Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
patientrenter
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Instead, we have gulled the rest of the world into believing that our ability to push worthless paper and “create” new ways to “make” money is somehow able to sustain this massive mountain of debt, both governmental and commercial.George W. Bush was simply the last logical step in an impending collapse. We got exactly what we, the collective “we”, voted for and deserved.[/quote]
I agree 100%, and you put it very well, Allan of Fallbrook.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Instead, we have gulled the rest of the world into believing that our ability to push worthless paper and “create” new ways to “make” money is somehow able to sustain this massive mountain of debt, both governmental and commercial.George W. Bush was simply the last logical step in an impending collapse. We got exactly what we, the collective “we”, voted for and deserved.[/quote]
I agree 100%, and you put it very well, Allan of Fallbrook.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Instead, we have gulled the rest of the world into believing that our ability to push worthless paper and “create” new ways to “make” money is somehow able to sustain this massive mountain of debt, both governmental and commercial.George W. Bush was simply the last logical step in an impending collapse. We got exactly what we, the collective “we”, voted for and deserved.[/quote]
I agree 100%, and you put it very well, Allan of Fallbrook.
ParticipantI would be cautious about depositing large amounts into banks guaranteed by small countries with a big banking industry. Why? Because the potential shortfall the small country’s govt has to make up if a lot of the banks topple could be more than their citizens are prepared to actually pay.
It’s all very well for a govt to say that it guarantees everything, but if things go really bad and the bill is for 5 years of the country’s income, it ain’t all going to get paid. People aren’t going to go from big screen TVs and vacations in the Galapagos to pulling roots from the ground for dinner to keep their banks’ creditors whole.
ParticipantI would be cautious about depositing large amounts into banks guaranteed by small countries with a big banking industry. Why? Because the potential shortfall the small country’s govt has to make up if a lot of the banks topple could be more than their citizens are prepared to actually pay.
It’s all very well for a govt to say that it guarantees everything, but if things go really bad and the bill is for 5 years of the country’s income, it ain’t all going to get paid. People aren’t going to go from big screen TVs and vacations in the Galapagos to pulling roots from the ground for dinner to keep their banks’ creditors whole.
ParticipantI would be cautious about depositing large amounts into banks guaranteed by small countries with a big banking industry. Why? Because the potential shortfall the small country’s govt has to make up if a lot of the banks topple could be more than their citizens are prepared to actually pay.
It’s all very well for a govt to say that it guarantees everything, but if things go really bad and the bill is for 5 years of the country’s income, it ain’t all going to get paid. People aren’t going to go from big screen TVs and vacations in the Galapagos to pulling roots from the ground for dinner to keep their banks’ creditors whole.
ParticipantI would be cautious about depositing large amounts into banks guaranteed by small countries with a big banking industry. Why? Because the potential shortfall the small country’s govt has to make up if a lot of the banks topple could be more than their citizens are prepared to actually pay.
It’s all very well for a govt to say that it guarantees everything, but if things go really bad and the bill is for 5 years of the country’s income, it ain’t all going to get paid. People aren’t going to go from big screen TVs and vacations in the Galapagos to pulling roots from the ground for dinner to keep their banks’ creditors whole.
ParticipantI would be cautious about depositing large amounts into banks guaranteed by small countries with a big banking industry. Why? Because the potential shortfall the small country’s govt has to make up if a lot of the banks topple could be more than their citizens are prepared to actually pay.
It’s all very well for a govt to say that it guarantees everything, but if things go really bad and the bill is for 5 years of the country’s income, it ain’t all going to get paid. People aren’t going to go from big screen TVs and vacations in the Galapagos to pulling roots from the ground for dinner to keep their banks’ creditors whole.
Participantarraya and CA Renter, in response to my pointing my finger at the unwashed masses, you both correctly point out that there are supposed to be leaders who save those unwashed masses from their worst vices.
But the problem is that powerful investment bankers and central bankers and regulators really don’t have a lot of power. Maybe some smart people in power saw that a housing/debt bubble needed to be popped in 2005. And maybe some even tried, gingerly at first. But people in positions like Treasury Secretary and Fed Reserve Chairman and so on are cut to shreds by Congress if they threaten populist voters’ interests championed by politicians (regardless of party).
That’s why I think the real root problem is not poor leadership. It’s greedy voters.
Could I be persuaded otherwise? Maybe. For example, a lot of us respect Paul Volcker. But I honestly don’t know if he would have been allowed to cut off Fannie and Freddie, for example, in 2004 or 2005. I just don’t know if our political system permits us to have strong enough economic leadership to proactively avoid these “free lunch” schemes.
And, yes, arraya, most of these people in leadership positions were ‘playing dumb’. They didn’t know if there was a bubble or not, but they knew there was no percentage in questioning it too hard, and there was more gain (money and promotions etc) in going along.
Participantarraya and CA Renter, in response to my pointing my finger at the unwashed masses, you both correctly point out that there are supposed to be leaders who save those unwashed masses from their worst vices.
But the problem is that powerful investment bankers and central bankers and regulators really don’t have a lot of power. Maybe some smart people in power saw that a housing/debt bubble needed to be popped in 2005. And maybe some even tried, gingerly at first. But people in positions like Treasury Secretary and Fed Reserve Chairman and so on are cut to shreds by Congress if they threaten populist voters’ interests championed by politicians (regardless of party).
That’s why I think the real root problem is not poor leadership. It’s greedy voters.
Could I be persuaded otherwise? Maybe. For example, a lot of us respect Paul Volcker. But I honestly don’t know if he would have been allowed to cut off Fannie and Freddie, for example, in 2004 or 2005. I just don’t know if our political system permits us to have strong enough economic leadership to proactively avoid these “free lunch” schemes.
And, yes, arraya, most of these people in leadership positions were ‘playing dumb’. They didn’t know if there was a bubble or not, but they knew there was no percentage in questioning it too hard, and there was more gain (money and promotions etc) in going along.
Participantarraya and CA Renter, in response to my pointing my finger at the unwashed masses, you both correctly point out that there are supposed to be leaders who save those unwashed masses from their worst vices.
But the problem is that powerful investment bankers and central bankers and regulators really don’t have a lot of power. Maybe some smart people in power saw that a housing/debt bubble needed to be popped in 2005. And maybe some even tried, gingerly at first. But people in positions like Treasury Secretary and Fed Reserve Chairman and so on are cut to shreds by Congress if they threaten populist voters’ interests championed by politicians (regardless of party).
That’s why I think the real root problem is not poor leadership. It’s greedy voters.
Could I be persuaded otherwise? Maybe. For example, a lot of us respect Paul Volcker. But I honestly don’t know if he would have been allowed to cut off Fannie and Freddie, for example, in 2004 or 2005. I just don’t know if our political system permits us to have strong enough economic leadership to proactively avoid these “free lunch” schemes.
And, yes, arraya, most of these people in leadership positions were ‘playing dumb’. They didn’t know if there was a bubble or not, but they knew there was no percentage in questioning it too hard, and there was more gain (money and promotions etc) in going along.
Participantarraya and CA Renter, in response to my pointing my finger at the unwashed masses, you both correctly point out that there are supposed to be leaders who save those unwashed masses from their worst vices.
But the problem is that powerful investment bankers and central bankers and regulators really don’t have a lot of power. Maybe some smart people in power saw that a housing/debt bubble needed to be popped in 2005. And maybe some even tried, gingerly at first. But people in positions like Treasury Secretary and Fed Reserve Chairman and so on are cut to shreds by Congress if they threaten populist voters’ interests championed by politicians (regardless of party).
That’s why I think the real root problem is not poor leadership. It’s greedy voters.
Could I be persuaded otherwise? Maybe. For example, a lot of us respect Paul Volcker. But I honestly don’t know if he would have been allowed to cut off Fannie and Freddie, for example, in 2004 or 2005. I just don’t know if our political system permits us to have strong enough economic leadership to proactively avoid these “free lunch” schemes.
And, yes, arraya, most of these people in leadership positions were ‘playing dumb’. They didn’t know if there was a bubble or not, but they knew there was no percentage in questioning it too hard, and there was more gain (money and promotions etc) in going along.
Participantarraya and CA Renter, in response to my pointing my finger at the unwashed masses, you both correctly point out that there are supposed to be leaders who save those unwashed masses from their worst vices.
But the problem is that powerful investment bankers and central bankers and regulators really don’t have a lot of power. Maybe some smart people in power saw that a housing/debt bubble needed to be popped in 2005. And maybe some even tried, gingerly at first. But people in positions like Treasury Secretary and Fed Reserve Chairman and so on are cut to shreds by Congress if they threaten populist voters’ interests championed by politicians (regardless of party).
That’s why I think the real root problem is not poor leadership. It’s greedy voters.
Could I be persuaded otherwise? Maybe. For example, a lot of us respect Paul Volcker. But I honestly don’t know if he would have been allowed to cut off Fannie and Freddie, for example, in 2004 or 2005. I just don’t know if our political system permits us to have strong enough economic leadership to proactively avoid these “free lunch” schemes.
And, yes, arraya, most of these people in leadership positions were ‘playing dumb’. They didn’t know if there was a bubble or not, but they knew there was no percentage in questioning it too hard, and there was more gain (money and promotions etc) in going along.
ParticipantI think you’ve received good advice to put a portion in at current lows, and wait to see what to do with the rest.
-
AuthorPosts
