[TheBreeze]

Innovation has brought us MERS — an entity that helps facilitate the securitization of mortgages. Supposedly MERS has saved the mortgage securitization industry a billion dollars since inception (at least that is the number mentioned in every story I read about MERS). Never mind the trillions that have gone into bailing out Government Sachs and other criminal financial organizations who trade securitized mortgages and derivatives.

Generally, it seems that financial innovation is just a way for the crooks on Wall Street to show short term ‘profits’ which allows them to collect massive bonuses. The short-term ‘profits’ are later dwarfed by the size of the eventual taxpayer bailout. As near as I can tell, the size of the bailouts are about 1000x bigger than any of the supposed benefits from financial innovation.

My motto: First, let’s shoot all the bankers.

[TheBreeze]

Innovation has brought us MERS — an entity that helps facilitate the securitization of mortgages. Supposedly MERS has saved the mortgage securitization industry a billion dollars since inception (at least that is the number mentioned in every story I read about MERS). Never mind the trillions that have gone into bailing out Government Sachs and other criminal financial organizations who trade securitized mortgages and derivatives.

Generally, it seems that financial innovation is just a way for the crooks on Wall Street to show short term ‘profits’ which allows them to collect massive bonuses. The short-term ‘profits’ are later dwarfed by the size of the eventual taxpayer bailout. As near as I can tell, the size of the bailouts are about 1000x bigger than any of the supposed benefits from financial innovation.

My motto: First, let’s shoot all the bankers.

[TheBreeze]

Innovation has brought us MERS — an entity that helps facilitate the securitization of mortgages. Supposedly MERS has saved the mortgage securitization industry a billion dollars since inception (at least that is the number mentioned in every story I read about MERS). Never mind the trillions that have gone into bailing out Government Sachs and other criminal financial organizations who trade securitized mortgages and derivatives.

Generally, it seems that financial innovation is just a way for the crooks on Wall Street to show short term ‘profits’ which allows them to collect massive bonuses. The short-term ‘profits’ are later dwarfed by the size of the eventual taxpayer bailout. As near as I can tell, the size of the bailouts are about 1000x bigger than any of the supposed benefits from financial innovation.

My motto: First, let’s shoot all the bankers.

[TheBreeze]

Innovation has brought us MERS — an entity that helps facilitate the securitization of mortgages. Supposedly MERS has saved the mortgage securitization industry a billion dollars since inception (at least that is the number mentioned in every story I read about MERS). Never mind the trillions that have gone into bailing out Government Sachs and other criminal financial organizations who trade securitized mortgages and derivatives.

Generally, it seems that financial innovation is just a way for the crooks on Wall Street to show short term ‘profits’ which allows them to collect massive bonuses. The short-term ‘profits’ are later dwarfed by the size of the eventual taxpayer bailout. As near as I can tell, the size of the bailouts are about 1000x bigger than any of the supposed benefits from financial innovation.

My motto: First, let’s shoot all the bankers.

[TheBreeze]

Innovation has brought us MERS — an entity that helps facilitate the securitization of mortgages. Supposedly MERS has saved the mortgage securitization industry a billion dollars since inception (at least that is the number mentioned in every story I read about MERS). Never mind the trillions that have gone into bailing out Government Sachs and other criminal financial organizations who trade securitized mortgages and derivatives.

Generally, it seems that financial innovation is just a way for the crooks on Wall Street to show short term ‘profits’ which allows them to collect massive bonuses. The short-term ‘profits’ are later dwarfed by the size of the eventual taxpayer bailout. As near as I can tell, the size of the bailouts are about 1000x bigger than any of the supposed benefits from financial innovation.

My motto: First, let’s shoot all the bankers.

[TheBreeze]

[quote=justme]
Getting married for any other reason than to create a framework for having children is insane. Why on earth could anyone be that stupid?[/quote]

Have you ever seen young idiots in love? Reason goes out the window. The dude is thinking he’s going to get unlimited tang for the rest of his life and the woman is thinking that she no longer has to do anything she doesn’t want to do because she’s got the marriage certificate that equates to half his stuff.

That’s why they’re called Starter Marriages.

[TheBreeze]

[quote=justme]
Getting married for any other reason than to create a framework for having children is insane. Why on earth could anyone be that stupid?[/quote]

Have you ever seen young idiots in love? Reason goes out the window. The dude is thinking he’s going to get unlimited tang for the rest of his life and the woman is thinking that she no longer has to do anything she doesn’t want to do because she’s got the marriage certificate that equates to half his stuff.

That’s why they’re called Starter Marriages.

[TheBreeze]

[quote=justme]
Getting married for any other reason than to create a framework for having children is insane. Why on earth could anyone be that stupid?[/quote]

Have you ever seen young idiots in love? Reason goes out the window. The dude is thinking he’s going to get unlimited tang for the rest of his life and the woman is thinking that she no longer has to do anything she doesn’t want to do because she’s got the marriage certificate that equates to half his stuff.

That’s why they’re called Starter Marriages.

[TheBreeze]

[quote=justme]
Getting married for any other reason than to create a framework for having children is insane. Why on earth could anyone be that stupid?[/quote]

Have you ever seen young idiots in love? Reason goes out the window. The dude is thinking he’s going to get unlimited tang for the rest of his life and the woman is thinking that she no longer has to do anything she doesn’t want to do because she’s got the marriage certificate that equates to half his stuff.

That’s why they’re called Starter Marriages.

[TheBreeze]

[quote=justme]
Getting married for any other reason than to create a framework for having children is insane. Why on earth could anyone be that stupid?[/quote]

Have you ever seen young idiots in love? Reason goes out the window. The dude is thinking he’s going to get unlimited tang for the rest of his life and the woman is thinking that she no longer has to do anything she doesn’t want to do because she’s got the marriage certificate that equates to half his stuff.

That’s why they’re called Starter Marriages.

[TheBreeze]

[quote=CA renter]
In a society without marriage, and without any payment for the work women do (essentially, creating and bringing up the next generation of people), why would any woman have a child for a man? And if a woman did choose to have a child, there would be no reason to name that child after the sperm donor or to establish a relationship between the donor and her child, as the man would only be a hindrance to her independence and ability to find new mates or move for a career, etc.

Not sure why a man would think that’s some kind of utopia.[/quote]

Are you serious? Of all the married guys I know, only one actually got married with the desire to have kids. The rest did it because the woman wanted to.

Most of my married friends would gladly pay their wives to not have kids.

BTW, Brian, this is a great thread. Keep the words of wisdom coming.

[TheBreeze]

[quote=CA renter]
In a society without marriage, and without any payment for the work women do (essentially, creating and bringing up the next generation of people), why would any woman have a child for a man? And if a woman did choose to have a child, there would be no reason to name that child after the sperm donor or to establish a relationship between the donor and her child, as the man would only be a hindrance to her independence and ability to find new mates or move for a career, etc.

Not sure why a man would think that’s some kind of utopia.[/quote]

Are you serious? Of all the married guys I know, only one actually got married with the desire to have kids. The rest did it because the woman wanted to.

Most of my married friends would gladly pay their wives to not have kids.

BTW, Brian, this is a great thread. Keep the words of wisdom coming.

[TheBreeze]

[quote=CA renter]
In a society without marriage, and without any payment for the work women do (essentially, creating and bringing up the next generation of people), why would any woman have a child for a man? And if a woman did choose to have a child, there would be no reason to name that child after the sperm donor or to establish a relationship between the donor and her child, as the man would only be a hindrance to her independence and ability to find new mates or move for a career, etc.

Not sure why a man would think that’s some kind of utopia.[/quote]

Are you serious? Of all the married guys I know, only one actually got married with the desire to have kids. The rest did it because the woman wanted to.

Most of my married friends would gladly pay their wives to not have kids.

BTW, Brian, this is a great thread. Keep the words of wisdom coming.

[TheBreeze]

[quote=CA renter]
In a society without marriage, and without any payment for the work women do (essentially, creating and bringing up the next generation of people), why would any woman have a child for a man? And if a woman did choose to have a child, there would be no reason to name that child after the sperm donor or to establish a relationship between the donor and her child, as the man would only be a hindrance to her independence and ability to find new mates or move for a career, etc.

Not sure why a man would think that’s some kind of utopia.[/quote]

Are you serious? Of all the married guys I know, only one actually got married with the desire to have kids. The rest did it because the woman wanted to.

Most of my married friends would gladly pay their wives to not have kids.

BTW, Brian, this is a great thread. Keep the words of wisdom coming.

[TheBreeze]

[quote=CA renter]
In a society without marriage, and without any payment for the work women do (essentially, creating and bringing up the next generation of people), why would any woman have a child for a man? And if a woman did choose to have a child, there would be no reason to name that child after the sperm donor or to establish a relationship between the donor and her child, as the man would only be a hindrance to her independence and ability to find new mates or move for a career, etc.

Not sure why a man would think that’s some kind of utopia.[/quote]

Are you serious? Of all the married guys I know, only one actually got married with the desire to have kids. The rest did it because the woman wanted to.

Most of my married friends would gladly pay their wives to not have kids.

BTW, Brian, this is a great thread. Keep the words of wisdom coming.

[Author]

Posts