Time to fire 30% of public employees

[patientrenter]

[quote=kewp]But they usually have some competition, and that seems to be the only effective way to keep waste levels down across an enormous range of economic activity.

Somewhat ironic that you post this on a site devoted to the housing bubble; the greatest mal-investment in the history of the world.[/quote]

Ironic? Not really, kewp. The housing bubble would have been very mild had there been no government incentives to buy houses. Absent FNMA, Freddie, FHA, tax deduction for mortgage interest expenses, artificially low federal funds rates, congressional pressures to lend to poorer risks, and all the other govt measures funneling money into houses, and the bubble would never have got very far.

[CA renter]

The types of securitizations and leverage that really caused the parabolic moves in the housing market involved the private market, almost exclusively. The CDOs and CDS markets were largely run by private enterprise. Fannie and Freddie backed off significantly in 2003 and 2004 due to the accounting issues. It was the private market which took over from there, with the derivatives really exploding in 2005-2007. Fannie and Freddie were brought back in (and their capital requirements and lending standards lowered) AFTER the private market began failing — IMHO, all by design, as they were already trying to off-load the bad debt onto F&F before housing prices really began dropping. They knew what was coming, but couldn’t get the private money out fast enough. They knew F&F would be taken over by the govt well before it happened, IMHO. They were talking about conservatorship in 2003/2004 already.

[CA renter]

The types of securitizations and leverage that really caused the parabolic moves in the housing market involved the private market, almost exclusively. The CDOs and CDS markets were largely run by private enterprise. Fannie and Freddie backed off significantly in 2003 and 2004 due to the accounting issues. It was the private market which took over from there, with the derivatives really exploding in 2005-2007. Fannie and Freddie were brought back in (and their capital requirements and lending standards lowered) AFTER the private market began failing — IMHO, all by design, as they were already trying to off-load the bad debt onto F&F before housing prices really began dropping. They knew what was coming, but couldn’t get the private money out fast enough. They knew F&F would be taken over by the govt well before it happened, IMHO. They were talking about conservatorship in 2003/2004 already.

[CA renter]

The types of securitizations and leverage that really caused the parabolic moves in the housing market involved the private market, almost exclusively. The CDOs and CDS markets were largely run by private enterprise. Fannie and Freddie backed off significantly in 2003 and 2004 due to the accounting issues. It was the private market which took over from there, with the derivatives really exploding in 2005-2007. Fannie and Freddie were brought back in (and their capital requirements and lending standards lowered) AFTER the private market began failing — IMHO, all by design, as they were already trying to off-load the bad debt onto F&F before housing prices really began dropping. They knew what was coming, but couldn’t get the private money out fast enough. They knew F&F would be taken over by the govt well before it happened, IMHO. They were talking about conservatorship in 2003/2004 already.

[CA renter]

The types of securitizations and leverage that really caused the parabolic moves in the housing market involved the private market, almost exclusively. The CDOs and CDS markets were largely run by private enterprise. Fannie and Freddie backed off significantly in 2003 and 2004 due to the accounting issues. It was the private market which took over from there, with the derivatives really exploding in 2005-2007. Fannie and Freddie were brought back in (and their capital requirements and lending standards lowered) AFTER the private market began failing — IMHO, all by design, as they were already trying to off-load the bad debt onto F&F before housing prices really began dropping. They knew what was coming, but couldn’t get the private money out fast enough. They knew F&F would be taken over by the govt well before it happened, IMHO. They were talking about conservatorship in 2003/2004 already.

[CA renter]

The types of securitizations and leverage that really caused the parabolic moves in the housing market involved the private market, almost exclusively. The CDOs and CDS markets were largely run by private enterprise. Fannie and Freddie backed off significantly in 2003 and 2004 due to the accounting issues. It was the private market which took over from there, with the derivatives really exploding in 2005-2007. Fannie and Freddie were brought back in (and their capital requirements and lending standards lowered) AFTER the private market began failing — IMHO, all by design, as they were already trying to off-load the bad debt onto F&F before housing prices really began dropping. They knew what was coming, but couldn’t get the private money out fast enough. They knew F&F would be taken over by the govt well before it happened, IMHO. They were talking about conservatorship in 2003/2004 already.

[an]

CDOs and CDS probably wouldn’t have gotten so popular if the Federal Funds and Discount Rates weren’t so low for so long. It only crossed 2% in November 10th, 2004 and ratchet up in 2005, which is about when the bubble start popping. Also, I remember Greenspan were encouraging people to take out ARM instead of 30 year fixed in 2004. The FED is hardly what you called private. Also, if FNMA and FRE backed off significantly in 2003 and 2004 and didn’t “participate” much in this subprime stuff, then why did we end up having to to nationalize them? Were they that poorly run that even w/out participating much in the “causes” (CDO and CDS) of the bubble, they still fail?

[an]

CDOs and CDS probably wouldn’t have gotten so popular if the Federal Funds and Discount Rates weren’t so low for so long. It only crossed 2% in November 10th, 2004 and ratchet up in 2005, which is about when the bubble start popping. Also, I remember Greenspan were encouraging people to take out ARM instead of 30 year fixed in 2004. The FED is hardly what you called private. Also, if FNMA and FRE backed off significantly in 2003 and 2004 and didn’t “participate” much in this subprime stuff, then why did we end up having to to nationalize them? Were they that poorly run that even w/out participating much in the “causes” (CDO and CDS) of the bubble, they still fail?

[an]

CDOs and CDS probably wouldn’t have gotten so popular if the Federal Funds and Discount Rates weren’t so low for so long. It only crossed 2% in November 10th, 2004 and ratchet up in 2005, which is about when the bubble start popping. Also, I remember Greenspan were encouraging people to take out ARM instead of 30 year fixed in 2004. The FED is hardly what you called private. Also, if FNMA and FRE backed off significantly in 2003 and 2004 and didn’t “participate” much in this subprime stuff, then why did we end up having to to nationalize them? Were they that poorly run that even w/out participating much in the “causes” (CDO and CDS) of the bubble, they still fail?

[an]

CDOs and CDS probably wouldn’t have gotten so popular if the Federal Funds and Discount Rates weren’t so low for so long. It only crossed 2% in November 10th, 2004 and ratchet up in 2005, which is about when the bubble start popping. Also, I remember Greenspan were encouraging people to take out ARM instead of 30 year fixed in 2004. The FED is hardly what you called private. Also, if FNMA and FRE backed off significantly in 2003 and 2004 and didn’t “participate” much in this subprime stuff, then why did we end up having to to nationalize them? Were they that poorly run that even w/out participating much in the “causes” (CDO and CDS) of the bubble, they still fail?

[an]

CDOs and CDS probably wouldn’t have gotten so popular if the Federal Funds and Discount Rates weren’t so low for so long. It only crossed 2% in November 10th, 2004 and ratchet up in 2005, which is about when the bubble start popping. Also, I remember Greenspan were encouraging people to take out ARM instead of 30 year fixed in 2004. The FED is hardly what you called private. Also, if FNMA and FRE backed off significantly in 2003 and 2004 and didn’t “participate” much in this subprime stuff, then why did we end up having to to nationalize them? Were they that poorly run that even w/out participating much in the “causes” (CDO and CDS) of the bubble, they still fail?

[TheBreeze]

[quote=fat_lazy_union_worker]
Rule #4: respect your youthful colleagues (fresh grads). These folks, most likely will be your future bosses.

[/quote]

It’ll be a cold day in hell before I take orders from some wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper.

[TheBreeze]

[quote=fat_lazy_union_worker]
Rule #4: respect your youthful colleagues (fresh grads). These folks, most likely will be your future bosses.

[/quote]

It’ll be a cold day in hell before I take orders from some wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper.

[TheBreeze]

[quote=fat_lazy_union_worker]
Rule #4: respect your youthful colleagues (fresh grads). These folks, most likely will be your future bosses.

[/quote]

It’ll be a cold day in hell before I take orders from some wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper.

[TheBreeze]

[quote=fat_lazy_union_worker]
Rule #4: respect your youthful colleagues (fresh grads). These folks, most likely will be your future bosses.

[/quote]

It’ll be a cold day in hell before I take orders from some wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper.

[Author]

Posts