Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
ucodegen
Participant[quote=Nor-LA-SD-GUY2]You have to fix housing or wait for it to fix itself that is the only way you will get out of the current high unemployment problems (and no there are not too many houses at least not in socal).[/quote]
I don’t think housing will lead us out of this one. Functionally, housings biggest single cost item is land. Land is not produced in a factory nor does the sale of land create jobs. It does pay the ‘landed wealthy’ though when they can sell parts of parcels they own. The concentration needs to be on jobs, not saving Real Estate. Tweaking rates, mortgage terms etc to allow a how to sell at a higher price may help the one selling, but it doesn’t help the one buying.I am going to add the following – because I just got through dealing with it. We are shipping too much of our labor overseas, and it really doesn’t pay off. Too many companies are looking at the raw labor cost not factoring in production rate and quality. The reason this came up: I had to deal with Oracle support (MOS). On one issue, I had to deal with support based in China. The experience was almost like “Who’s on First”. Fine if I was wanting entertainment, but I have to deal with a system with reduced functionality – needs to be fixed. Part of the discussion ended up with the support person repeating everything I had entered, but in the form of a question.
Participant[quote=Nor-LA-SD-GUY2]You have to fix housing or wait for it to fix itself that is the only way you will get out of the current high unemployment problems (and no there are not too many houses at least not in socal).[/quote]
I don’t think housing will lead us out of this one. Functionally, housings biggest single cost item is land. Land is not produced in a factory nor does the sale of land create jobs. It does pay the ‘landed wealthy’ though when they can sell parts of parcels they own. The concentration needs to be on jobs, not saving Real Estate. Tweaking rates, mortgage terms etc to allow a how to sell at a higher price may help the one selling, but it doesn’t help the one buying.I am going to add the following – because I just got through dealing with it. We are shipping too much of our labor overseas, and it really doesn’t pay off. Too many companies are looking at the raw labor cost not factoring in production rate and quality. The reason this came up: I had to deal with Oracle support (MOS). On one issue, I had to deal with support based in China. The experience was almost like “Who’s on First”. Fine if I was wanting entertainment, but I have to deal with a system with reduced functionality – needs to be fixed. Part of the discussion ended up with the support person repeating everything I had entered, but in the form of a question.
Participant[quote=briansd1] Another non-populist view of the Tea Party’s is to give a free pass to the banks for the bailouts they received. Granted, the Tea Party is against bailouts. But now that they bailouts have happened, the Tea Party is against taxing the banks to recover the money. So the banks essentially got a free ride. [/quote]This is not completely true. I covered this earlier. The banks had to pay back the TARP money, or become owned by the Gov. They were also charged an interest rate on the TARP money. There were more ‘insidious’ portions though. The interest rate depended upon how politically ‘favored’, from the Goldman Sachs point of view, the particular bank was. From what I could tell, GS paid 0% interest on their TARP money, BofA paid 5%.. and Freddy/Fannie paid 10%. The mortgage bankers do not like Freddy and Fannie because these institutions for a ceiling on what interest can be charged on Mortgages. There are a few banks, very few, that have not paid back the TARP money (CIT, FRE, FNM come to mind. GS doesn’t want FRE and FNM to recover, so the interest rate is so high that the 2-3%margin on mortgages can’t cover the TARP’s loan interest).
On the other hand, the Fed and local governments have been continually tampering with laws with respect to loans and mortgages. It makes it hard for banks to know how to handle lending.
BTW, looking at the banks for money right now is not the right focus. Try looking at the oil companies. They got a gimmie under Bush in terms of tax giveaways.
Participant[quote=briansd1] Another non-populist view of the Tea Party’s is to give a free pass to the banks for the bailouts they received. Granted, the Tea Party is against bailouts. But now that they bailouts have happened, the Tea Party is against taxing the banks to recover the money. So the banks essentially got a free ride. [/quote]This is not completely true. I covered this earlier. The banks had to pay back the TARP money, or become owned by the Gov. They were also charged an interest rate on the TARP money. There were more ‘insidious’ portions though. The interest rate depended upon how politically ‘favored’, from the Goldman Sachs point of view, the particular bank was. From what I could tell, GS paid 0% interest on their TARP money, BofA paid 5%.. and Freddy/Fannie paid 10%. The mortgage bankers do not like Freddy and Fannie because these institutions for a ceiling on what interest can be charged on Mortgages. There are a few banks, very few, that have not paid back the TARP money (CIT, FRE, FNM come to mind. GS doesn’t want FRE and FNM to recover, so the interest rate is so high that the 2-3%margin on mortgages can’t cover the TARP’s loan interest).
On the other hand, the Fed and local governments have been continually tampering with laws with respect to loans and mortgages. It makes it hard for banks to know how to handle lending.
BTW, looking at the banks for money right now is not the right focus. Try looking at the oil companies. They got a gimmie under Bush in terms of tax giveaways.
Participant[quote=briansd1] Another non-populist view of the Tea Party’s is to give a free pass to the banks for the bailouts they received. Granted, the Tea Party is against bailouts. But now that they bailouts have happened, the Tea Party is against taxing the banks to recover the money. So the banks essentially got a free ride. [/quote]This is not completely true. I covered this earlier. The banks had to pay back the TARP money, or become owned by the Gov. They were also charged an interest rate on the TARP money. There were more ‘insidious’ portions though. The interest rate depended upon how politically ‘favored’, from the Goldman Sachs point of view, the particular bank was. From what I could tell, GS paid 0% interest on their TARP money, BofA paid 5%.. and Freddy/Fannie paid 10%. The mortgage bankers do not like Freddy and Fannie because these institutions for a ceiling on what interest can be charged on Mortgages. There are a few banks, very few, that have not paid back the TARP money (CIT, FRE, FNM come to mind. GS doesn’t want FRE and FNM to recover, so the interest rate is so high that the 2-3%margin on mortgages can’t cover the TARP’s loan interest).
On the other hand, the Fed and local governments have been continually tampering with laws with respect to loans and mortgages. It makes it hard for banks to know how to handle lending.
BTW, looking at the banks for money right now is not the right focus. Try looking at the oil companies. They got a gimmie under Bush in terms of tax giveaways.
Participant[quote=briansd1] Another non-populist view of the Tea Party’s is to give a free pass to the banks for the bailouts they received. Granted, the Tea Party is against bailouts. But now that they bailouts have happened, the Tea Party is against taxing the banks to recover the money. So the banks essentially got a free ride. [/quote]This is not completely true. I covered this earlier. The banks had to pay back the TARP money, or become owned by the Gov. They were also charged an interest rate on the TARP money. There were more ‘insidious’ portions though. The interest rate depended upon how politically ‘favored’, from the Goldman Sachs point of view, the particular bank was. From what I could tell, GS paid 0% interest on their TARP money, BofA paid 5%.. and Freddy/Fannie paid 10%. The mortgage bankers do not like Freddy and Fannie because these institutions for a ceiling on what interest can be charged on Mortgages. There are a few banks, very few, that have not paid back the TARP money (CIT, FRE, FNM come to mind. GS doesn’t want FRE and FNM to recover, so the interest rate is so high that the 2-3%margin on mortgages can’t cover the TARP’s loan interest).
On the other hand, the Fed and local governments have been continually tampering with laws with respect to loans and mortgages. It makes it hard for banks to know how to handle lending.
BTW, looking at the banks for money right now is not the right focus. Try looking at the oil companies. They got a gimmie under Bush in terms of tax giveaways.
Participant[quote=briansd1] Another non-populist view of the Tea Party’s is to give a free pass to the banks for the bailouts they received. Granted, the Tea Party is against bailouts. But now that they bailouts have happened, the Tea Party is against taxing the banks to recover the money. So the banks essentially got a free ride. [/quote]This is not completely true. I covered this earlier. The banks had to pay back the TARP money, or become owned by the Gov. They were also charged an interest rate on the TARP money. There were more ‘insidious’ portions though. The interest rate depended upon how politically ‘favored’, from the Goldman Sachs point of view, the particular bank was. From what I could tell, GS paid 0% interest on their TARP money, BofA paid 5%.. and Freddy/Fannie paid 10%. The mortgage bankers do not like Freddy and Fannie because these institutions for a ceiling on what interest can be charged on Mortgages. There are a few banks, very few, that have not paid back the TARP money (CIT, FRE, FNM come to mind. GS doesn’t want FRE and FNM to recover, so the interest rate is so high that the 2-3%margin on mortgages can’t cover the TARP’s loan interest).
On the other hand, the Fed and local governments have been continually tampering with laws with respect to loans and mortgages. It makes it hard for banks to know how to handle lending.
BTW, looking at the banks for money right now is not the right focus. Try looking at the oil companies. They got a gimmie under Bush in terms of tax giveaways.
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=Nor-LA-SD-GUY2]
But while I am sure china deserves to be paid back the full value of every penny we borrowed (NOT!!) I think the gold standard would be a disaster at this point.[/quote]
I fail to see how the Tea Party is populist when they advocate guaranteeing that bondholders get paid while they cut pensions and benefits for ordinary citizens.China and other holders of treasuries will be paid back for sure. But pensioners can take a haircut.
During the Debt Ceiling debate there was something weird about listening to Tea Party adherents say that Congress should pass legislation to allocate funds to bondholders first.[/quote]
This is a bit of a strawman argument. Simply put, if we don’t pay off the bondholders, they will not lend to us or will charge us prorated based upon what the expected chance of default is. Want to see interest rates spike? Don’t pay off the bondholders. The Feds purchasing can’t counter market behavior, just dampen it out a bit. The Thai government tried to counter the devaluation of the Baht.. and lost badly.The real thing is that we need to live within our means. Blaming the bondholders for letting us borrow the money to buy the rope to hang ourselves with is stupid and childish.
To say that no borrowing should be done is wrong. During times of financial stress, the gov. should spend more (borrowing to do that). That also means that during times of good, the government should cut spending including on social services (paying back the loan). Problem here is that our government currently acts as a child who seeing a dollar, has got to spend it.
http://www.ontheissues.org/askme/spousal_abuse.htm
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/Aug1999/081699/criminalclass1-081699.htm
I was looking for the itemized list of those that bankrupted companies or defaulted on bills…
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congresspay.htm
$174,000/yr.. but they still manage to go bankrupt..http://article.wn.com/view/2011/02/04/Texas_congressman_Hinojosa_files_for_bankruptcy/
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7411792.htmlParticipant[quote=briansd1][quote=Nor-LA-SD-GUY2]
But while I am sure china deserves to be paid back the full value of every penny we borrowed (NOT!!) I think the gold standard would be a disaster at this point.[/quote]
I fail to see how the Tea Party is populist when they advocate guaranteeing that bondholders get paid while they cut pensions and benefits for ordinary citizens.China and other holders of treasuries will be paid back for sure. But pensioners can take a haircut.
During the Debt Ceiling debate there was something weird about listening to Tea Party adherents say that Congress should pass legislation to allocate funds to bondholders first.[/quote]
This is a bit of a strawman argument. Simply put, if we don’t pay off the bondholders, they will not lend to us or will charge us prorated based upon what the expected chance of default is. Want to see interest rates spike? Don’t pay off the bondholders. The Feds purchasing can’t counter market behavior, just dampen it out a bit. The Thai government tried to counter the devaluation of the Baht.. and lost badly.The real thing is that we need to live within our means. Blaming the bondholders for letting us borrow the money to buy the rope to hang ourselves with is stupid and childish.
To say that no borrowing should be done is wrong. During times of financial stress, the gov. should spend more (borrowing to do that). That also means that during times of good, the government should cut spending including on social services (paying back the loan). Problem here is that our government currently acts as a child who seeing a dollar, has got to spend it.
http://www.ontheissues.org/askme/spousal_abuse.htm
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/Aug1999/081699/criminalclass1-081699.htm
I was looking for the itemized list of those that bankrupted companies or defaulted on bills…
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congresspay.htm
$174,000/yr.. but they still manage to go bankrupt..http://article.wn.com/view/2011/02/04/Texas_congressman_Hinojosa_files_for_bankruptcy/
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7411792.htmlParticipant[quote=briansd1][quote=Nor-LA-SD-GUY2]
But while I am sure china deserves to be paid back the full value of every penny we borrowed (NOT!!) I think the gold standard would be a disaster at this point.[/quote]
I fail to see how the Tea Party is populist when they advocate guaranteeing that bondholders get paid while they cut pensions and benefits for ordinary citizens.China and other holders of treasuries will be paid back for sure. But pensioners can take a haircut.
During the Debt Ceiling debate there was something weird about listening to Tea Party adherents say that Congress should pass legislation to allocate funds to bondholders first.[/quote]
This is a bit of a strawman argument. Simply put, if we don’t pay off the bondholders, they will not lend to us or will charge us prorated based upon what the expected chance of default is. Want to see interest rates spike? Don’t pay off the bondholders. The Feds purchasing can’t counter market behavior, just dampen it out a bit. The Thai government tried to counter the devaluation of the Baht.. and lost badly.The real thing is that we need to live within our means. Blaming the bondholders for letting us borrow the money to buy the rope to hang ourselves with is stupid and childish.
To say that no borrowing should be done is wrong. During times of financial stress, the gov. should spend more (borrowing to do that). That also means that during times of good, the government should cut spending including on social services (paying back the loan). Problem here is that our government currently acts as a child who seeing a dollar, has got to spend it.
http://www.ontheissues.org/askme/spousal_abuse.htm
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/Aug1999/081699/criminalclass1-081699.htm
I was looking for the itemized list of those that bankrupted companies or defaulted on bills…
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congresspay.htm
$174,000/yr.. but they still manage to go bankrupt..http://article.wn.com/view/2011/02/04/Texas_congressman_Hinojosa_files_for_bankruptcy/
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7411792.htmlParticipant[quote=briansd1][quote=Nor-LA-SD-GUY2]
But while I am sure china deserves to be paid back the full value of every penny we borrowed (NOT!!) I think the gold standard would be a disaster at this point.[/quote]
I fail to see how the Tea Party is populist when they advocate guaranteeing that bondholders get paid while they cut pensions and benefits for ordinary citizens.China and other holders of treasuries will be paid back for sure. But pensioners can take a haircut.
During the Debt Ceiling debate there was something weird about listening to Tea Party adherents say that Congress should pass legislation to allocate funds to bondholders first.[/quote]
This is a bit of a strawman argument. Simply put, if we don’t pay off the bondholders, they will not lend to us or will charge us prorated based upon what the expected chance of default is. Want to see interest rates spike? Don’t pay off the bondholders. The Feds purchasing can’t counter market behavior, just dampen it out a bit. The Thai government tried to counter the devaluation of the Baht.. and lost badly.The real thing is that we need to live within our means. Blaming the bondholders for letting us borrow the money to buy the rope to hang ourselves with is stupid and childish.
To say that no borrowing should be done is wrong. During times of financial stress, the gov. should spend more (borrowing to do that). That also means that during times of good, the government should cut spending including on social services (paying back the loan). Problem here is that our government currently acts as a child who seeing a dollar, has got to spend it.
http://www.ontheissues.org/askme/spousal_abuse.htm
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/Aug1999/081699/criminalclass1-081699.htm
I was looking for the itemized list of those that bankrupted companies or defaulted on bills…
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congresspay.htm
$174,000/yr.. but they still manage to go bankrupt..http://article.wn.com/view/2011/02/04/Texas_congressman_Hinojosa_files_for_bankruptcy/
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7411792.htmlParticipant[quote=briansd1][quote=Nor-LA-SD-GUY2]
But while I am sure china deserves to be paid back the full value of every penny we borrowed (NOT!!) I think the gold standard would be a disaster at this point.[/quote]
I fail to see how the Tea Party is populist when they advocate guaranteeing that bondholders get paid while they cut pensions and benefits for ordinary citizens.China and other holders of treasuries will be paid back for sure. But pensioners can take a haircut.
During the Debt Ceiling debate there was something weird about listening to Tea Party adherents say that Congress should pass legislation to allocate funds to bondholders first.[/quote]
This is a bit of a strawman argument. Simply put, if we don’t pay off the bondholders, they will not lend to us or will charge us prorated based upon what the expected chance of default is. Want to see interest rates spike? Don’t pay off the bondholders. The Feds purchasing can’t counter market behavior, just dampen it out a bit. The Thai government tried to counter the devaluation of the Baht.. and lost badly.The real thing is that we need to live within our means. Blaming the bondholders for letting us borrow the money to buy the rope to hang ourselves with is stupid and childish.
To say that no borrowing should be done is wrong. During times of financial stress, the gov. should spend more (borrowing to do that). That also means that during times of good, the government should cut spending including on social services (paying back the loan). Problem here is that our government currently acts as a child who seeing a dollar, has got to spend it.
http://www.ontheissues.org/askme/spousal_abuse.htm
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/Aug1999/081699/criminalclass1-081699.htm
I was looking for the itemized list of those that bankrupted companies or defaulted on bills…
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congresspay.htm
$174,000/yr.. but they still manage to go bankrupt..http://article.wn.com/view/2011/02/04/Texas_congressman_Hinojosa_files_for_bankruptcy/
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7411792.htmlAugust 9, 2011 at 11:54 PM in reply to: OK, we are down graded: AA+ (Still a long way from F+ guys) #716908Participant[quote pri_dk]Debt is not always bad, and the situation is not as bad as many make it out to be.
(Don’t agree that debt is not always bad? Then answer this: Why is Rich’s investment firm suggesting that it would be a very smart move for people to refinance into a 30 year loan right now?)[/quote]
Refinancing debt to lower existing debt costs is not the same as getting more debt, so this is not a good example.Good vs Bad debt is more dependent upon what the debt is used for and what is the return on the debt minus the cost of the debt (net proceeds of the indebtedness)
August 9, 2011 at 11:54 PM in reply to: OK, we are down graded: AA+ (Still a long way from F+ guys) #717000Participant[quote pri_dk]Debt is not always bad, and the situation is not as bad as many make it out to be.
(Don’t agree that debt is not always bad? Then answer this: Why is Rich’s investment firm suggesting that it would be a very smart move for people to refinance into a 30 year loan right now?)[/quote]
Refinancing debt to lower existing debt costs is not the same as getting more debt, so this is not a good example.Good vs Bad debt is more dependent upon what the debt is used for and what is the return on the debt minus the cost of the debt (net proceeds of the indebtedness)
-
AuthorPosts
