[urbanrealtor]

Patient:
Your points are fair (if cynical).

Any thoughts about an alternative?

[urbanrealtor]

Patient:
Your points are fair (if cynical).

Any thoughts about an alternative?

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=TheBreeze]
Paulson, Bernanke, and Buffet are “everyone that matters”? Paulson and Bernanke are either idiots or crooks or both. They’ve been saying things are fine for forever and now suddenly they are saying there is a crisis. Buffet is respectable, but he may just be talking his book. Bernanke could have stopped this long ago with prudent mortgage regulations but instead he did nothing and said the problem was “contained”.
[/quote]
While I don’t disagree that they made some pretty serious errors and spent too much time cheerleading, I don’t think they are either idiots or crooks. Bernanke wrote the book (literally) on how the government reacted wrongly to economic downturn. Historically (and in the case with this chairman, personally) that reactionary component has been a big part of the Fed’s role. They are still trying to get it right with the whole forecasting and preventative thing. Clearly, they have not got that part figured out yet.

By being those that “matter”, I refer to the fact that they represent a pretty diverse set of interests (fiscal management, monetary policy, and private investment) at a micro level and are considered the most influential of those interests.
[quote=TheBreeze]

I find Mish, Roubini, and Jim Rogers to be much more credible on these issues as they have been right about the housing bubble for so long. They each think this bailout is ridiculous and won’t work. There’s no doubt that credit is contracting and the commercial paper market may even be in a ‘crisis’, but attempting to reflate the bubble by overpaying for mortgages is not the solution.
[/quote]
I thought it was more about securities and not the underlying paper, but your experts may be proven right. I don’t think it is possible to truly know the future on that.
I don’t think it will reflate the bubble, but if it the bailout does happen, then it may stabilize commercial lending. I think that is the point.
[quote=TheBreeze]
…you are a huge ‘tard. [/quote]
And I thank you for clarifying the level of your discourse. Perhaps you think calling me a name will strengthen your argument but, like your original thread, projects that are purely critical are inherently weak and you don’t make them stronger by calling me a “tard”. Generally insults mean the thinking has stopped. You basically started to make a point and punctuated it with a childish insult. That does not go long way towards making your point.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=TheBreeze]
Paulson, Bernanke, and Buffet are “everyone that matters”? Paulson and Bernanke are either idiots or crooks or both. They’ve been saying things are fine for forever and now suddenly they are saying there is a crisis. Buffet is respectable, but he may just be talking his book. Bernanke could have stopped this long ago with prudent mortgage regulations but instead he did nothing and said the problem was “contained”.
[/quote]
While I don’t disagree that they made some pretty serious errors and spent too much time cheerleading, I don’t think they are either idiots or crooks. Bernanke wrote the book (literally) on how the government reacted wrongly to economic downturn. Historically (and in the case with this chairman, personally) that reactionary component has been a big part of the Fed’s role. They are still trying to get it right with the whole forecasting and preventative thing. Clearly, they have not got that part figured out yet.

By being those that “matter”, I refer to the fact that they represent a pretty diverse set of interests (fiscal management, monetary policy, and private investment) at a micro level and are considered the most influential of those interests.
[quote=TheBreeze]

I find Mish, Roubini, and Jim Rogers to be much more credible on these issues as they have been right about the housing bubble for so long. They each think this bailout is ridiculous and won’t work. There’s no doubt that credit is contracting and the commercial paper market may even be in a ‘crisis’, but attempting to reflate the bubble by overpaying for mortgages is not the solution.
[/quote]
I thought it was more about securities and not the underlying paper, but your experts may be proven right. I don’t think it is possible to truly know the future on that.
I don’t think it will reflate the bubble, but if it the bailout does happen, then it may stabilize commercial lending. I think that is the point.
[quote=TheBreeze]
…you are a huge ‘tard. [/quote]
And I thank you for clarifying the level of your discourse. Perhaps you think calling me a name will strengthen your argument but, like your original thread, projects that are purely critical are inherently weak and you don’t make them stronger by calling me a “tard”. Generally insults mean the thinking has stopped. You basically started to make a point and punctuated it with a childish insult. That does not go long way towards making your point.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=TheBreeze]
Paulson, Bernanke, and Buffet are “everyone that matters”? Paulson and Bernanke are either idiots or crooks or both. They’ve been saying things are fine for forever and now suddenly they are saying there is a crisis. Buffet is respectable, but he may just be talking his book. Bernanke could have stopped this long ago with prudent mortgage regulations but instead he did nothing and said the problem was “contained”.
[/quote]
While I don’t disagree that they made some pretty serious errors and spent too much time cheerleading, I don’t think they are either idiots or crooks. Bernanke wrote the book (literally) on how the government reacted wrongly to economic downturn. Historically (and in the case with this chairman, personally) that reactionary component has been a big part of the Fed’s role. They are still trying to get it right with the whole forecasting and preventative thing. Clearly, they have not got that part figured out yet.

By being those that “matter”, I refer to the fact that they represent a pretty diverse set of interests (fiscal management, monetary policy, and private investment) at a micro level and are considered the most influential of those interests.
[quote=TheBreeze]

I find Mish, Roubini, and Jim Rogers to be much more credible on these issues as they have been right about the housing bubble for so long. They each think this bailout is ridiculous and won’t work. There’s no doubt that credit is contracting and the commercial paper market may even be in a ‘crisis’, but attempting to reflate the bubble by overpaying for mortgages is not the solution.
[/quote]
I thought it was more about securities and not the underlying paper, but your experts may be proven right. I don’t think it is possible to truly know the future on that.
I don’t think it will reflate the bubble, but if it the bailout does happen, then it may stabilize commercial lending. I think that is the point.
[quote=TheBreeze]
…you are a huge ‘tard. [/quote]
And I thank you for clarifying the level of your discourse. Perhaps you think calling me a name will strengthen your argument but, like your original thread, projects that are purely critical are inherently weak and you don’t make them stronger by calling me a “tard”. Generally insults mean the thinking has stopped. You basically started to make a point and punctuated it with a childish insult. That does not go long way towards making your point.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=TheBreeze]
Paulson, Bernanke, and Buffet are “everyone that matters”? Paulson and Bernanke are either idiots or crooks or both. They’ve been saying things are fine for forever and now suddenly they are saying there is a crisis. Buffet is respectable, but he may just be talking his book. Bernanke could have stopped this long ago with prudent mortgage regulations but instead he did nothing and said the problem was “contained”.
[/quote]
While I don’t disagree that they made some pretty serious errors and spent too much time cheerleading, I don’t think they are either idiots or crooks. Bernanke wrote the book (literally) on how the government reacted wrongly to economic downturn. Historically (and in the case with this chairman, personally) that reactionary component has been a big part of the Fed’s role. They are still trying to get it right with the whole forecasting and preventative thing. Clearly, they have not got that part figured out yet.

By being those that “matter”, I refer to the fact that they represent a pretty diverse set of interests (fiscal management, monetary policy, and private investment) at a micro level and are considered the most influential of those interests.
[quote=TheBreeze]

I find Mish, Roubini, and Jim Rogers to be much more credible on these issues as they have been right about the housing bubble for so long. They each think this bailout is ridiculous and won’t work. There’s no doubt that credit is contracting and the commercial paper market may even be in a ‘crisis’, but attempting to reflate the bubble by overpaying for mortgages is not the solution.
[/quote]
I thought it was more about securities and not the underlying paper, but your experts may be proven right. I don’t think it is possible to truly know the future on that.
I don’t think it will reflate the bubble, but if it the bailout does happen, then it may stabilize commercial lending. I think that is the point.
[quote=TheBreeze]
…you are a huge ‘tard. [/quote]
And I thank you for clarifying the level of your discourse. Perhaps you think calling me a name will strengthen your argument but, like your original thread, projects that are purely critical are inherently weak and you don’t make them stronger by calling me a “tard”. Generally insults mean the thinking has stopped. You basically started to make a point and punctuated it with a childish insult. That does not go long way towards making your point.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=TheBreeze]
Paulson, Bernanke, and Buffet are “everyone that matters”? Paulson and Bernanke are either idiots or crooks or both. They’ve been saying things are fine for forever and now suddenly they are saying there is a crisis. Buffet is respectable, but he may just be talking his book. Bernanke could have stopped this long ago with prudent mortgage regulations but instead he did nothing and said the problem was “contained”.
[/quote]
While I don’t disagree that they made some pretty serious errors and spent too much time cheerleading, I don’t think they are either idiots or crooks. Bernanke wrote the book (literally) on how the government reacted wrongly to economic downturn. Historically (and in the case with this chairman, personally) that reactionary component has been a big part of the Fed’s role. They are still trying to get it right with the whole forecasting and preventative thing. Clearly, they have not got that part figured out yet.

By being those that “matter”, I refer to the fact that they represent a pretty diverse set of interests (fiscal management, monetary policy, and private investment) at a micro level and are considered the most influential of those interests.
[quote=TheBreeze]

I find Mish, Roubini, and Jim Rogers to be much more credible on these issues as they have been right about the housing bubble for so long. They each think this bailout is ridiculous and won’t work. There’s no doubt that credit is contracting and the commercial paper market may even be in a ‘crisis’, but attempting to reflate the bubble by overpaying for mortgages is not the solution.
[/quote]
I thought it was more about securities and not the underlying paper, but your experts may be proven right. I don’t think it is possible to truly know the future on that.
I don’t think it will reflate the bubble, but if it the bailout does happen, then it may stabilize commercial lending. I think that is the point.
[quote=TheBreeze]
…you are a huge ‘tard. [/quote]
And I thank you for clarifying the level of your discourse. Perhaps you think calling me a name will strengthen your argument but, like your original thread, projects that are purely critical are inherently weak and you don’t make them stronger by calling me a “tard”. Generally insults mean the thinking has stopped. You basically started to make a point and punctuated it with a childish insult. That does not go long way towards making your point.

[urbanrealtor]

Peter:
While you may make sense in the long term, currently, the foreclosure boom (I need to copyright that term) is driving many rental markets north.

Essentially, until economic failure leads to local deflation (like if there is mass unemployment), those prices are not going down. It is the opposite of the purchase market. There are just slightly too few rental units for the renters looking.

[urbanrealtor]

Peter:
While you may make sense in the long term, currently, the foreclosure boom (I need to copyright that term) is driving many rental markets north.

Essentially, until economic failure leads to local deflation (like if there is mass unemployment), those prices are not going down. It is the opposite of the purchase market. There are just slightly too few rental units for the renters looking.

[urbanrealtor]

Peter:
While you may make sense in the long term, currently, the foreclosure boom (I need to copyright that term) is driving many rental markets north.

Essentially, until economic failure leads to local deflation (like if there is mass unemployment), those prices are not going down. It is the opposite of the purchase market. There are just slightly too few rental units for the renters looking.

[urbanrealtor]

Peter:
While you may make sense in the long term, currently, the foreclosure boom (I need to copyright that term) is driving many rental markets north.

Essentially, until economic failure leads to local deflation (like if there is mass unemployment), those prices are not going down. It is the opposite of the purchase market. There are just slightly too few rental units for the renters looking.

[urbanrealtor]

Peter:
While you may make sense in the long term, currently, the foreclosure boom (I need to copyright that term) is driving many rental markets north.

Essentially, until economic failure leads to local deflation (like if there is mass unemployment), those prices are not going down. It is the opposite of the purchase market. There are just slightly too few rental units for the renters looking.

[urbanrealtor]

To the author of the thread:

The problem with your assertion (other than it being a shallow, sarcastic, critical project) is that it does not square with history.

It is accurate that the failure of the Iraq war was sold as something similar to the allied liberation of France. Of course invading a sovereign nation is not analogous to this. They sold butchery as a humanitarian effort.

However, the point remains that just as there are wars where invaders play more of a liberator role, so are there government subsidy and remediation programs that end up earning profits or remuneration for the general fund (and, in theory the taxpayers). There is existing precedent for this. Consider some of FDR’s programs.

After seeing the “just trust us” assertions of the executive branch proven wrong in repeated fashion (war, energy, economy, housing)I am also suspicious.

The part I find compelling is that everyone agrees. At least everyone that matters. After hearing Buffet, Paulson, and Bernanke all say similar things and hearing most economically minded friends start fretting about commercial paper, it starts to beg the question of what if? The answer seems to keep coming back that most major employers would suddenly contract spending and lots of jobs would disappear.
On the “good” side, imagine how many jobs would stay in the US if everyone was so poor that other countries came to us for their cheap labor.

[urbanrealtor]

To the author of the thread:

The problem with your assertion (other than it being a shallow, sarcastic, critical project) is that it does not square with history.

It is accurate that the failure of the Iraq war was sold as something similar to the allied liberation of France. Of course invading a sovereign nation is not analogous to this. They sold butchery as a humanitarian effort.

However, the point remains that just as there are wars where invaders play more of a liberator role, so are there government subsidy and remediation programs that end up earning profits or remuneration for the general fund (and, in theory the taxpayers). There is existing precedent for this. Consider some of FDR’s programs.

After seeing the “just trust us” assertions of the executive branch proven wrong in repeated fashion (war, energy, economy, housing)I am also suspicious.

The part I find compelling is that everyone agrees. At least everyone that matters. After hearing Buffet, Paulson, and Bernanke all say similar things and hearing most economically minded friends start fretting about commercial paper, it starts to beg the question of what if? The answer seems to keep coming back that most major employers would suddenly contract spending and lots of jobs would disappear.
On the “good” side, imagine how many jobs would stay in the US if everyone was so poor that other countries came to us for their cheap labor.

[urbanrealtor]

To the author of the thread:

The problem with your assertion (other than it being a shallow, sarcastic, critical project) is that it does not square with history.

It is accurate that the failure of the Iraq war was sold as something similar to the allied liberation of France. Of course invading a sovereign nation is not analogous to this. They sold butchery as a humanitarian effort.

However, the point remains that just as there are wars where invaders play more of a liberator role, so are there government subsidy and remediation programs that end up earning profits or remuneration for the general fund (and, in theory the taxpayers). There is existing precedent for this. Consider some of FDR’s programs.

After seeing the “just trust us” assertions of the executive branch proven wrong in repeated fashion (war, energy, economy, housing)I am also suspicious.

The part I find compelling is that everyone agrees. At least everyone that matters. After hearing Buffet, Paulson, and Bernanke all say similar things and hearing most economically minded friends start fretting about commercial paper, it starts to beg the question of what if? The answer seems to keep coming back that most major employers would suddenly contract spending and lots of jobs would disappear.
On the “good” side, imagine how many jobs would stay in the US if everyone was so poor that other countries came to us for their cheap labor.

[Author]

Posts