Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
patientrenter
ParticipantCNBC’s shilling for the investment industry financial was shameless and despicable. So I have no problem with anyone calling them on it.
But all this talk of the unfairness of bailing banks vs homeowners is a case of “never mind the man behind the curtain”. Clearly most people are fooled by it, but where did most of the money go that is being lost today? Trillions are being lost, and maybe worldwide tens of trillions ultimately. Who gained those trillions? Professionals living off the flow of borrowed money into the housing industry benefited – senior private bankers, middle level private bankers, and junior employees of private banks; mortgage brokers, real estate agents, rating agencies; employees of the GSEs, their leadership, their lobbyists, and the politicians who protect the GSEs….
Is that all of the people who benefited? Well, no. The people who benefited the most are those who bought real estate before the boom. These are, by definition, the hundred million or more people who live next door. 90% of the value that is being lost today was gained in the first place by people who bought before the boom, not by the middlemen. How many people do you know who downsized during the bubble, and plan to use the gains to live comfortably in their retirement? Or refinanced above the 1995 value of their home, and used the money to enjoy big plasma TVs, or new cars, or swimming pools? These are the people who walked away with the bulk of the value that is being lost today. If they pissed it away unwisely, that is less reason to give them sympathy or bailouts, not more.
But it’s a lot more popular to preach that homeowners deserve a bailout. Stewart is funny, but his actual message is nothing more than cheap pandering populism.
ParticipantCNBC’s shilling for the investment industry financial was shameless and despicable. So I have no problem with anyone calling them on it.
But all this talk of the unfairness of bailing banks vs homeowners is a case of “never mind the man behind the curtain”. Clearly most people are fooled by it, but where did most of the money go that is being lost today? Trillions are being lost, and maybe worldwide tens of trillions ultimately. Who gained those trillions? Professionals living off the flow of borrowed money into the housing industry benefited – senior private bankers, middle level private bankers, and junior employees of private banks; mortgage brokers, real estate agents, rating agencies; employees of the GSEs, their leadership, their lobbyists, and the politicians who protect the GSEs….
Is that all of the people who benefited? Well, no. The people who benefited the most are those who bought real estate before the boom. These are, by definition, the hundred million or more people who live next door. 90% of the value that is being lost today was gained in the first place by people who bought before the boom, not by the middlemen. How many people do you know who downsized during the bubble, and plan to use the gains to live comfortably in their retirement? Or refinanced above the 1995 value of their home, and used the money to enjoy big plasma TVs, or new cars, or swimming pools? These are the people who walked away with the bulk of the value that is being lost today. If they pissed it away unwisely, that is less reason to give them sympathy or bailouts, not more.
But it’s a lot more popular to preach that homeowners deserve a bailout. Stewart is funny, but his actual message is nothing more than cheap pandering populism.
ParticipantCNBC’s shilling for the investment industry financial was shameless and despicable. So I have no problem with anyone calling them on it.
But all this talk of the unfairness of bailing banks vs homeowners is a case of “never mind the man behind the curtain”. Clearly most people are fooled by it, but where did most of the money go that is being lost today? Trillions are being lost, and maybe worldwide tens of trillions ultimately. Who gained those trillions? Professionals living off the flow of borrowed money into the housing industry benefited – senior private bankers, middle level private bankers, and junior employees of private banks; mortgage brokers, real estate agents, rating agencies; employees of the GSEs, their leadership, their lobbyists, and the politicians who protect the GSEs….
Is that all of the people who benefited? Well, no. The people who benefited the most are those who bought real estate before the boom. These are, by definition, the hundred million or more people who live next door. 90% of the value that is being lost today was gained in the first place by people who bought before the boom, not by the middlemen. How many people do you know who downsized during the bubble, and plan to use the gains to live comfortably in their retirement? Or refinanced above the 1995 value of their home, and used the money to enjoy big plasma TVs, or new cars, or swimming pools? These are the people who walked away with the bulk of the value that is being lost today. If they pissed it away unwisely, that is less reason to give them sympathy or bailouts, not more.
But it’s a lot more popular to preach that homeowners deserve a bailout. Stewart is funny, but his actual message is nothing more than cheap pandering populism.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]….
Stop listening to that right wing radio, man, it rots your brain. Like reading the “Daily Kos”.[/quote]Yeh, beware of the dark side, SD R.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]….
Stop listening to that right wing radio, man, it rots your brain. Like reading the “Daily Kos”.[/quote]Yeh, beware of the dark side, SD R.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]….
Stop listening to that right wing radio, man, it rots your brain. Like reading the “Daily Kos”.[/quote]Yeh, beware of the dark side, SD R.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]….
Stop listening to that right wing radio, man, it rots your brain. Like reading the “Daily Kos”.[/quote]Yeh, beware of the dark side, SD R.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]….
Stop listening to that right wing radio, man, it rots your brain. Like reading the “Daily Kos”.[/quote]Yeh, beware of the dark side, SD R.
Participant[quote=ltokuda][quote=barnaby33]On Wall St, early = wrong.
Josh[/quote]PS predicted that the S&P500 would fall to 600 by the spring of ’07. Obviously, that timing was way off.
But to be fair, PS recommended buying RYURX, which is an inverse S&P500 fund. The S&P500 was at 1301 when she made the call (August 28, 2006). That investment is doing very well, to say the least.
That being said, I’ve read a lot of PS’s posts and she’s not all that credible to me. [/quote]
If ps were a painter, she’d be an impressionist.
Participant[quote=ltokuda][quote=barnaby33]On Wall St, early = wrong.
Josh[/quote]PS predicted that the S&P500 would fall to 600 by the spring of ’07. Obviously, that timing was way off.
But to be fair, PS recommended buying RYURX, which is an inverse S&P500 fund. The S&P500 was at 1301 when she made the call (August 28, 2006). That investment is doing very well, to say the least.
That being said, I’ve read a lot of PS’s posts and she’s not all that credible to me. [/quote]
If ps were a painter, she’d be an impressionist.
Participant[quote=ltokuda][quote=barnaby33]On Wall St, early = wrong.
Josh[/quote]PS predicted that the S&P500 would fall to 600 by the spring of ’07. Obviously, that timing was way off.
But to be fair, PS recommended buying RYURX, which is an inverse S&P500 fund. The S&P500 was at 1301 when she made the call (August 28, 2006). That investment is doing very well, to say the least.
That being said, I’ve read a lot of PS’s posts and she’s not all that credible to me. [/quote]
If ps were a painter, she’d be an impressionist.
Participant[quote=ltokuda][quote=barnaby33]On Wall St, early = wrong.
Josh[/quote]PS predicted that the S&P500 would fall to 600 by the spring of ’07. Obviously, that timing was way off.
But to be fair, PS recommended buying RYURX, which is an inverse S&P500 fund. The S&P500 was at 1301 when she made the call (August 28, 2006). That investment is doing very well, to say the least.
That being said, I’ve read a lot of PS’s posts and she’s not all that credible to me. [/quote]
If ps were a painter, she’d be an impressionist.
Participant[quote=ltokuda][quote=barnaby33]On Wall St, early = wrong.
Josh[/quote]PS predicted that the S&P500 would fall to 600 by the spring of ’07. Obviously, that timing was way off.
But to be fair, PS recommended buying RYURX, which is an inverse S&P500 fund. The S&P500 was at 1301 when she made the call (August 28, 2006). That investment is doing very well, to say the least.
That being said, I’ve read a lot of PS’s posts and she’s not all that credible to me. [/quote]
If ps were a painter, she’d be an impressionist.
Participant[quote=Scarlet]Not bad.
I would add:
Throw in trade restructuring. If not then any new version of GM will just suffer the same injustices the current incarnation has.
Japan has managed to lower the value of the Yen vs the Dollar by 12% this year alone. We need some sort of strategy to deal with those types of things.
Healthcare needs to be dealt with too. How can GM ever compete if the Japanese Government pays healthcare for Toyota, Honda, etc. workers? Dito Germany for BMW, Mercedes……
We don’t want GM walking out of the ER nice and healthy only to be hit by the same truck.[/quote]
The yen is still stronger than it was for most of 2008.
Scarlet, if Toyota and Honda etc. don’t have to bear the costs of health care for their workers, then who is paying for that health care?
If it’s the Japanese government, then does that mean it’s cost-free to the people of Japan? Of course not. The cost of the health care for all the people of Japan is borne by the people (taxpayers) of Japan. That includes Toyota and its workers, and it suppliers and their workers, etc. If Toyota and its workers pay $5,000 per worker in taxes to the government for health care for those workers, that has the same long-term economic impact on Toyota and its workers as a direct payment of $5,000 from the company to the health care providers.
Why is it so hard for people to understand that government, or insurance, or any other delivery mechanism for health care, does not provide a free lunch. THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH. The only thing that will help reduce the burden of health care on our pockets and competitiveness is reducing how much we spend on it, not changing who spends it.
Sorry to be brutal, Scarlet, but sometimes I wish that every voter was required to meet economic literacy tests. We can no longer afford the luxury of making big decisions on our economy based on uninformed populism.
-
AuthorPosts
