jesus ****ing christ you are mad. You are a child that cant even even answer a simple question. Answer the question. I am begging you, i a ****ing begging you. DO YOU DENY THAT IN A PURE CPAITALIST SYSTEM, THE NATURAL CONCENTRAION OF WEALTH OCCURS? where the hell did u start talking about indivudal rights and wesley snipes. please just answer the question, i literally am on my knees typing in from of my keyboard. Answer the question. you must be trolling hard as i have answered your question 2 times in the other thread and t-3 times here. accumulation of objects do not grant legal authority to individuals above others. i am running out of ways to tell you that, i think i might only have a few thousand more word combinations that convey that sentiment. lol I don't think he is talking about exclusively legal authority. Money moves influences, legal or illegal, it does. That is how the real world rolls.[QUOTE="BossPerson"]
[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] do you have any real or even argumentative evidence? wesly snipes went to jail for tax evasion for 10 years, i know non-rich people who have done the same thing for less time for the same crime. there you go, now if you could point out where individual rich people in a free society violate the rights of non-rich people we might be able to have a discussion where youre not telling me my arguments are wrong for wrongs sake and it is self evident, even though it cant be as i need evidence and explanations as to why and how i am wrong.
surrealnumber5
Occupy Wall Street being ousted RIGHT NOW
This topic is locked from further discussion.
how did i forget about the vote money multiplier equation 1*(monies/luz)=voting powersurrealnumber5firstly, i am new to these forums. So eat that. Secondly, you are delusional to the point where you are not even answering my questions, and when you calim you do..all you do is proivde a theoretical answer to a REAL question. I tell you democracy isnt working properly and you say,," but amerizz iz democraticzz yozzz, we are equallzzz becauzz thatzz wat teh constitution sayzz dawg" you boviously havent been around for the past 40 years and you obviosuly never heard of a LOBBYIST, look up jack abramoff.
And to this point you are yet to answer my question. Enough with your useless theoretical jargon that doesnt apply to real life and answer the question with yes or no. Does the natural concntration of wealth occur in a pure capitalist system?
oh and **** what the law says in paper. People break laws yo. The world isnt perfect and what it says on paper. Laws are broken, they have loop holes, sometimes law are even immoral. I tell you someone has done something wrong, but you say" but teh lawz sayz u cant do dat"
[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]you must be trolling hard as i have answered your question 2 times in the other thread and t-3 times here. accumulation of objects do not grant legal authority to individuals above others. i am running out of ways to tell you that, i think i might only have a few thousand more word combinations that convey that sentiment. lol I don't think he is talking about exclusively legal authority. Money moves influences, legal or illegal, it does. That is how the real world rolls. those unscrupulous individuals who are corruptible are the same people he wishes to give more power to, more power more corruption. the only feasible way to fix the system as he sees it is to get rid of all wealth but the rulers will always take there cut and live well, after all, they have the power. this sounds a lot like feudal Europe, i wonder if he is European and just trying to get back in touch with the "good old days"[QUOTE="BossPerson"]jesus ****ing christ you are mad. You are a child that cant even even answer a simple question. Answer the question. I am begging you, i a ****ing begging you. DO YOU DENY THAT IN A PURE CPAITALIST SYSTEM, THE NATURAL CONCENTRAION OF WEALTH OCCURS? where the hell did u start talking about indivudal rights and wesley snipes. please just answer the question, i literally am on my knees typing in from of my keyboard. Answer the question.
kuraimen
i would like him to name an economic system that has given more individual freedoms, equality, and power than the free enterprise capitalist system.
lol I don't think he is talking about exclusively legal authority. Money moves influences, legal or illegal, it does. That is how the real world rolls. those unscrupulous individuals who are corruptible are the same people he wishes to give more power to, more power more corruption. the only feasible way to fix the system as he sees it is to get rid of all wealth but the rulers will always take there cut and live well, after all, they have the power. this sounds a lot like feudal Europe, i wonder if he is European and just trying to get back in touch with the "good old days"[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] you must be trolling hard as i have answered your question 2 times in the other thread and t-3 times here. accumulation of objects do not grant legal authority to individuals above others. i am running out of ways to tell you that, i think i might only have a few thousand more word combinations that convey that sentiment.
surrealnumber5
i would like him to name an economic system that has given more individual freedoms, equality, and power than the free enterprise capitalist system.
look up Norway. Even in a socialist system, people there have more freedom, they have more equality and more more power in society than what America has ever achieved. I fear posting this will give u an excuse not to answer my original question thoughi am delusional, but you are the one saying we should ignore the law or in your words "**** what the law says", well if you are only debating off of your feelings and opinion then i guess you win, the opinion you hold is indeed your opinion, but that does not make it reality. i also find this perplexing, how can you want law makers to have more power but seek to ignore the law?oh and **** what the law says in paper. People break laws yo. The world isnt perfect and what it says on paper. Laws are broken, they have loop holes, sometimes law are even immoral. I tell you someone has done something wrong, but you say" but teh lawz sayz u cant do dat"
BossPerson
lol I don't think he is talking about exclusively legal authority. Money moves influences, legal or illegal, it does. That is how the real world rolls. those unscrupulous individuals who are corruptible are the same people he wishes to give more power to, more power more corruption. the only feasible way to fix the system as he sees it is to get rid of all wealth but the rulers will always take there cut and live well, after all, they have the power. this sounds a lot like feudal Europe, i wonder if he is European and just trying to get back in touch with the "good old days"[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] you must be trolling hard as i have answered your question 2 times in the other thread and t-3 times here. accumulation of objects do not grant legal authority to individuals above others. i am running out of ways to tell you that, i think i might only have a few thousand more word combinations that convey that sentiment.
surrealnumber5
i would like him to name an economic system that has given more individual freedoms, equality, and power than the free enterprise capitalist system.
The thing is that we are ruled by Plutocracies. The government and the wealthy have basically become the same. If you take away power from the goverment and give it to the market the wealthy will keep getting wealthy and having power at the expense of the rest. If you take away power from the market and give it to the government the wealthy will keep getting wealthy and having power at the expense of the rest. It's a lose-lose situation. The only possible solution as I see is a complete overhaul of the system that separates corporations and government and where the amount of accumulated wealth is highly restrained. Promote market freedom but for the little guy. If you give freedom to the big guys they'll basically take everything they can by whatever means like it is happening now be it through the governemnt or through private entities.you know it actually amazes me you are yet to answer my original question. It's said that someone with your intelligence is so oblivious to your own logical faults and misconceptions about how society works. Stop reading "the wealth of nations" and take a walk downtown where you live, see how the system has worked for people.
those unscrupulous individuals who are corruptible are the same people he wishes to give more power to, more power more corruption. the only feasible way to fix the system as he sees it is to get rid of all wealth but the rulers will always take there cut and live well, after all, they have the power. this sounds a lot like feudal Europe, i wonder if he is European and just trying to get back in touch with the "good old days"[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]
[QUOTE="kuraimen"] lol I don't think he is talking about exclusively legal authority. Money moves influences, legal or illegal, it does. That is how the real world rolls.BossPerson
i would like him to name an economic system that has given more individual freedoms, equality, and power than the free enterprise capitalist system.
look up Norway. Even in a socialist system, people there have more freedom, they have more equality and more more power in society than what America has ever achieved. I fear posting this will give u an excuse not to answer my original question though lol wut, in what way is america less free, i know we are less racist and insular, but less free?? and your question has been answered a number of times...i am delusional, but you are the one saying we should ignore the law or in your words "**** what the law says", well if you are only debating off of your feelings and opinion then i guess you win, the opinion you hold is indeed your opinion, but that does not make it reality. i also find this perplexing, how can you want law makers to have more power but seek to ignore the law?i said **** the law as in dont use the law to your defense when I tell you that people are doing something bad. Just because something is forbidden doesnt mean it doesnt happen. I didnt say we should ignore the law. The fact that you couldnt pick that up by the last senatnce in my post is beyond me.[QUOTE="BossPerson"]
oh and **** what the law says in paper. People break laws yo. The world isnt perfect and what it says on paper. Laws are broken, they have loop holes, sometimes law are even immoral. I tell you someone has done something wrong, but you say" but teh lawz sayz u cant do dat"
surrealnumber5
well im leaving this thread as it is obvious you are completely delusional, and oblivious to reality. You have created your own bubble of perfect theoretical theories and try to apply them to answer questions that arise when those theories dont work out as planned. You have ignroed the fact that rich people have more power than you and i in society, and you use the mere existence of law to say that nothing bad is happeneing in america. U are yet to answer my question with a yes or no. All you do is give eloquent and intimidating answers filled with theoretical nonsense that would make adam smith himself vomit. Your arguments hold no value in addressing the real problems of society. i hope u can see he truth before its too late for you to change
those unscrupulous individuals who are corruptible are the same people he wishes to give more power to, more power more corruption. the only feasible way to fix the system as he sees it is to get rid of all wealth but the rulers will always take there cut and live well, after all, they have the power. this sounds a lot like feudal Europe, i wonder if he is European and just trying to get back in touch with the "good old days"[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]
[QUOTE="kuraimen"] lol I don't think he is talking about exclusively legal authority. Money moves influences, legal or illegal, it does. That is how the real world rolls.BossPerson
i would like him to name an economic system that has given more individual freedoms, equality, and power than the free enterprise capitalist system.
look up Norway. Even in a socialist system, people there have more freedom, they have more equality and more more power in society than what America has ever achieved. I fear posting this will give u an excuse not to answer my original question though Norway is also a homogenous society without many of the social problems that face more diverse nations. To say that their success is based purely on their political system is to ingnore thousands of other confounding factors. There are plenty of socialist countries in europe that are currently failing such as greece, italy, spain, and ireland. Even France is in serious trouble. So I dont think you can label success or failure of a country as purely a result of a political/economic system.As far as ignoring laws, that's a very dangeorous precdent.Who determines which laws are worthy and which are not?
@Surreal: I don't know why but this made me think that you are Ebenezer Scrooge. Expect visits from 3 spirits.....well im leaving this thread as it is obvious you are completely delusional, and oblivious to reality. You have created your own bubble of perfect theoretical theories and try to apply them to answer questions that arise when those theories dont work out as planned. You have ignroed the fact that rich people have more power than you and i in society, and you use the mere existence of law to say that nothing bad is happeneing in america. U are yet to answer my question with a yes or no. All you do is give eloquent and intimidating answers filled with theoretical nonsense that would make adam smith himself vomit. Your arguments hold no value in addressing the real problems of society. i hope u can see he truth before its too late for you to change
BossPerson
well im leaving this thread as it is obvious you are completely delusional, and oblivious to reality. You have created your own bubble of perfect theoretical theories and try to apply them to answer questions that arise when those theories dont work out as planned. You have ignroed the fact that rich people have more power than you and i in society, and you use the mere existence of law to say that nothing bad is happeneing in america. U are yet to answer my question with a yes or no. All you do is give eloquent and intimidating answers filled with theoretical nonsense that would make adam smith himself vomit. Your arguments hold no value in addressing the real problems of society. i hope u can see he truth before its too late for you to change
BossPerson
You've made no clear points throughout this other thing other to say that rich people have more money and that you should get that money because it's not fair.
You haven't made a logical argument and are actually the one being the delusional one here.
@Surreal: I don't know why but this made me think that you are Ebenezer Scrooge. Expect visits from 3 spirits..... i have been compared to both mr magoo and bill murray from their versions of that story from 3 different ex-girlfriends. someone needs restrain the pures strings.[QUOTE="BossPerson"]
well im leaving this thread as it is obvious you are completely delusional, and oblivious to reality. You have created your own bubble of perfect theoretical theories and try to apply them to answer questions that arise when those theories dont work out as planned. You have ignroed the fact that rich people have more power than you and i in society, and you use the mere existence of law to say that nothing bad is happeneing in america. U are yet to answer my question with a yes or no. All you do is give eloquent and intimidating answers filled with theoretical nonsense that would make adam smith himself vomit. Your arguments hold no value in addressing the real problems of society. i hope u can see he truth before its too late for you to change
Planet_Pluto
[QUOTE="BossPerson"]
well im leaving this thread as it is obvious you are completely delusional, and oblivious to reality. You have created your own bubble of perfect theoretical theories and try to apply them to answer questions that arise when those theories dont work out as planned. You have ignroed the fact that rich people have more power than you and i in society, and you use the mere existence of law to say that nothing bad is happeneing in america. U are yet to answer my question with a yes or no. All you do is give eloquent and intimidating answers filled with theoretical nonsense that would make adam smith himself vomit. Your arguments hold no value in addressing the real problems of society. i hope u can see he truth before its too late for you to change
Wasdie
You've made no clear points throughout this other thing other to say that rich people have more money and that you should get that money because it's not fair.
You haven't made a logical argument and are actually the one being the delusional one here.
show me one instance when i complained of the exitence of rich people and said that i should get their money. You think ur slick coming out with a pure lie like that. It proves you're argument is lacking.I doubt the entire 1% got rich on their own. Combination of shady dealings and inheritance would describe a good portion of them. so give politicians more power to control the economy after all of the favor the sold to get us to this point? or are you going to somehow blame inanimate objects for the evils of politicians? all of thoserecently ousted green frauds did not get their money by on their own, they got it from politicians and they got it from us. most wealth was earned, in the past, before government accounted for 40% of the economy, now 40% of the economy is political and not productive. youre right some people do get rich by theft, but they are the same people you wish to give more power, and from my POV it seems that you want to give them more power because they have abused the power they already have. Irrelevant to my point. But okay.[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"]
Good.
These people need to realise that the 1% are rich because they worked hard for it.
You want more money?Stop wasting your time at OWS and earn it.
surrealnumber5
Most wealth was earned back in the day all you sheeple. Just read the jungle, it's all in there. EntropyWins
The Jungle is socialist propaganda... like full on socialist propaganda. It did have a positive impact of working conditions, but a lot of the stuff was a exaggerated to make socialist propaganda have a bigger impact.
[QUOTE="flazzle"]
[QUOTE="BossPerson"]Im not sure if they are or arent, i dont read those papers. But... the news media is ocnstantly saying that these people are "unorganized" and "without a leader" their ignoring the simple demand thats existent across all these protests. Get corporate money out of politics. honestyl w/e u are, conservative, lib, black, white w/e..if you dont agre with that goal then ur idiots.
BossPerson
So it's a conspiracy on proper reporting...
Do you deny the above claims? Is conspiracy always an evil word? You dont need a formal conspiracy to know whats good for your company and the companies that pay you.You think there is a conspiracy on reporting. No shame in thinking that.
how are you going to get money out of politics as long as politicians can dictate the market? that is why lobbies exist to influence politicians to favor their interest. as long as you have politicians with this power you will have ever increasing lobby forces.
Anybody wonder how/why so many politicians, upon being elected, have relatively modest incomes and assets...... yet a few short years later they have MILLIONS? (That goes for Republicans as well as Democrats).
Anybody wonder how/why so many politicians, upon being elected, have relatively modest incomes and assets...... yet a few short years later they have MILLIONS? (That goes for Republicans as well as Democrats).
Planet_Pluto
didn't 60 minutes have a special on that? I missed it. I wonder if anyone that has seen it can summarize.
It's DEFINITELY both R and D's
smart investmentsAnybody wonder how/why so many politicians, upon being elected, have relatively modest incomes and assets...... yet a few short years later they have MILLIONS? (That goes for Republicans as well as Democrats).
Planet_Pluto
[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]smart investments:lol: That must be it :)Anybody wonder how/why so many politicians, upon being elected, have relatively modest incomes and assets...... yet a few short years later they have MILLIONS? (That goes for Republicans as well as Democrats).
Jandurin
[QUOTE="Planet_Pluto"]smart investments i dont think he is talking about DR Paul. sorry jand i need to bring him up once a day, its part of the cul.. er.. chur.... club i joinedAnybody wonder how/why so many politicians, upon being elected, have relatively modest incomes and assets...... yet a few short years later they have MILLIONS? (That goes for Republicans as well as Democrats).
Jandurin
You certainly can make a profit on derivatives. What you do is you take a bad asset (e.g. subprime loan), bundle it with a good asset (courtesy of institutions like AIG), launder it through a ratings agency (Moody's, S&P, Fitch, ect.) so it can then be marketed as a AAA asset, and then you take out a derivative and wait for that seemingly risk free asset to fail. This is what financial deruglation has brought us for the past 20 years; systemic fraud and gambling.financial derivatives are financial instruments that hedge against excess profit and loss, there is no way for anyone to get "rich" by getting the contracted normative value for what the hedged against. i hate when people try to talk about subjects they got from party lines or the 10-o-clock news. financial derivatives are nothing more than insurance, and insurance is not a PROFIT instrument. now derivatives can be taken out on anything but for my example i will use grain as it is what i am most familiar with.
a farmer buys grain for feed at $50 per unit, any great flux in this price will drastically affect the price of his cattle on the market. so he takes out a derivative with the conditions that ffed market price will be within +/- $5 of its current market price and should the market price dip below 45 or above 55 the other party will either collect or pay the difference. if there is a bumper crop and the price drops to 30 per unit, the farmer would need to pay the other party that agreed to these terms $15 for every unit he purchases bringing his cost to 45/unit the lower limit. if the economy turns and inflation brings the grain price to 100/unit then the other party would need to pay the farmer 45/unit for every unit purchased so that the farmer would in effect be paying the high end contracted amount of 55/unit.
there is nothing evil or wrong here, just two discerning parties making a mutual agreement between each other, and the whole instrument was created to provide economic stability to producers and they were created because producers cannot control the whims of Washington or the fads on wall street.
surrealnumber5
[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]You certainly can make a profit on derivatives. What you do is you take a bad asset (e.g. subprime loan), bundle it with a good asset (courtesy of institutions like AIG), launder it through a ratings agency (Moody's, S&P, Fitch, ect.) so it can then be marketed as a AAA asset, and then you take out a derivative and wait for that seemingly risk free asset to fail. This is what financial deruglation has brought us for the past 20 years; systemic fraud and gambling. that is still not "profit" that would just make them retain their pre-bust "inflated" value, and that is why they exist, to hedge against market flux. it takes two parties to get into one of these deals, and the government should NEVER EVER BE ONE OF THE PARTIES, simply because the government is not a business and cannot properly judge risk or value. asymmetric information, where one person think the economy will be good, and the other is almost sure it will go bad is nothing but a business decision and a difference of opinion. the whole market works on these differences of opinion. if you feel this externality calls for government intervention i know why,but i wont agree. just because people misjudged the market does not make fraud, if i sell you an already chewed piece of gum for a million dollars, you would be dumb but i would not be acting in a fraudulent way. the rating agencies are bad at their jobs, if those people who relied on thier information and lost the farm the have a case for criminal negligence, but the selling party did not act fraudulently. now some realtors and finance agents acted unscrupulously, but within the law.financial derivatives are financial instruments that hedge against excess profit and loss, there is no way for anyone to get "rich" by getting the contracted normative value for what the hedged against. i hate when people try to talk about subjects they got from party lines or the 10-o-clock news. financial derivatives are nothing more than insurance, and insurance is not a PROFIT instrument. now derivatives can be taken out on anything but for my example i will use grain as it is what i am most familiar with.
a farmer buys grain for feed at $50 per unit, any great flux in this price will drastically affect the price of his cattle on the market. so he takes out a derivative with the conditions that ffed market price will be within +/- $5 of its current market price and should the market price dip below 45 or above 55 the other party will either collect or pay the difference. if there is a bumper crop and the price drops to 30 per unit, the farmer would need to pay the other party that agreed to these terms $15 for every unit he purchases bringing his cost to 45/unit the lower limit. if the economy turns and inflation brings the grain price to 100/unit then the other party would need to pay the farmer 45/unit for every unit purchased so that the farmer would in effect be paying the high end contracted amount of 55/unit.
there is nothing evil or wrong here, just two discerning parties making a mutual agreement between each other, and the whole instrument was created to provide economic stability to producers and they were created because producers cannot control the whims of Washington or the fads on wall street.
-Sun_Tzu-
You certainly can make a profit on derivatives. What you do is you take a bad asset (e.g. subprime loan), bundle it with a good asset (courtesy of institutions like AIG), launder it through a ratings agency (Moody's, S&P, Fitch, ect.) so it can then be marketed as a AAA asset, and then you take out a derivative and wait for that seemingly risk free asset to fail. This is what financial deruglation has brought us for the past 20 years; systemic fraud and gambling. that is still not "profit" that would just make them retain their pre-bust "inflated" value, and that is why they exist, to hedge against market flux. it takes two parties to get into one of these deals, and the government should NEVER EVER BE ONE OF THE PARTIES, simply because the government is not a business and cannot properly judge risk or value. asymmetric information, where one person think the economy will be good, and the other is almost sure it will go bad is nothing but a business decision and a difference of opinion. the whole market works on these differences of opinion. if you feel this externality calls for government intervention i know why,but i wont agree. just because people misjudged the market does not make fraud, if i sell you an already chewed piece of gum for a million dollars, you would be dumb but i would not be acting in a fraudulent way. the rating agencies are bad at their jobs, if those people who relied on thier information and lost the farm the have a case for criminal negligence, but the selling party did not act fraudulently. now some realtors and finance agents acted unscrupulously, but within the law. It's still not profit? So why were all these CEO's who were engaging is this sort of trading getting huge bonuses from their firms? This was a very profitable operation that was being run. To explain away a global financial crisis as a "difference of opinion" is laughable. The rating agencies were not bad at their jobs - they were actually very good at it. Firms such as Moody's and S&P have done very well for themselves. People just misunderstood what their job was. People thought that they were in the business of giving objective analyses of the risk of assets that are too complex and time consuming for investors to analyze on their own. But in reality their job is to just dress s*** up as gold. If you have a bad asset and you want to sell it as a AAA asset, you pay a ratings agency to give it a stamp of approval. There is a clear conflict of interest at play. There's a reason why S&P is in the middle of a federal investigation right now.[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]
financial derivatives are financial instruments that hedge against excess profit and loss, there is no way for anyone to get "rich" by getting the contracted normative value for what the hedged against. i hate when people try to talk about subjects they got from party lines or the 10-o-clock news. financial derivatives are nothing more than insurance, and insurance is not a PROFIT instrument. now derivatives can be taken out on anything but for my example i will use grain as it is what i am most familiar with.
a farmer buys grain for feed at $50 per unit, any great flux in this price will drastically affect the price of his cattle on the market. so he takes out a derivative with the conditions that ffed market price will be within +/- $5 of its current market price and should the market price dip below 45 or above 55 the other party will either collect or pay the difference. if there is a bumper crop and the price drops to 30 per unit, the farmer would need to pay the other party that agreed to these terms $15 for every unit he purchases bringing his cost to 45/unit the lower limit. if the economy turns and inflation brings the grain price to 100/unit then the other party would need to pay the farmer 45/unit for every unit purchased so that the farmer would in effect be paying the high end contracted amount of 55/unit.
there is nothing evil or wrong here, just two discerning parties making a mutual agreement between each other, and the whole instrument was created to provide economic stability to producers and they were created because producers cannot control the whims of Washington or the fads on wall street.
surrealnumber5
There was wide scale fraud, plain and simple. These knew they were selling junk assets. And eventually it got to the point where no one knew how much anything on their balance sheet was worth, which resulted in the largest financial collapse in modern history. These things don't happen by accident. Systemic foul play was the driving force for our current state of affairs, and it was overlooked by authorities when it was going on and it is going unpunished now.
Days spent protesting: OWS- 68.......................Tea Party- 981
Arrests: OWS- 9,468..............................................Tea Party- 0
Incidents of rape: OWS- 9.....................................Tea Party- 0
Assaults with deadly weapons: OWS- 5..................Tea Party- 0
Homicides: OWS- 1..............................................Tea Party- 0
Est. property damage: OWS- $800,000(est)............Tea Party- $0
that is still not "profit" that would just make them retain their pre-bust "inflated" value, and that is why they exist, to hedge against market flux. it takes two parties to get into one of these deals, and the government should NEVER EVER BE ONE OF THE PARTIES, simply because the government is not a business and cannot properly judge risk or value. asymmetric information, where one person think the economy will be good, and the other is almost sure it will go bad is nothing but a business decision and a difference of opinion. the whole market works on these differences of opinion. if you feel this externality calls for government intervention i know why,but i wont agree. just because people misjudged the market does not make fraud, if i sell you an already chewed piece of gum for a million dollars, you would be dumb but i would not be acting in a fraudulent way. the rating agencies are bad at their jobs, if those people who relied on thier information and lost the farm the have a case for criminal negligence, but the selling party did not act fraudulently. now some realtors and finance agents acted unscrupulously, but within the law. It's still not profit? So why were all these CEO's who were engaging is this sort of trading getting huge bonuses from their firms? This was a very profitable operation that was being run. To explain away a global financial crisis as a "difference of opinion" is laughable. The rating agencies were not bad at their jobs - they were actually very good at it. Firms such as Moody's and S&P have done very well for themselves. People just misunderstood what their job was. People thought that they were in the business of giving objective analyses of the risk of assets that are too complex and time consuming for investors to analyze on their own. But in reality their job is to just dress s*** up as gold. If you have a bad asset and you want to sell it as a AAA asset, you pay a ratings agency to give it a stamp of approval. There is a clear conflict of interest at play. There's a reason why S&P is in the middle of a federal investigation right now.[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] You certainly can make a profit on derivatives. What you do is you take a bad asset (e.g. subprime loan), bundle it with a good asset (courtesy of institutions like AIG), launder it through a ratings agency (Moody's, S&P, Fitch, ect.) so it can then be marketed as a AAA asset, and then you take out a derivative and wait for that seemingly risk free asset to fail. This is what financial deruglation has brought us for the past 20 years; systemic fraud and gambling. -Sun_Tzu-
There was wide scale fraud, plain and simple. These knew they were selling junk assets. And eventually it got to the point where no one knew how much anything on their balance sheet was worth, which resulted in the largest financial collapse in modern history. These things don't happen by accident. Systemic foul play was the driving force for our current state of affairs, and it was overlooked by authorities when it was going on and it is going unpunished now.
bubble value > burst value retaing value makes you much better comparitively but it does not mean you made a "profit" you just did not have a loss, unlike the other side of the deal, they have to pay the difference, and it sucks to be them but they never should have signed. rating agencies rate , and moodies S&P and the rest are not good at their jobs, they are not objective at all and are completely reactionary in their ratings. yes there was a hell of a lot of immoral acts done, but that is not illegal. and the banks had to get rid of these loans they were damn near forced to give, the sub prime no money down loans as there was not way the majority of them were going to be paid off.but that is what happens when you blow up a bubble with legislation like the affordable housing act. i am not going to say everyone had clean hands, and i am not going to say most people in this situation acted "responsibly" but they acted the way they had to and in their best interests. and before i leave for the evening yes some people did defraud others but they were the vast minority in this whole compound fiasco.
It's still not profit? So why were all these CEO's who were engaging is this sort of trading getting huge bonuses from their firms? This was a very profitable operation that was being run. To explain away a global financial crisis as a "difference of opinion" is laughable. The rating agencies were not bad at their jobs - they were actually very good at it. Firms such as Moody's and S&P have done very well for themselves. People just misunderstood what their job was. People thought that they were in the business of giving objective analyses of the risk of assets that are too complex and time consuming for investors to analyze on their own. But in reality their job is to just dress s*** up as gold. If you have a bad asset and you want to sell it as a AAA asset, you pay a ratings agency to give it a stamp of approval. There is a clear conflict of interest at play. There's a reason why S&P is in the middle of a federal investigation right now.[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]
[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] that is still not "profit" that would just make them retain their pre-bust "inflated" value, and that is why they exist, to hedge against market flux. it takes two parties to get into one of these deals, and the government should NEVER EVER BE ONE OF THE PARTIES, simply because the government is not a business and cannot properly judge risk or value. asymmetric information, where one person think the economy will be good, and the other is almost sure it will go bad is nothing but a business decision and a difference of opinion. the whole market works on these differences of opinion. if you feel this externality calls for government intervention i know why,but i wont agree. just because people misjudged the market does not make fraud, if i sell you an already chewed piece of gum for a million dollars, you would be dumb but i would not be acting in a fraudulent way. the rating agencies are bad at their jobs, if those people who relied on thier information and lost the farm the have a case for criminal negligence, but the selling party did not act fraudulently. now some realtors and finance agents acted unscrupulously, but within the law.
surrealnumber5
There was wide scale fraud, plain and simple. These knew they were selling junk assets. And eventually it got to the point where no one knew how much anything on their balance sheet was worth, which resulted in the largest financial collapse in modern history. These things don't happen by accident. Systemic foul play was the driving force for our current state of affairs, and it was overlooked by authorities when it was going on and it is going unpunished now.
bubble value > burst value retaing value makes you much better comparitively but it does not mean you made a "profit" you just did not have a loss, unlike the other side of the deal, they have to pay the difference, and it sucks to be them but they never should have signed. rating agencies rate , and moodies S&P and the rest are not good at their jobs, they are not objective at all and are completely reactionary in their ratings. yes there was a hell of a lot of immoral acts done, but that is not illegal. and the banks had to get rid of these loans they were damn near forced to give, the sub prime no money down loans as there was not way the majority of them were going to be paid off.but that is what happens when you blow up a bubble with legislation like the affordable housing act. i am not going to say everyone had clean hands, and i am not going to say most people in this situation acted "responsibly" but they acted the way they had to and in their best interests. and before i leave for the evening yes some people did defraud others but they were the vast minority in this whole compound fiasco. No bank was forced to make any loans. For someone who prides them self on being above partisanship you do seem to rely on quite a lot of conservative talking points. The banks wanted to make these loans. The vast majority of subprime loans that were given out were beyond the scope of the community reinvestment act. Most of the loans regulated by the CRA were much less risky. This is didn't happen because of government intervention - it happened because there were no rules being enforced. The financial crisis is a textbook example of what happens when you try to have firms "regulate themselves"OWS is also more well liked than the Tea Party. Ace6301
Until recently, anyway. A PPP poll puts OWS as even more unpopular than the Tea Party at this point.
so why arent u against the Tea party then? Any movement is gonna recieve donations from ric people, does that discredit them? At least soros and buffet dont donate their money to fund segregation in schools, and the removal of funds from public education in states. With respect, I have to ask you how much you or your family makes as income? If you make more than 120 000 then your posts would make sense, but if you make less....then you're fighting agsint yourself. And understand the avegare income in the u.s is 50 000....and thats shrinking slowly
BossPerson
What are you talking about? I was very clear: I'm against most any movement supported by rich socialists, liberals, progressives, whatever.
Nobody wants to fund segregation in schools. Either back that up with proof(actual proof, not conspiracy theories or conjecture), or be quiet. The only reason we want to remove funds from public education in states is because we're paying more than every country for education, and we're ranked in the thirties in most fields. That's a very strong indicator that something is inherently wrong with our system, and it's not a lack of money. I'll give you a hint: Unions!
As for what I make, I'm a cop in one of the richest counties in New York State. My cost of living is out of this world, I pay more than half of my income in taxes, rent, and other ridiculous fees and I have a wife and a baby boy. Throughout the year I am constantly doing landscaping work(in the winters it's snow removal, shoveling etc)to supplement my income.
Don't even start to shovel that liberals and socialists are for me, crap. You aren't. You guys raise my property taxes and sales tax every time you can't fund something. You want me to support every single program that doesn't do a damn thing for me, yet I still have to pay into it. I'm not going to see social security, so I have no vested interest in keeping it afloat. I get punished with more and more taxes, or fees(check how much health insurance has gone up)because I'm working. Conservatives and Republicans are the only people looking out for me. They don't want to coddle me and put me on the government teat. They don't think it's right or legal that I can be forced to buy into health insurance.
Unlike most people, I don't need the government to be doing something for me. I'm quite capable of taking care of myself. And if the government actually got out of things in NYS, we would be able to lower taxes and maybe rent prices would go down for everyone. So it's very clear who I should support. The least damaging group: Conservatives.
google up koch brothers and segregation in schools. more proof than you need.
Secondly, democracts hardly raise taxes on the middle clas or poor, they just want(at least they claim they do) to make the rich pay their fair share of taxes. Theres no point in even debating with you republican morons. You constantly vote against yourself, everytime you vote red in the ballot box you are voting for the rich. Republicans are brainwased and living in their own little bubble where real facts and numbers dont matter
Point to be taken: Tax the Rich their fair share
BossPerson
Sorry, that falls under conspiracy theory and conjecture.
Democrats have raised my taxes every single year in this state. Sorry to burst your bubble.
How original. I like the cut spending drastically and lower taxes for everyone approach better.
I do like how you ignored everything else in my post, though. That was cute.
[QUOTE="BossPerson"]
google up koch brothers and segregation in schools. more proof than you need.
Secondly, democracts hardly raise taxes on the middle clas or poor, they just want(at least they claim they do) to make the rich pay their fair share of taxes. Theres no point in even debating with you republican morons. You constantly vote against yourself, everytime you vote red in the ballot box you are voting for the rich. Republicans are brainwased and living in their own little bubble where real facts and numbers dont matter
Point to be taken: Tax the Rich their fair share
airshocker
Sorry, that falls under conspiracy theory and conjecture.
Democrats have raised my taxes every single year in this state. Sorry to burst your bubble.
How original. I like the cut spending drastically and lower taxes for everyone approach better.
I do like how you ignored everything else in my post, though. That was cute.
theres friggen news stories on the koch brothers and them funding segregation in schools goddammit. Are u too lazy to do a google search? Whatever, vote for who ever you want i couldnt care less. I dont even live in america so go destroy your country how ever you wanttheres friggen news stories on the koch brothers and them funding segregation in schools goddammit. Are u too lazy to do a google search? Whatever, vote for who ever you want i couldnt care less. I dont even live in america so go destroy your country how ever you want
BossPerson
Your job to provide the links, not mine. And I won't read anything by a left-leaning blogger. Sorry.
The only thing destroying this country are people with your mindset. You want the government to take the role of Mommy and Daddy, and you want to tax those with jobs as much as possible to pay for your "righteous cause".
Whereas people like me want the government OUT of peoples lives as much as possible. We want taxes low so everyone prospers, and we want government spending drastically reduced. We, essentially, want people to be free. You want them beholden to the government and to society. That's destructive.
Lol. This coming from someone who stated "Because it's a conservative think-tank it's not allowed to be trusted?" when a link from a conservative website was criticized.Your job to provide the links, not mine. And I won't read anything by a left-leaning blogger. Sorry.
airshocker
Lol. This coming from someone who stated "Because it's a conservative think-tank it's not allowed to be trusted?" when a link from a conservative website was criticized.Engrish_Major
When did a blog become a think-tank in your mind? :?
[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]Lol. This coming from someone who stated "Because it's a conservative think-tank it's not allowed to be trusted?" when a link from a conservative website was criticized.airshocker
When did a blog become a think-tank in your mind? :?
The link was a blog from a think tank.The link was a blog from a think tank.Engrish_Major
Hmm, so it was. I didn't see that.
Still not going to change what I said to Boss. Just reinforces my point further.
Hey airshocker, have you been breaking up the protest with batons and stuff? Or did the cops stop that already?Jazz_Fan
Nope. The people in my county went home after a few days. Pathetic, really.
[QUOTE="BossPerson"]
theres friggen news stories on the koch brothers and them funding segregation in schools goddammit. Are u too lazy to do a google search? Whatever, vote for who ever you want i couldnt care less. I dont even live in america so go destroy your country how ever you want
airshocker
Your job to provide the links, not mine. And I won't read anything by a left-leaning blogger. Sorry.
The only thing destroying this country are people with your mindset. You want the government to take the role of Mommy and Daddy, and you want to tax those with jobs as much as possible to pay for your "righteous cause".
Whereas people like me want the government OUT of peoples lives as much as possible. We want taxes low so everyone prospers, and we want government spending drastically reduced. We, essentially, want people to be free. You want them beholden to the government and to society. That's destructive.
OK, I'll bite. How exactly will virtually no government and virtually no taxes allow everybody to prosper?Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment