Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
TheBreeze
ParticipantI voted for Bob Barr. McCain would have done the same crap because the government has been captured by a financial oligarchy. The two parties are essentially the same now.
ParticipantI voted for Bob Barr. McCain would have done the same crap because the government has been captured by a financial oligarchy. The two parties are essentially the same now.
ParticipantI voted for Bob Barr. McCain would have done the same crap because the government has been captured by a financial oligarchy. The two parties are essentially the same now.
ParticipantI voted for Bob Barr. McCain would have done the same crap because the government has been captured by a financial oligarchy. The two parties are essentially the same now.
Participant[quote=flu]
Although I’m as pissed off with all these bailouts as probably other parts of main street are. At the same time, I’m foolish enough to be believe that unless there is some radical change in the way our economy works there is/will be no “main street” if “wall street” collapses.
[/quote]
Do you not find it curious that the stock market is about at the same levels it was back during the LTCM days — more than 10 years ago? Could it be that the bailout of LTCM didn’t decrease systemic risk, but rather increased it by encouraging malinvestment in ‘financial innovation’?
I disagree that the government bailouts decrease systemic risk. All the government can do is transfer systemic risk from private parties to the taxpayer.
Do you really think that propping up idiotic/fraudulent companies is decreasing systemic risk? Do you think that FHA loans with $700K limits and 0-down is decreasing systemic risk?
The problem during this time period is not lack of credit. The problem is lack of credit-worthy borrowers. Credit needs to contract during this portion of the cycle, but the government isn’t allowing it, which is increasing systemic risk.
I can’t believe that you and Allan call yourselves conservatives. You have way more faith in the goverenment than either me,, or any of my liberal buddies.
Participant[quote=flu]
Although I’m as pissed off with all these bailouts as probably other parts of main street are. At the same time, I’m foolish enough to be believe that unless there is some radical change in the way our economy works there is/will be no “main street” if “wall street” collapses.
[/quote]
Do you not find it curious that the stock market is about at the same levels it was back during the LTCM days — more than 10 years ago? Could it be that the bailout of LTCM didn’t decrease systemic risk, but rather increased it by encouraging malinvestment in ‘financial innovation’?
I disagree that the government bailouts decrease systemic risk. All the government can do is transfer systemic risk from private parties to the taxpayer.
Do you really think that propping up idiotic/fraudulent companies is decreasing systemic risk? Do you think that FHA loans with $700K limits and 0-down is decreasing systemic risk?
The problem during this time period is not lack of credit. The problem is lack of credit-worthy borrowers. Credit needs to contract during this portion of the cycle, but the government isn’t allowing it, which is increasing systemic risk.
I can’t believe that you and Allan call yourselves conservatives. You have way more faith in the goverenment than either me,, or any of my liberal buddies.
Participant[quote=flu]
Although I’m as pissed off with all these bailouts as probably other parts of main street are. At the same time, I’m foolish enough to be believe that unless there is some radical change in the way our economy works there is/will be no “main street” if “wall street” collapses.
[/quote]
Do you not find it curious that the stock market is about at the same levels it was back during the LTCM days — more than 10 years ago? Could it be that the bailout of LTCM didn’t decrease systemic risk, but rather increased it by encouraging malinvestment in ‘financial innovation’?
I disagree that the government bailouts decrease systemic risk. All the government can do is transfer systemic risk from private parties to the taxpayer.
Do you really think that propping up idiotic/fraudulent companies is decreasing systemic risk? Do you think that FHA loans with $700K limits and 0-down is decreasing systemic risk?
The problem during this time period is not lack of credit. The problem is lack of credit-worthy borrowers. Credit needs to contract during this portion of the cycle, but the government isn’t allowing it, which is increasing systemic risk.
I can’t believe that you and Allan call yourselves conservatives. You have way more faith in the goverenment than either me,, or any of my liberal buddies.
Participant[quote=flu]
Although I’m as pissed off with all these bailouts as probably other parts of main street are. At the same time, I’m foolish enough to be believe that unless there is some radical change in the way our economy works there is/will be no “main street” if “wall street” collapses.
[/quote]
Do you not find it curious that the stock market is about at the same levels it was back during the LTCM days — more than 10 years ago? Could it be that the bailout of LTCM didn’t decrease systemic risk, but rather increased it by encouraging malinvestment in ‘financial innovation’?
I disagree that the government bailouts decrease systemic risk. All the government can do is transfer systemic risk from private parties to the taxpayer.
Do you really think that propping up idiotic/fraudulent companies is decreasing systemic risk? Do you think that FHA loans with $700K limits and 0-down is decreasing systemic risk?
The problem during this time period is not lack of credit. The problem is lack of credit-worthy borrowers. Credit needs to contract during this portion of the cycle, but the government isn’t allowing it, which is increasing systemic risk.
I can’t believe that you and Allan call yourselves conservatives. You have way more faith in the goverenment than either me,, or any of my liberal buddies.
Participant[quote=flu]
Although I’m as pissed off with all these bailouts as probably other parts of main street are. At the same time, I’m foolish enough to be believe that unless there is some radical change in the way our economy works there is/will be no “main street” if “wall street” collapses.
[/quote]
Do you not find it curious that the stock market is about at the same levels it was back during the LTCM days — more than 10 years ago? Could it be that the bailout of LTCM didn’t decrease systemic risk, but rather increased it by encouraging malinvestment in ‘financial innovation’?
I disagree that the government bailouts decrease systemic risk. All the government can do is transfer systemic risk from private parties to the taxpayer.
Do you really think that propping up idiotic/fraudulent companies is decreasing systemic risk? Do you think that FHA loans with $700K limits and 0-down is decreasing systemic risk?
The problem during this time period is not lack of credit. The problem is lack of credit-worthy borrowers. Credit needs to contract during this portion of the cycle, but the government isn’t allowing it, which is increasing systemic risk.
I can’t believe that you and Allan call yourselves conservatives. You have way more faith in the goverenment than either me,, or any of my liberal buddies.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]You want to debate using facts? I’m all for that. I can categorically state and using historical precedent (LTCM, 1998) that a disorderly unwinding of some of the significant portfolios and positions held by “too big to fail” players would trigger a systemic collapse. We were on the verge in 1998 and LTCM was nothing compared to some of these behemoths and the staggering size of their portfolios.
[/quote]There is only one mention of the term systemic collapse in that book (on page 204):
The banksters debated the likelihood of systemic collapse but got nowhere. It was a parlor topic, not something the banksters wanted to spend $250 million on.
So it doesn’t look like the banksters of that era would agree that we were on the verge of systemic collapse. Nice try, though. Maybe next time use a more obscure reference that isn’t searchable online to make it a little harder for me to debunk your arguments.
Anyway, maybe a collapse of the banking system is what is needed. As Jim Rogers has said, every bank in Russia collapsed in the late 90’s and they pulled through just fine.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]You want to debate using facts? I’m all for that. I can categorically state and using historical precedent (LTCM, 1998) that a disorderly unwinding of some of the significant portfolios and positions held by “too big to fail” players would trigger a systemic collapse. We were on the verge in 1998 and LTCM was nothing compared to some of these behemoths and the staggering size of their portfolios.
[/quote]There is only one mention of the term systemic collapse in that book (on page 204):
The banksters debated the likelihood of systemic collapse but got nowhere. It was a parlor topic, not something the banksters wanted to spend $250 million on.
So it doesn’t look like the banksters of that era would agree that we were on the verge of systemic collapse. Nice try, though. Maybe next time use a more obscure reference that isn’t searchable online to make it a little harder for me to debunk your arguments.
Anyway, maybe a collapse of the banking system is what is needed. As Jim Rogers has said, every bank in Russia collapsed in the late 90’s and they pulled through just fine.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]You want to debate using facts? I’m all for that. I can categorically state and using historical precedent (LTCM, 1998) that a disorderly unwinding of some of the significant portfolios and positions held by “too big to fail” players would trigger a systemic collapse. We were on the verge in 1998 and LTCM was nothing compared to some of these behemoths and the staggering size of their portfolios.
[/quote]There is only one mention of the term systemic collapse in that book (on page 204):
The banksters debated the likelihood of systemic collapse but got nowhere. It was a parlor topic, not something the banksters wanted to spend $250 million on.
So it doesn’t look like the banksters of that era would agree that we were on the verge of systemic collapse. Nice try, though. Maybe next time use a more obscure reference that isn’t searchable online to make it a little harder for me to debunk your arguments.
Anyway, maybe a collapse of the banking system is what is needed. As Jim Rogers has said, every bank in Russia collapsed in the late 90’s and they pulled through just fine.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]You want to debate using facts? I’m all for that. I can categorically state and using historical precedent (LTCM, 1998) that a disorderly unwinding of some of the significant portfolios and positions held by “too big to fail” players would trigger a systemic collapse. We were on the verge in 1998 and LTCM was nothing compared to some of these behemoths and the staggering size of their portfolios.
[/quote]There is only one mention of the term systemic collapse in that book (on page 204):
The banksters debated the likelihood of systemic collapse but got nowhere. It was a parlor topic, not something the banksters wanted to spend $250 million on.
So it doesn’t look like the banksters of that era would agree that we were on the verge of systemic collapse. Nice try, though. Maybe next time use a more obscure reference that isn’t searchable online to make it a little harder for me to debunk your arguments.
Anyway, maybe a collapse of the banking system is what is needed. As Jim Rogers has said, every bank in Russia collapsed in the late 90’s and they pulled through just fine.
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]You want to debate using facts? I’m all for that. I can categorically state and using historical precedent (LTCM, 1998) that a disorderly unwinding of some of the significant portfolios and positions held by “too big to fail” players would trigger a systemic collapse. We were on the verge in 1998 and LTCM was nothing compared to some of these behemoths and the staggering size of their portfolios.
[/quote]There is only one mention of the term systemic collapse in that book (on page 204):
The banksters debated the likelihood of systemic collapse but got nowhere. It was a parlor topic, not something the banksters wanted to spend $250 million on.
So it doesn’t look like the banksters of that era would agree that we were on the verge of systemic collapse. Nice try, though. Maybe next time use a more obscure reference that isn’t searchable online to make it a little harder for me to debunk your arguments.
Anyway, maybe a collapse of the banking system is what is needed. As Jim Rogers has said, every bank in Russia collapsed in the late 90’s and they pulled through just fine.
-
AuthorPosts