking nonsense about 'Certificates of Live Birth' and saying he has 'no interest in Libya unless we get their oil'... These are not the things someone who ACTUALLY wanted to run for President would be saying. These are things that someone who wants publicity would be saying.
-
40%? Boy, you're being generous.
To be fair, you can't make up those half-truths without understanding the 'half'. I marked him down because in a 'bailout' rant, he's complaining about the Fed Funds rate. However, I did mark him up for understanding that bailing out AIG helped to funnel money back to the banks.
-
youtube.com/watch?v=0N8M8PjA-Ls&feature=feedu
That was a bunch of nonsense. I would rate this person's level of knowledge about this particular subject at something like 40%.
Plus, you've posted this before.
-
Maybe that is the problem with America.. It is too damn winner take all.
Who says there's a problem?
It would be great if we could level places like BFLO and DET and start fresh... But we can't.
Why not? I've seen plenty of thoughtful people propose just that.
-
What is he making up?
I am going to try and respond (against all of my better judgment) to you like you're actually asking me this question, rather than making a statement.
The part that he is making up is the part where he says England is socialist. I thought it was pretty obvious since I posted a reply directly to that quote, but maybe not.
They aren't?
Fair enough.
-
England is socialist.
Is everyone allowed to just make **** up now?
-
The reason the banks could pay the Bailout back was that the FED bought trillions of dollars of toxic assets from them at pre housing collapse values
Not true.
-
Wow, you are going to criticize bailing out GM (who has paid their bailout money back) and not criticize wall street? I'm sure you're ok with the bailed out banks handing out huge bonuses too.
It's amazing how absolutely wrong someone can be inside of one post.
1- GM has absolutely NOT paid their bailout money back. They've paid a piece.
2- Most 'Wall Street' (maybe all -- not completely sure) HAVE paid ALL of the money back, WITH the required interest. The US Treasury has actually MADE money on most of the 'bailouts'. It is highly likely that the US Taxpayer will have made a ton of money 'bailing' out the banks.
3- 'Bailed out' banks -- who haven't paid their 'bailout' money back -- are under very, very strict regulation as to what their compensation packages can be. No huge bonuses for them.
To recap -- wrong in the first sentence, implied something incorrect in the first sentence, completely wrong in the second sentence. It is really amazing. I don't think I've ever actually seen a post that was so thoroughly wrong as this one above. You should really, really, try and learn something, pbills. We are 3 years deep into this -- the least you could do would be to learn something about the things you so adamantly advocate.
It's time for you to grow up and have real conversations -- your emotional reactions are so infantile.
-
That's exactly what I'm arguing against. Not every teaching situation has the same opportunity for success.
Yes it does. For some reason, you are under the impression that 'success' means the exact same thing for every classroom everywhere.
Better teachers will not produce higher profits for the schools. Capitalism cannot be applied to all situations.
Since schools don't have 'profits', I don't know what you're talking about. Who's talking about capitalism? I'm referring to people responding to incentives. Do you agree or disagree that people respond (sometimes to the detriment of society, for sure) to incentives?
Every student should be given a reasonably equal opportunity to succeed. They do not choose the situation they are born into.
What an odd thing to say... do you suppose there is anyone, anywhere who would disagree with this?
-
Yeah. Football. Quarterback.
Learned that from this very board.
Ha! Nice job, sir... well played.
I'd say a below-average teacher is more likely to "succeed" in a good school district, one that is in a better community with more parental involvement, than good teacher is in a bad school district.
No one in their right mind would define 'success' as some sort of absolute number on a test, and compare those scores across school districts. Stop it with this nonsense. Discuss this or don't, but don't be intentionally obtuse.
If you really value better teachers, then make the job attractive enough so that more capable people will choose a career in education over one in private industry, where they can obviously make more money if they have the "tools" to do so. Of course, you don't value better teachers - you just don't like unions.
I do and I think that's EXACTLY what we should do. We could make teaching a highly competitive career with tremendous pay and benefits to those teachers who do the best job. If there is anyone in society that should be making well into the six figures it would be an excellent teacher.
Unfortunately, we seem to be going the other way. We'll all be worse off for it.
-
Is a teacher's ability the sole reason for their students either succeeding or not?
No. Is there any job in the world in which the sole reason for 'success' depends on one individual?
-
No just business/management douchebags to ruin things, just like Wall Street. And yeah, let's free those banks to do whatever they need to do. OH wait, they'll just F things up again with no regulations/oversight.
How is it that after years of talking about the Financial Crisis you are still under this impression? How is that possible? Have you learned nothing about the financial sector over the past few years of public conversation?
You realize that banks were, are and always will be one of the most heavily regulated industries in the U.S., right? RIGHT? For God's sake man... Get a grip.
-
Sure it does but not to the extent it happens in the public sector. See the private sector has these things called bottom lines, profit and loss.
... and poison pills and golden parachutes and boards stacked with buddies of the CEO and countless lines of middle management protecting their little fiefdoms...
I mean, I get it -- you don't like what's going on in a compay, don't invest. Now, try and not 'invest' in the state and see where that gets you. I get that.
Screaming about individual cops and teachers just seems a little over the top, I guess. That's all.
-
When they perform their jobs in such a manner so that they can pad their overtime, they most certainly are gaming the system.
Do you honestly think this doesn't happen in the private sector, too?
-
To bump this up, I'd like a random straw poll to see if people's credit card fees & charges went up since this wonderful law's passage?
I've paid about $70 more in fees & interest over the last six months, which is exactly $70 more than I paid before the law passed. Why? Banks eliminated the overdraft programs they used to have and now an overdraft is a cash advance against the credit card, with fees & interest kicking in at the outset. That, plus other little rules that call for tighter payment term windows.
Did Congress really think that the banking industry was going to wave $30 billion in revenues goodbye?
Congratulations, idiots.
I don't know how much you've looked into this one, but the Durbin Amendment is poised to do way, WAY, more damage to banks than this credit card stuff...
-
Not necessarily a right one. There's been plenty of systems tests (including the aforementioned Navy intercept of a satellite) that demonstrate that the systems we have should work. But until it actually intercepts an unexpected launch of a ballistic missile...
The bottom line: the systems that exist have been tested to a degree that provides a reasonably high level of confidence in them working if needed. In fact, more likely than not the Stardust-NExT probe uses technology developed for ballistic missile defense.
Then why do I always hear about how "It's a complete waste of money! It will never work!"? Is it just equally ignorant people with their fingers in their ears yelling na-nana-boo-boo?
-
4)You're presuming we don't have a working missile defense system.
I'm super-ignorant on this stuff -- Is that a wrong presumption?
No wonder there's a deficit....
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Finally.
First of all, there were no good actors in this mess and the federal government deserves its share of blame, but in my mind, they are way down on the totem pole of people who were playing 'huge' roles in this. (I'm assuming, of course, that your primary beef here is the nature of CRA loans and the stated goal of homeownership by the government, and not the whole "Government is supposed to regulate commerce and they did a really piss-poor job of regulating the mortgage market" Side note -- Really, the mortgage market was one of the most heavily regulated markets in the US and our response is, you guessed it, more regulation. That makes sense.)
Given the assumption above -- Community Reinvestment Act loans are a pittance compared to the size and scope of the nonsense that was coming out of Option One or Fremont in the bad old days. FNMA didn't create Pay Option ARM's. FNMA didn't create CDO's. FNMA didn't create CDO^2's. FNMA didn't sell CDS on CDO^2's. Rating agencies had NO idea what was going on. None. All of these things were way, way, way more important to the collapse of the market than anything the federal government did (that's not to say that the federal gov't is innocent in this. I agree with you that they aren't. They just aren't (in my opinion) anywhere near the top of the heap of the blame game in the way that you want them to be)