OT: What’s the deal with NPR?

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=jpinpb]CAR – Thank you for sharing your extensive knowledge on this matter and clarifying it for us. I wish MSM would scratch the surface of the truth in this matter.[/quote]

CAR: Yes, thank you. That was an excellent summary, and thanks for the link as well.

The problem with grappling with issues like this on a blog like this, is that one is inherently limited in responding. To properly lay out the problem in its totality would require far more space and time than we have.

JP is right about the MSM’s unwillingness to delve into this, but, truthfully, you can’t really blame them, either. They fully don’t understand what they’re reporting on, plus they’re limited by time and format.

It is times like these that I really miss in-depth investigative reporting. The LA Times recently released an excellent series of reports on the massive problems that LACCD is experiencing with implementation of their “green” energy building program, along with reportage on wasteful spending, nepotism and just general stupidity within the LA Community College District. It was excellent reporting and very balanced and reminded me of the “old” LA Times that used to rack up Pulitzers by delivering just this kind of news.

We are now so riven by partisanship and taking “sides” that we have to choose between FOX and CNN/MSNBC. In that case, I really don’t have an issue with NPR, in that I believe they do really try to present a thoughtful and incisive approach to the news. Do I believe they should be defunded? I don’t know, but I also don’t like the alternatives, i.e. Beck/Hannity versus Olbermann/Maddow.

[briansd1]

Bearishgurl, referring to what CA renter posted, earlier, I don’t see how Wall Street is reponsible for the way state and local governments structure their pension plans.

Remember that the bailout helped revive the stock market, otherwise the losses for everyone would have been greater.

Like any investor in the stock market, the pension funds have to deal with their losses and find ways to make up for them.

[quote=CA renter] the financial industry and the Federal Reserve (by creating bubbles, and then forcing negative rates on us when the funds need ~7-9% in order for the numbers to work out…which force the managers to move further out on the risk curve when rates are held so low for such an extended period of time).[/quote]

Whose’s fault is that to assume those returns would continue forever?

Say that you invest X sum thinking that it would grow 9% annually to Y sum for your son to to attend college. If that doesn’t work out, then you have to find the money somewhere else in your budget, or your son doesn’t go to college. It’s that simple.

The expected returns did not work for the public pension funds, so, now, where do we find the money? Cut employee pay and benefits and/or cut spending.

Perhaps CA renter is decrying the fact that we have to rely on Wall Street at all. But it’s the foundation of our capitalist system.

Bailing out the financial system was the equivalent of bailing out everybody. The bailout of the financial system was necessary…. But it was not necessary to keep the executives in place and allow them to pay themselves huge compensation packages.

[briansd1]

Bearishgurl, referring to what CA renter posted, earlier, I don’t see how Wall Street is reponsible for the way state and local governments structure their pension plans.

Remember that the bailout helped revive the stock market, otherwise the losses for everyone would have been greater.

Like any investor in the stock market, the pension funds have to deal with their losses and find ways to make up for them.

[quote=CA renter] the financial industry and the Federal Reserve (by creating bubbles, and then forcing negative rates on us when the funds need ~7-9% in order for the numbers to work out…which force the managers to move further out on the risk curve when rates are held so low for such an extended period of time).[/quote]

Whose’s fault is that to assume those returns would continue forever?

Say that you invest X sum thinking that it would grow 9% annually to Y sum for your son to to attend college. If that doesn’t work out, then you have to find the money somewhere else in your budget, or your son doesn’t go to college. It’s that simple.

The expected returns did not work for the public pension funds, so, now, where do we find the money? Cut employee pay and benefits and/or cut spending.

Perhaps CA renter is decrying the fact that we have to rely on Wall Street at all. But it’s the foundation of our capitalist system.

Bailing out the financial system was the equivalent of bailing out everybody. The bailout of the financial system was necessary…. But it was not necessary to keep the executives in place and allow them to pay themselves huge compensation packages.

[briansd1]

Bearishgurl, referring to what CA renter posted, earlier, I don’t see how Wall Street is reponsible for the way state and local governments structure their pension plans.

Remember that the bailout helped revive the stock market, otherwise the losses for everyone would have been greater.

Like any investor in the stock market, the pension funds have to deal with their losses and find ways to make up for them.

[quote=CA renter] the financial industry and the Federal Reserve (by creating bubbles, and then forcing negative rates on us when the funds need ~7-9% in order for the numbers to work out…which force the managers to move further out on the risk curve when rates are held so low for such an extended period of time).[/quote]

Whose’s fault is that to assume those returns would continue forever?

Say that you invest X sum thinking that it would grow 9% annually to Y sum for your son to to attend college. If that doesn’t work out, then you have to find the money somewhere else in your budget, or your son doesn’t go to college. It’s that simple.

The expected returns did not work for the public pension funds, so, now, where do we find the money? Cut employee pay and benefits and/or cut spending.

Perhaps CA renter is decrying the fact that we have to rely on Wall Street at all. But it’s the foundation of our capitalist system.

Bailing out the financial system was the equivalent of bailing out everybody. The bailout of the financial system was necessary…. But it was not necessary to keep the executives in place and allow them to pay themselves huge compensation packages.

[briansd1]

Bearishgurl, referring to what CA renter posted, earlier, I don’t see how Wall Street is reponsible for the way state and local governments structure their pension plans.

Remember that the bailout helped revive the stock market, otherwise the losses for everyone would have been greater.

Like any investor in the stock market, the pension funds have to deal with their losses and find ways to make up for them.

[quote=CA renter] the financial industry and the Federal Reserve (by creating bubbles, and then forcing negative rates on us when the funds need ~7-9% in order for the numbers to work out…which force the managers to move further out on the risk curve when rates are held so low for such an extended period of time).[/quote]

Whose’s fault is that to assume those returns would continue forever?

Say that you invest X sum thinking that it would grow 9% annually to Y sum for your son to to attend college. If that doesn’t work out, then you have to find the money somewhere else in your budget, or your son doesn’t go to college. It’s that simple.

The expected returns did not work for the public pension funds, so, now, where do we find the money? Cut employee pay and benefits and/or cut spending.

Perhaps CA renter is decrying the fact that we have to rely on Wall Street at all. But it’s the foundation of our capitalist system.

Bailing out the financial system was the equivalent of bailing out everybody. The bailout of the financial system was necessary…. But it was not necessary to keep the executives in place and allow them to pay themselves huge compensation packages.

[briansd1]

Bearishgurl, referring to what CA renter posted, earlier, I don’t see how Wall Street is reponsible for the way state and local governments structure their pension plans.

Remember that the bailout helped revive the stock market, otherwise the losses for everyone would have been greater.

Like any investor in the stock market, the pension funds have to deal with their losses and find ways to make up for them.

[quote=CA renter] the financial industry and the Federal Reserve (by creating bubbles, and then forcing negative rates on us when the funds need ~7-9% in order for the numbers to work out…which force the managers to move further out on the risk curve when rates are held so low for such an extended period of time).[/quote]

Whose’s fault is that to assume those returns would continue forever?

Say that you invest X sum thinking that it would grow 9% annually to Y sum for your son to to attend college. If that doesn’t work out, then you have to find the money somewhere else in your budget, or your son doesn’t go to college. It’s that simple.

The expected returns did not work for the public pension funds, so, now, where do we find the money? Cut employee pay and benefits and/or cut spending.

Perhaps CA renter is decrying the fact that we have to rely on Wall Street at all. But it’s the foundation of our capitalist system.

Bailing out the financial system was the equivalent of bailing out everybody. The bailout of the financial system was necessary…. But it was not necessary to keep the executives in place and allow them to pay themselves huge compensation packages.

[patientrenter]

[quote=briansd1]

….Bailing out the financial system was the equivalent of bailing out everybody. The bailout of the financial system was necessary….[/quote]

A lot of people believe that creating or sustaining asset bubbles is a victimless crime.

In fact, inflating the price of any good benefits the seller at the expense of the buyer. It’s a tax on buyers and a subsidy for sellers. Are homeowners the most deserving recipients of subsidies in our society, with those owning the most expensive homes being the most deserving of the deserving? And are home buyers the ones who most need to have additional money taken from them?

It’s an interesting theory that this system of implicit taxes and subsidies for home buyers and sellers is necessary for a healthy economy. It doesn’t make any economic sense, but it is interesting.

[patientrenter]

[quote=briansd1]

….Bailing out the financial system was the equivalent of bailing out everybody. The bailout of the financial system was necessary….[/quote]

A lot of people believe that creating or sustaining asset bubbles is a victimless crime.

In fact, inflating the price of any good benefits the seller at the expense of the buyer. It’s a tax on buyers and a subsidy for sellers. Are homeowners the most deserving recipients of subsidies in our society, with those owning the most expensive homes being the most deserving of the deserving? And are home buyers the ones who most need to have additional money taken from them?

It’s an interesting theory that this system of implicit taxes and subsidies for home buyers and sellers is necessary for a healthy economy. It doesn’t make any economic sense, but it is interesting.

[patientrenter]

[quote=briansd1]

….Bailing out the financial system was the equivalent of bailing out everybody. The bailout of the financial system was necessary….[/quote]

A lot of people believe that creating or sustaining asset bubbles is a victimless crime.

In fact, inflating the price of any good benefits the seller at the expense of the buyer. It’s a tax on buyers and a subsidy for sellers. Are homeowners the most deserving recipients of subsidies in our society, with those owning the most expensive homes being the most deserving of the deserving? And are home buyers the ones who most need to have additional money taken from them?

It’s an interesting theory that this system of implicit taxes and subsidies for home buyers and sellers is necessary for a healthy economy. It doesn’t make any economic sense, but it is interesting.

[patientrenter]

[quote=briansd1]

….Bailing out the financial system was the equivalent of bailing out everybody. The bailout of the financial system was necessary….[/quote]

A lot of people believe that creating or sustaining asset bubbles is a victimless crime.

In fact, inflating the price of any good benefits the seller at the expense of the buyer. It’s a tax on buyers and a subsidy for sellers. Are homeowners the most deserving recipients of subsidies in our society, with those owning the most expensive homes being the most deserving of the deserving? And are home buyers the ones who most need to have additional money taken from them?

It’s an interesting theory that this system of implicit taxes and subsidies for home buyers and sellers is necessary for a healthy economy. It doesn’t make any economic sense, but it is interesting.

[patientrenter]

[quote=briansd1]

….Bailing out the financial system was the equivalent of bailing out everybody. The bailout of the financial system was necessary….[/quote]

A lot of people believe that creating or sustaining asset bubbles is a victimless crime.

In fact, inflating the price of any good benefits the seller at the expense of the buyer. It’s a tax on buyers and a subsidy for sellers. Are homeowners the most deserving recipients of subsidies in our society, with those owning the most expensive homes being the most deserving of the deserving? And are home buyers the ones who most need to have additional money taken from them?

It’s an interesting theory that this system of implicit taxes and subsidies for home buyers and sellers is necessary for a healthy economy. It doesn’t make any economic sense, but it is interesting.

[briansd1]

[quote=patientrenter]
It’s an interesting theory that this system of implicit taxes and subsidies for home buyers and sellers is necessary for a healthy economy. It doesn’t make any economic sense, but it is interesting.[/quote]

Credit creates bubbles because it creates demand that wasn’t there.

But more demand can create economies of scale and lower prices for everyone. House prices in America are lower (as a proportion of income) to just about anywhere in the world.

[briansd1]

[quote=patientrenter]
It’s an interesting theory that this system of implicit taxes and subsidies for home buyers and sellers is necessary for a healthy economy. It doesn’t make any economic sense, but it is interesting.[/quote]

Credit creates bubbles because it creates demand that wasn’t there.

But more demand can create economies of scale and lower prices for everyone. House prices in America are lower (as a proportion of income) to just about anywhere in the world.

[briansd1]

[quote=patientrenter]
It’s an interesting theory that this system of implicit taxes and subsidies for home buyers and sellers is necessary for a healthy economy. It doesn’t make any economic sense, but it is interesting.[/quote]

Credit creates bubbles because it creates demand that wasn’t there.

But more demand can create economies of scale and lower prices for everyone. House prices in America are lower (as a proportion of income) to just about anywhere in the world.

[briansd1]

[quote=patientrenter]
It’s an interesting theory that this system of implicit taxes and subsidies for home buyers and sellers is necessary for a healthy economy. It doesn’t make any economic sense, but it is interesting.[/quote]

Credit creates bubbles because it creates demand that wasn’t there.

But more demand can create economies of scale and lower prices for everyone. House prices in America are lower (as a proportion of income) to just about anywhere in the world.

[Author]

Posts