Why can I not get a loan?

[CA renter]

davelj wrote:

Yeah, a defining characteristic of real smart folks like yourself is that they’re petrified of competition in their labor market to the extent that they’d prefer to unionize rather than pit their own capabilities against those of others in the free market.
—————————

But when corporations use patent law and/or buy out their competition in order to monopolize an industry, that’s being “smart,” right? Perhaps it’s smart when these corporations move their manufacturing facilities overseas so they can drive down prices and force out companies that manufacture in the U.S.

We once had quality products that lasted a lifetime, produced by well-paid, skilled employees. Now, we get toxic, plastic crap from China that fills our landfills because it needs to be replaced every six months.

You’re implying that unionized workers are afraid to compete with other workers based on the merit of their skill or quality of product produced. That’s not the case at all. This is not a competition based on abilities, it’s a competition based only on wages. If you’re suggesting U.S. workers should embrace working for third-world wages, feel free to lead the way. You go first.

It’s nice to know these corporations (and the politicians they pay off) are so “smart”! Hooray for the “free” (if you have enough money to drown your competition in lawsuits and line the pockets of politicians) market!

[TheBreeze]

[quote=CA renter]

But when corporations use patent law and/or buy out their competition in order to monopolize an industry, that’s being “smart,” right? Perhaps it’s smart when these corporations move their manufacturing facilities overseas so they can drive down prices and force out companies that manufacture in the U.S.
[/quote]

Davelj is against the unions, but he’s all for the government buying MBSs/CDOs/etc in order to bail out his cronies. I hope the Democrats tax the bejesus out of him and his ilk.

[TheBreeze]

[quote=CA renter]

But when corporations use patent law and/or buy out their competition in order to monopolize an industry, that’s being “smart,” right? Perhaps it’s smart when these corporations move their manufacturing facilities overseas so they can drive down prices and force out companies that manufacture in the U.S.
[/quote]

Davelj is against the unions, but he’s all for the government buying MBSs/CDOs/etc in order to bail out his cronies. I hope the Democrats tax the bejesus out of him and his ilk.

[TheBreeze]

[quote=CA renter]

But when corporations use patent law and/or buy out their competition in order to monopolize an industry, that’s being “smart,” right? Perhaps it’s smart when these corporations move their manufacturing facilities overseas so they can drive down prices and force out companies that manufacture in the U.S.
[/quote]

Davelj is against the unions, but he’s all for the government buying MBSs/CDOs/etc in order to bail out his cronies. I hope the Democrats tax the bejesus out of him and his ilk.

[TheBreeze]

[quote=CA renter]

But when corporations use patent law and/or buy out their competition in order to monopolize an industry, that’s being “smart,” right? Perhaps it’s smart when these corporations move their manufacturing facilities overseas so they can drive down prices and force out companies that manufacture in the U.S.
[/quote]

Davelj is against the unions, but he’s all for the government buying MBSs/CDOs/etc in order to bail out his cronies. I hope the Democrats tax the bejesus out of him and his ilk.

[TheBreeze]

[quote=CA renter]

But when corporations use patent law and/or buy out their competition in order to monopolize an industry, that’s being “smart,” right? Perhaps it’s smart when these corporations move their manufacturing facilities overseas so they can drive down prices and force out companies that manufacture in the U.S.
[/quote]

Davelj is against the unions, but he’s all for the government buying MBSs/CDOs/etc in order to bail out his cronies. I hope the Democrats tax the bejesus out of him and his ilk.

[davelj]

[quote=TheBreeze][quote=CA renter]

But when corporations use patent law and/or buy out their competition in order to monopolize an industry, that’s being “smart,” right? Perhaps it’s smart when these corporations move their manufacturing facilities overseas so they can drive down prices and force out companies that manufacture in the U.S.
[/quote]

Davelj is against the unions, but he’s all for the government buying MBSs/CDOs/etc in order to bail out his cronies. I hope the Democrats tax the bejesus out of him and his ilk.
[/quote]

I have no problem with unions at all. I support the right to free assembly and organization where contracts are concerned. But… I also support the right of market forces to render said unions helpless, which is what we are seeing in many sectors of the US workforce. Unions are a short-term solution with a long-term cost to a long-term problem: non-competitiveness at a given wage price point. Now many of the unions are bearing the cost to that short-term solution: the companies they’ve laid their anchors to are failing. So, again, I have no problem whatsoever with unions. But ultimately you reap what you sow.

(I’m sorry, but in what post did I suggest that the govt. should buy MBSs/CDOS, etc.? I recall saying that certain of these securities might turn out to be good investments from current prices, but I have no recollection whatsoever of suggesting that the govt. should buy these securities. Please point me to the post where I stated otherwise.)

[davelj]

[quote=TheBreeze][quote=CA renter]

But when corporations use patent law and/or buy out their competition in order to monopolize an industry, that’s being “smart,” right? Perhaps it’s smart when these corporations move their manufacturing facilities overseas so they can drive down prices and force out companies that manufacture in the U.S.
[/quote]

Davelj is against the unions, but he’s all for the government buying MBSs/CDOs/etc in order to bail out his cronies. I hope the Democrats tax the bejesus out of him and his ilk.
[/quote]

I have no problem with unions at all. I support the right to free assembly and organization where contracts are concerned. But… I also support the right of market forces to render said unions helpless, which is what we are seeing in many sectors of the US workforce. Unions are a short-term solution with a long-term cost to a long-term problem: non-competitiveness at a given wage price point. Now many of the unions are bearing the cost to that short-term solution: the companies they’ve laid their anchors to are failing. So, again, I have no problem whatsoever with unions. But ultimately you reap what you sow.

(I’m sorry, but in what post did I suggest that the govt. should buy MBSs/CDOS, etc.? I recall saying that certain of these securities might turn out to be good investments from current prices, but I have no recollection whatsoever of suggesting that the govt. should buy these securities. Please point me to the post where I stated otherwise.)

[davelj]

[quote=TheBreeze][quote=CA renter]

But when corporations use patent law and/or buy out their competition in order to monopolize an industry, that’s being “smart,” right? Perhaps it’s smart when these corporations move their manufacturing facilities overseas so they can drive down prices and force out companies that manufacture in the U.S.
[/quote]

Davelj is against the unions, but he’s all for the government buying MBSs/CDOs/etc in order to bail out his cronies. I hope the Democrats tax the bejesus out of him and his ilk.
[/quote]

I have no problem with unions at all. I support the right to free assembly and organization where contracts are concerned. But… I also support the right of market forces to render said unions helpless, which is what we are seeing in many sectors of the US workforce. Unions are a short-term solution with a long-term cost to a long-term problem: non-competitiveness at a given wage price point. Now many of the unions are bearing the cost to that short-term solution: the companies they’ve laid their anchors to are failing. So, again, I have no problem whatsoever with unions. But ultimately you reap what you sow.

(I’m sorry, but in what post did I suggest that the govt. should buy MBSs/CDOS, etc.? I recall saying that certain of these securities might turn out to be good investments from current prices, but I have no recollection whatsoever of suggesting that the govt. should buy these securities. Please point me to the post where I stated otherwise.)

[davelj]

[quote=TheBreeze][quote=CA renter]

But when corporations use patent law and/or buy out their competition in order to monopolize an industry, that’s being “smart,” right? Perhaps it’s smart when these corporations move their manufacturing facilities overseas so they can drive down prices and force out companies that manufacture in the U.S.
[/quote]

Davelj is against the unions, but he’s all for the government buying MBSs/CDOs/etc in order to bail out his cronies. I hope the Democrats tax the bejesus out of him and his ilk.
[/quote]

I have no problem with unions at all. I support the right to free assembly and organization where contracts are concerned. But… I also support the right of market forces to render said unions helpless, which is what we are seeing in many sectors of the US workforce. Unions are a short-term solution with a long-term cost to a long-term problem: non-competitiveness at a given wage price point. Now many of the unions are bearing the cost to that short-term solution: the companies they’ve laid their anchors to are failing. So, again, I have no problem whatsoever with unions. But ultimately you reap what you sow.

(I’m sorry, but in what post did I suggest that the govt. should buy MBSs/CDOS, etc.? I recall saying that certain of these securities might turn out to be good investments from current prices, but I have no recollection whatsoever of suggesting that the govt. should buy these securities. Please point me to the post where I stated otherwise.)

[davelj]

[quote=TheBreeze][quote=CA renter]

But when corporations use patent law and/or buy out their competition in order to monopolize an industry, that’s being “smart,” right? Perhaps it’s smart when these corporations move their manufacturing facilities overseas so they can drive down prices and force out companies that manufacture in the U.S.
[/quote]

Davelj is against the unions, but he’s all for the government buying MBSs/CDOs/etc in order to bail out his cronies. I hope the Democrats tax the bejesus out of him and his ilk.
[/quote]

I have no problem with unions at all. I support the right to free assembly and organization where contracts are concerned. But… I also support the right of market forces to render said unions helpless, which is what we are seeing in many sectors of the US workforce. Unions are a short-term solution with a long-term cost to a long-term problem: non-competitiveness at a given wage price point. Now many of the unions are bearing the cost to that short-term solution: the companies they’ve laid their anchors to are failing. So, again, I have no problem whatsoever with unions. But ultimately you reap what you sow.

(I’m sorry, but in what post did I suggest that the govt. should buy MBSs/CDOS, etc.? I recall saying that certain of these securities might turn out to be good investments from current prices, but I have no recollection whatsoever of suggesting that the govt. should buy these securities. Please point me to the post where I stated otherwise.)

[TheBreeze]

[quote=davelj]

(I’m sorry, but in what post did I suggest that the govt. should buy MBSs/CDOS, etc.? I recall saying that certain of these securities might turn out to be good investments from current prices, but I have no recollection whatsoever of suggesting that the govt. should buy these securities. Please point me to the post where I stated otherwise.)[/quote]

Now, that $2 trillion in mortgage-related losses that we, the good taxpayers of the US, are going to eat will largely consist of principal reductions given to homeowners in order to lower their mortgage payments. Yes, it’s unfair. I know. But it’s going to happen, so stop whining about it. Just accept it. Life ain’t fair. Move on. Also, if it’s any consolation, it will help us avoid a depression which would be even more painful than the ultimate bill associated with bailing out these irresponsible fucksticks. The wrinkle in the principal reduction plans will be that the execution is complicated and it’s going to take longer than the our Great Leaders think. But, it will get done in some sloppy form or fashion.

The vast majority of the TARP money (ex the money that goes to the auto companies) and the various acronym-challenged “facilities” will be money good. That is, we’ll get back most of that money (forget about the interest), but we’ll probably take a hit. With a few exceptions, the collateral for this stuff is pretty good (albeit not perfect). The really big losses to the govt (us) will be through Fannie and Freddie in the residential sector.

http://piggington.com/some_math_on_how_we039re_going_to_get_out_of_this_mess

Here you are advocating that the government buy mortgage-related stuff in order to avoid a depression.

By the way, are you still confident that the “vast majority of TARP money” will be “money good” now that Bank of America and every other large bank is saying that they need another bailout?

[TheBreeze]

[quote=davelj]

(I’m sorry, but in what post did I suggest that the govt. should buy MBSs/CDOS, etc.? I recall saying that certain of these securities might turn out to be good investments from current prices, but I have no recollection whatsoever of suggesting that the govt. should buy these securities. Please point me to the post where I stated otherwise.)[/quote]

Now, that $2 trillion in mortgage-related losses that we, the good taxpayers of the US, are going to eat will largely consist of principal reductions given to homeowners in order to lower their mortgage payments. Yes, it’s unfair. I know. But it’s going to happen, so stop whining about it. Just accept it. Life ain’t fair. Move on. Also, if it’s any consolation, it will help us avoid a depression which would be even more painful than the ultimate bill associated with bailing out these irresponsible fucksticks. The wrinkle in the principal reduction plans will be that the execution is complicated and it’s going to take longer than the our Great Leaders think. But, it will get done in some sloppy form or fashion.

The vast majority of the TARP money (ex the money that goes to the auto companies) and the various acronym-challenged “facilities” will be money good. That is, we’ll get back most of that money (forget about the interest), but we’ll probably take a hit. With a few exceptions, the collateral for this stuff is pretty good (albeit not perfect). The really big losses to the govt (us) will be through Fannie and Freddie in the residential sector.

http://piggington.com/some_math_on_how_we039re_going_to_get_out_of_this_mess

Here you are advocating that the government buy mortgage-related stuff in order to avoid a depression.

By the way, are you still confident that the “vast majority of TARP money” will be “money good” now that Bank of America and every other large bank is saying that they need another bailout?

[TheBreeze]

[quote=davelj]

(I’m sorry, but in what post did I suggest that the govt. should buy MBSs/CDOS, etc.? I recall saying that certain of these securities might turn out to be good investments from current prices, but I have no recollection whatsoever of suggesting that the govt. should buy these securities. Please point me to the post where I stated otherwise.)[/quote]

Now, that $2 trillion in mortgage-related losses that we, the good taxpayers of the US, are going to eat will largely consist of principal reductions given to homeowners in order to lower their mortgage payments. Yes, it’s unfair. I know. But it’s going to happen, so stop whining about it. Just accept it. Life ain’t fair. Move on. Also, if it’s any consolation, it will help us avoid a depression which would be even more painful than the ultimate bill associated with bailing out these irresponsible fucksticks. The wrinkle in the principal reduction plans will be that the execution is complicated and it’s going to take longer than the our Great Leaders think. But, it will get done in some sloppy form or fashion.

The vast majority of the TARP money (ex the money that goes to the auto companies) and the various acronym-challenged “facilities” will be money good. That is, we’ll get back most of that money (forget about the interest), but we’ll probably take a hit. With a few exceptions, the collateral for this stuff is pretty good (albeit not perfect). The really big losses to the govt (us) will be through Fannie and Freddie in the residential sector.

http://piggington.com/some_math_on_how_we039re_going_to_get_out_of_this_mess

Here you are advocating that the government buy mortgage-related stuff in order to avoid a depression.

By the way, are you still confident that the “vast majority of TARP money” will be “money good” now that Bank of America and every other large bank is saying that they need another bailout?

[TheBreeze]

[quote=davelj]

(I’m sorry, but in what post did I suggest that the govt. should buy MBSs/CDOS, etc.? I recall saying that certain of these securities might turn out to be good investments from current prices, but I have no recollection whatsoever of suggesting that the govt. should buy these securities. Please point me to the post where I stated otherwise.)[/quote]

Now, that $2 trillion in mortgage-related losses that we, the good taxpayers of the US, are going to eat will largely consist of principal reductions given to homeowners in order to lower their mortgage payments. Yes, it’s unfair. I know. But it’s going to happen, so stop whining about it. Just accept it. Life ain’t fair. Move on. Also, if it’s any consolation, it will help us avoid a depression which would be even more painful than the ultimate bill associated with bailing out these irresponsible fucksticks. The wrinkle in the principal reduction plans will be that the execution is complicated and it’s going to take longer than the our Great Leaders think. But, it will get done in some sloppy form or fashion.

The vast majority of the TARP money (ex the money that goes to the auto companies) and the various acronym-challenged “facilities” will be money good. That is, we’ll get back most of that money (forget about the interest), but we’ll probably take a hit. With a few exceptions, the collateral for this stuff is pretty good (albeit not perfect). The really big losses to the govt (us) will be through Fannie and Freddie in the residential sector.

http://piggington.com/some_math_on_how_we039re_going_to_get_out_of_this_mess

Here you are advocating that the government buy mortgage-related stuff in order to avoid a depression.

By the way, are you still confident that the “vast majority of TARP money” will be “money good” now that Bank of America and every other large bank is saying that they need another bailout?

[Author]

Posts