US Financial Bail-Out

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Reposted for the reading-impaired:

Without a massive capital infusion and increase in the money supply you'd have crippling contractions in GDP, wages, and investment expectations. We'd likely lock in a small generation of U.S. investors with overly cautious expectations to risking assets in equity investment, much the way we locked in an overly-cautious generation until the 1960's due to the crippling nature of the 1929 crash and Depression. This is what a lot of these loony laissez-faire laymans don't get; the investment-related expectations of the public are just as big a concern as practically anything else, be it recapitalizing firms or getting rid of toxic debt. To claim some oversimplified yeoman nonsensical solution like "moral hazard" or "gov't intrusion = bad" is absurd. This idea that you can't run an economy off of debt is, plain and simply put, something that laymans don't get because they don't understand TVM; time value of money. Bottom line is that if you can borrow dollars now, pay back the principle (plus interest) later, while investing those loaned dollars for years in the meantime, you'll come out ahead if you invest well, and you'll be a vitally important part of economic growth, be it small business owners or middle class American investment.

In any case, there's simply no reasonable way to claim that the solution is let the debt go unpaid or to scrap the New Economy of the last 25 years as Michael Hudson (and a few other isolated economists) would have us believe. You cannot "let" these institutions fail or, even worse, end up doing no bailout whatsoever (gov't-assisted or not) without entering into an inevitable multi-year or even decade-long domestic financial slowdown. And this is to say nothing of how foreign nations would react to our slowdown; our decisions will have a direct impact on global market expectations like you wouldn't believe.

To all these dolts, especially the fantasy-land far right Republican nuts in Congress that dare to put this country in jeopardy by threatening to not pass any bill whatsoever (by filibustering), due to misguided ideological BS about the evil of gov't bailout, I say shame on you. I say shame on horrid "leaders" like Pelosi or Reid, who have injected too much partisan hackery and divisiveness to lead this country out of this troubling situation. Put your country first you rejects, otherwise you without question risk a global fucking depression.

Not to rain on your parade, but IF your understanding of TVM ("they don't understand TVM; time value of money. Bottom line is that if you can borrow dollars now, pay back the principle (plus interest) later, while investing those loaned dollars for years in the meantime, you'll come out ahead if you invest well...) was so effective, then how do you explain the subprime mess that overly relied on credit? Of course it's a big IF "you invest well", lol. IF those people paid their mortgages back and on time. IF greedy mortgage brokers/banks didn't give a full line of home equity credit to a fcking bum for the front side commission with a loaded ARM. IF. And that is why credit doesn't work, because when it's overextended without regulation it's screwed. Which is why an economy that is not kept in check will FAIL. I agree that we need credit, but in smaller doses. Much smaller doses, even if growth is restricted.

Last, your proclamation of "without question... risk a global fucking depression" is completely fanatical, fear-mongering drivel spewed out by someone who has succumbed to more fear tactics. What are you so scared of, tell us? Why do you talk like a freaking crazed lunatic? I'd love to hear your explanation of how the EU will go into a global depression, this should be great. /grabs popcorn

He can't explain it to you. He's an expert. You just have to give him a blank check and trust him.

Because that's never a bad idea...

 

[Squisher]

Originally posted by: Ferocious

Originally posted by: Squisher

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

To all these dolts, especially the fantasy-land far right Republican nuts in Congress that dare to put this country in jeopardy by threatening to not pass any bill whatsoever (by filibustering), due to misguided ideological BS about the evil of gov't bailout, I say shame on you. I say shame on horrid "leaders" like Pelosi or Reid, who have injected too much partisan hackery and divisiveness to lead this country out of this troubling situation. Put your country first you rejects, otherwise you without question risk a global fucking depression.

And, why is there special chagrin reserved for Republicans given that 95 Democrats voted against?

lol you have no clue how Congress operates. This close to election, votes are traded and so many Dems agree to pass it if so many Reps agree too. And so on.

The Reps RENEGED! A similar number of Dems voted for it...but just enough Reps reneged and voted against it instead of for it.....and blamed Pelosi for hurting their feelings.

Disgusting really.

So if you were against it all along that's good, but if you change your mind and vote against it that's bad?

Don't they count the same?

 

[First]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Not to rain on your parade, but IF your understanding of TVM ("they don't understand TVM; time value of money. Bottom line is that if you can borrow dollars now, pay back the principle (plus interest) later, while investing those loaned dollars for years in the meantime, you'll come out ahead if you invest well...) was so effective, then how do you explain the subprime mess that overly relied on credit?

When you say "subprime mess that overly relied on credit" (whatever that means), I assume you mean banks lending to people with questionable credit?

Of course it's a big IF "you invest well", lol. IF those people paid their mortgages back and on time. IF greedy mortgage brokers/banks didn't give a full line of home equity credit to a fcking bum for the front side commission with a loaded ARM. IF. And that is why credit doesn't work, because when it's overextended without regulation it's screwed. Which is why an economy that is not kept in check will FAIL. I agree that we need credit, but in smaller doses. Much smaller doses, even if growth is restricted.

I never said anything about unrestricted credit lines. I'm not advocating banks give interest-only no down loans to people with sub-600 credit scores earning 20K a year. Those bad lending practices are part of what started this and I'm well aware of it. I'm questioning those who claim debt as the root of the problem. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding of (as one example) TVM; i.e. there is a very real and sensible place for debt financing, both for firms and individuals. And like any investor, if they make ill-informed, poorly diversified, short-term decisions, U.S. history says they're probably going to end up losing money.

Last, your proclamation of "without question... risk a global fucking depression" is completely fanatical, fear-mongering drivel spewed out by someone who has succumbed to more fear tactics. What are you so scared of, tell us? Why do you talk like a freaking crazed lunatic? I'd love to hear your explanation of how the EU will go into a global depression, this should be great. /grabs popcorn

Who says the EU has to go into a depression for the planet to be in one? Don't put words in my mouth. Though it isn't exactly hard to make the case for EU entering a dire situation, as there have already been bank bailouts in Europe today as a direct response to our current turmoil in the states. Read up: http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/2...postversion=2008092911. Here, I'll even quote you a pertinent passage: "European governments had to step in with a flurry of major bank bailouts from Iceland to Germany as fear and turmoil from the U.S. credit crisis spread through the financial system."

 

[First]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

Cry more.

Nice contribution layman.

Given how you "experts" fucked everything up, that's a compliment.

The experts are rich, kid.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Reposted for the reading-impaired:

Without a massive capital infusion and increase in the money supply you'd have crippling contractions in GDP, wages, and investment expectations. We'd likely lock in a small generation of U.S. investors with overly cautious expectations to risking assets in equity investment, much the way we locked in an overly-cautious generation until the 1960's due to the crippling nature of the 1929 crash and Depression. This is what a lot of these loony laissez-faire laymans don't get; the investment-related expectations of the public are just as big a concern as practically anything else, be it recapitalizing firms or getting rid of toxic debt. To claim some oversimplified yeoman nonsensical solution like "moral hazard" or "gov't intrusion = bad" is absurd. This idea that you can't run an economy off of debt is, plain and simply put, something that laymans don't get because they don't understand TVM; time value of money. Bottom line is that if you can borrow dollars now, pay back the principle (plus interest) later, while investing those loaned dollars for years in the meantime, you'll come out ahead if you invest well, and you'll be a vitally important part of economic growth, be it small business owners or middle class American investment.

In any case, there's simply no reasonable way to claim that the solution is let the debt go unpaid or to scrap the New Economy of the last 25 years as Michael Hudson (and a few other isolated economists) would have us believe. You cannot "let" these institutions fail or, even worse, end up doing no bailout whatsoever (gov't-assisted or not) without entering into an inevitable multi-year or even decade-long domestic financial slowdown. And this is to say nothing of how foreign nations would react to our slowdown; our decisions will have a direct impact on global market expectations like you wouldn't believe.

To all these dolts, especially the fantasy-land far right Republican nuts in Congress that dare to put this country in jeopardy by threatening to not pass any bill whatsoever (by filibustering), due to misguided ideological BS about the evil of gov't bailout, I say shame on you. I say shame on horrid "leaders" like Pelosi or Reid, who have injected too much partisan hackery and divisiveness to lead this country out of this troubling situation. Put your country first you rejects, otherwise you without question risk a global fucking depression.

Not to rain on your parade, but IF your understanding of TVM ("they don't understand TVM; time value of money. Bottom line is that if you can borrow dollars now, pay back the principle (plus interest) later, while investing those loaned dollars for years in the meantime, you'll come out ahead if you invest well...) was so effective, then how do you explain the subprime mess that overly relied on credit? Of course it's a big IF "you invest well", lol. IF those people paid their mortgages back and on time. IF greedy mortgage brokers/banks didn't give a full line of home equity credit to a fcking bum for the front side commission with a loaded ARM. IF. And that is why credit doesn't work, because when it's overextended without regulation it's screwed. Which is why an economy that is not kept in check will FAIL. I agree that we need credit, but in smaller doses. Much smaller doses, even if growth is restricted.

Last, your proclamation of "without question... risk a global fucking depression" is completely fanatical, fear-mongering drivel spewed out by someone who has succumbed to more fear tactics. What are you so scared of, tell us? Why do you talk like a freaking crazed lunatic? I'd love to hear your explanation of how the EU will go into a global depression, this should be great. /grabs popcorn

The mathematical models were wrong because they underestimated default rate. Coupled with the fact that they bought these securities with debt itself, the house of cards fell. Why do you think they will buy it at a discount? not par value.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Reposted for the reading-impaired:

Without a massive capital infusion and increase in the money supply you'd have crippling contractions in GDP, wages, and investment expectations. We'd likely lock in a small generation of U.S. investors with overly cautious expectations to risking assets in equity investment, much the way we locked in an overly-cautious generation until the 1960's due to the crippling nature of the 1929 crash and Depression. This is what a lot of these loony laissez-faire laymans don't get; the investment-related expectations of the public are just as big a concern as practically anything else, be it recapitalizing firms or getting rid of toxic debt. To claim some oversimplified yeoman nonsensical solution like "moral hazard" or "gov't intrusion = bad" is absurd. This idea that you can't run an economy off of debt is, plain and simply put, something that laymans don't get because they don't understand TVM; time value of money. Bottom line is that if you can borrow dollars now, pay back the principle (plus interest) later, while investing those loaned dollars for years in the meantime, you'll come out ahead if you invest well, and you'll be a vitally important part of economic growth, be it small business owners or middle class American investment.

In any case, there's simply no reasonable way to claim that the solution is let the debt go unpaid or to scrap the New Economy of the last 25 years as Michael Hudson (and a few other isolated economists) would have us believe. You cannot "let" these institutions fail or, even worse, end up doing no bailout whatsoever (gov't-assisted or not) without entering into an inevitable multi-year or even decade-long domestic financial slowdown. And this is to say nothing of how foreign nations would react to our slowdown; our decisions will have a direct impact on global market expectations like you wouldn't believe.

To all these dolts, especially the fantasy-land far right Republican nuts in Congress that dare to put this country in jeopardy by threatening to not pass any bill whatsoever (by filibustering), due to misguided ideological BS about the evil of gov't bailout, I say shame on you. I say shame on horrid "leaders" like Pelosi or Reid, who have injected too much partisan hackery and divisiveness to lead this country out of this troubling situation. Put your country first you rejects, otherwise you without question risk a global fucking depression.

Not to rain on your parade, but IF your understanding of TVM ("they don't understand TVM; time value of money. Bottom line is that if you can borrow dollars now, pay back the principle (plus interest) later, while investing those loaned dollars for years in the meantime, you'll come out ahead if you invest well...) was so effective, then how do you explain the subprime mess that overly relied on credit? Of course it's a big IF "you invest well", lol. IF those people paid their mortgages back and on time. IF greedy mortgage brokers/banks didn't give a full line of home equity credit to a fcking bum for the front side commission with a loaded ARM. IF. And that is why credit doesn't work, because when it's overextended without regulation it's screwed. Which is why an economy that is not kept in check will FAIL. I agree that we need credit, but in smaller doses. Much smaller doses, even if growth is restricted.

Last, your proclamation of "without question... risk a global fucking depression" is completely fanatical, fear-mongering drivel spewed out by someone who has succumbed to more fear tactics. What are you so scared of, tell us? Why do you talk like a freaking crazed lunatic? I'd love to hear your explanation of how the EU will go into a global depression, this should be great. /grabs popcorn

The mathematical models were wrong because they underestimated default rate. Coupled with the fact that they bought these securities with debt itself, the house of cards fell. Why do you think they will buy it at a discount? not par value.

No the mathematical models were wrong because they are fundamentally flawed. They where not even models.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

Cry more.

Nice contribution layman.

Given how you "experts" fucked everything up, that's a compliment.

The experts are rich, kid.

Not for long, son.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
Anyone who thinks this is only a 700B problem is shitting themselves. This bailout only works for a couple weeks until the next bailout is needed. :shocked:

qft, it's chump change.

Nobody knows precisely what will happen if this does or doesn't pass, or rather they may end up knowing, but not to an extent they can reasonably convince everybody because this is unprecedented.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Reposted for the reading-impaired:

Without a massive capital infusion and increase in the money supply you'd have crippling contractions in GDP, wages, and investment expectations. We'd likely lock in a small generation of U.S. investors with overly cautious expectations to risking assets in equity investment, much the way we locked in an overly-cautious generation until the 1960's due to the crippling nature of the 1929 crash and Depression. This is what a lot of these loony laissez-faire laymans don't get; the investment-related expectations of the public are just as big a concern as practically anything else, be it recapitalizing firms or getting rid of toxic debt. To claim some oversimplified yeoman nonsensical solution like "moral hazard" or "gov't intrusion = bad" is absurd. This idea that you can't run an economy off of debt is, plain and simply put, something that laymans don't get because they don't understand TVM; time value of money. Bottom line is that if you can borrow dollars now, pay back the principle (plus interest) later, while investing those loaned dollars for years in the meantime, you'll come out ahead if you invest well, and you'll be a vitally important part of economic growth, be it small business owners or middle class American investment.

In any case, there's simply no reasonable way to claim that the solution is let the debt go unpaid or to scrap the New Economy of the last 25 years as Michael Hudson (and a few other isolated economists) would have us believe. You cannot "let" these institutions fail or, even worse, end up doing no bailout whatsoever (gov't-assisted or not) without entering into an inevitable multi-year or even decade-long domestic financial slowdown. And this is to say nothing of how foreign nations would react to our slowdown; our decisions will have a direct impact on global market expectations like you wouldn't believe.

To all these dolts, especially the fantasy-land far right Republican nuts in Congress that dare to put this country in jeopardy by threatening to not pass any bill whatsoever (by filibustering), due to misguided ideological BS about the evil of gov't bailout, I say shame on you. I say shame on horrid "leaders" like Pelosi or Reid, who have injected too much partisan hackery and divisiveness to lead this country out of this troubling situation. Put your country first you rejects, otherwise you without question risk a global fucking depression.

Not to rain on your parade, but IF your understanding of TVM ("they don't understand TVM; time value of money. Bottom line is that if you can borrow dollars now, pay back the principle (plus interest) later, while investing those loaned dollars for years in the meantime, you'll come out ahead if you invest well...) was so effective, then how do you explain the subprime mess that overly relied on credit? Of course it's a big IF "you invest well", lol. IF those people paid their mortgages back and on time. IF greedy mortgage brokers/banks didn't give a full line of home equity credit to a fcking bum for the front side commission with a loaded ARM. IF. And that is why credit doesn't work, because when it's overextended without regulation it's screwed. Which is why an economy that is not kept in check will FAIL. I agree that we need credit, but in smaller doses. Much smaller doses, even if growth is restricted.

Last, your proclamation of "without question... risk a global fucking depression" is completely fanatical, fear-mongering drivel spewed out by someone who has succumbed to more fear tactics. What are you so scared of, tell us? Why do you talk like a freaking crazed lunatic? I'd love to hear your explanation of how the EU will go into a global depression, this should be great. /grabs popcorn

The mathematical models were wrong because they underestimated default rate. Coupled with the fact that they bought these securities with debt itself, the house of cards fell. Why do you think they will buy it at a discount? not par value.

No the mathematical models were wrong because they are fundamentally flawed. They where not even models.

? What's the basis for your claim? Are you a structured finance analyst?

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Reposted for the reading-impaired:

Without a massive capital infusion and increase in the money supply you'd have crippling contractions in GDP, wages, and investment expectations. We'd likely lock in a small generation of U.S. investors with overly cautious expectations to risking assets in equity investment, much the way we locked in an overly-cautious generation until the 1960's due to the crippling nature of the 1929 crash and Depression. This is what a lot of these loony laissez-faire laymans don't get; the investment-related expectations of the public are just as big a concern as practically anything else, be it recapitalizing firms or getting rid of toxic debt. To claim some oversimplified yeoman nonsensical solution like "moral hazard" or "gov't intrusion = bad" is absurd. This idea that you can't run an economy off of debt is, plain and simply put, something that laymans don't get because they don't understand TVM; time value of money. Bottom line is that if you can borrow dollars now, pay back the principle (plus interest) later, while investing those loaned dollars for years in the meantime, you'll come out ahead if you invest well, and you'll be a vitally important part of economic growth, be it small business owners or middle class American investment.

In any case, there's simply no reasonable way to claim that the solution is let the debt go unpaid or to scrap the New Economy of the last 25 years as Michael Hudson (and a few other isolated economists) would have us believe. You cannot "let" these institutions fail or, even worse, end up doing no bailout whatsoever (gov't-assisted or not) without entering into an inevitable multi-year or even decade-long domestic financial slowdown. And this is to say nothing of how foreign nations would react to our slowdown; our decisions will have a direct impact on global market expectations like you wouldn't believe.

To all these dolts, especially the fantasy-land far right Republican nuts in Congress that dare to put this country in jeopardy by threatening to not pass any bill whatsoever (by filibustering), due to misguided ideological BS about the evil of gov't bailout, I say shame on you. I say shame on horrid "leaders" like Pelosi or Reid, who have injected too much partisan hackery and divisiveness to lead this country out of this troubling situation. Put your country first you rejects, otherwise you without question risk a global fucking depression.

Not to rain on your parade, but IF your understanding of TVM ("they don't understand TVM; time value of money. Bottom line is that if you can borrow dollars now, pay back the principle (plus interest) later, while investing those loaned dollars for years in the meantime, you'll come out ahead if you invest well...) was so effective, then how do you explain the subprime mess that overly relied on credit? Of course it's a big IF "you invest well", lol. IF those people paid their mortgages back and on time. IF greedy mortgage brokers/banks didn't give a full line of home equity credit to a fcking bum for the front side commission with a loaded ARM. IF. And that is why credit doesn't work, because when it's overextended without regulation it's screwed. Which is why an economy that is not kept in check will FAIL. I agree that we need credit, but in smaller doses. Much smaller doses, even if growth is restricted.

Last, your proclamation of "without question... risk a global fucking depression" is completely fanatical, fear-mongering drivel spewed out by someone who has succumbed to more fear tactics. What are you so scared of, tell us? Why do you talk like a freaking crazed lunatic? I'd love to hear your explanation of how the EU will go into a global depression, this should be great. /grabs popcorn

The mathematical models were wrong because they underestimated default rate. Coupled with the fact that they bought these securities with debt itself, the house of cards fell. Why do you think they will buy it at a discount? not par value.

No the mathematical models were wrong because they are fundamentally flawed. They where not even models.

? What's the basis for your claim? Are you a structured finance analyst?

Sorry, no I'm not in snake oil sales.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: smack Down

No the mathematical models were wrong because they are fundamentally flawed. They where not even models.

Really? YOu've structured a securitization transaction's full waterfall, including rep lines, default curves, stratifications, using @risk, or another software of similar nature to test statistical models?

Interesting, please do elaborate your exhaustive experience in cashflow modeling. I am sure we'll all be so surprised to learn that you've got no fucking clue. After all, you can't even figure out the airplane and treadmill.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

Cry more.

Nice contribution layman.

Given how you "experts" fucked everything up, that's a compliment.

The experts are rich, kid.

Not for long, son.

Read Jeremy J. Siegel's Stocks for the Long Run. Hell, I'll dust it off my book shelf and even dictate it for you; "The real return on equities has averaged 6.8% per year over the past 204 years [1802-2006]", page 12 Table 1-1 in the first chapter of his book. This is peer-reviewed research that has been verified over and over by other economists, and also a gold mine of information for any sane investor in case you're curious. In any case, equities in particular show that no matter what system of money, commodity or paper, the U.S. economy has returned remarkably stable value on equities, and that there has never been a 30 year period where equities didn't return these remarkably stable earnings to investors, including the Great Depression. Perhaps you'll call into question his methodologies, but as a Ph.D Penn economist, I'm pretty sure he's safe in his methodology.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Sorry, no I'm not in snake oil sales.

Yeah, something that has worked for over 40 years, never providing problems, which has every sector outside of mortgages *still* working, is such "snake oil". Seriously, shut the fuck up about things you have no clue about.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

Cry more.

Nice contribution layman.

Given how you "experts" fucked everything up, that's a compliment.

The experts are rich, kid.

You are an expert of what exactly?

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dir/evan/lieb

How about you try to explain excatly how this would cascade into a global depression. I know I can, and I'm not an expert, lets see if you can big boy.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

Cry more.

Nice contribution layman.

Given how you "experts" fucked everything up, that's a compliment.

The experts are rich, kid.

You are an expert of what exactly?

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dir/evan/lieb

You link to a page that says I have a degree in economics. Thanks? Of course, I've never claimed to be an expert, which is neither here nor there.

How about you try to explain excatly how this would cascade into a global depression. I know I can, and I'm not an expert, lets see if you can big boy.

I just wrote about it here, and in a dozen other posts.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Arguments for:
1) no great depression 2

Argument against:
1) ?

There isn't much more to consider in my mind.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004
Arguments for:
1) ?

Argument against:
1) Why reward the people that created this mess in the first place

There isn't much more to consider in my mind.

Fixed

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: IHateMyJob2004
Arguments for:
1) no great depression 2

Argument against:
1) ?

There isn't much more to consider in my mind.

Argument against:
1) Want people to suffer
or
2) Clueless

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: jackace
It's funny how we have all these people in the banking sector saying it's a must have, but then we have tons of economists and other business leaders inside and outside the banking and financial sectors around the country saying it won't fix the problems and is a bad idea. Who do we believe?

every real economist i know supports the bailout, except for my crazy Brazilian trade teacher. Most of the 'economists' i know that are in opposition aren't real economists

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

Cry more.

Nice contribution layman.

Given how you "experts" fucked everything up, that's a compliment.

the thing that fucked it up was the contributions of laymen and general ignorance the public.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

Cry more.

Nice contribution layman.

Given how you "experts" fucked everything up, that's a compliment.

The experts are rich, kid.

You are an expert of what exactly?

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dir/evan/lieb

You link to a page that says I have a degree in economics. Thanks? Of course, I've never claimed to be an expert, which is neither here nor there.

How about you try to explain excatly how this would cascade into a global depression. I know I can, and I'm not an expert, lets see if you can big boy.

I just wrote about it here, and in a dozen other posts.

Well at least you have a degree in it. 7 years to get your B.A.? Night school?

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Not to rain on your parade, but IF your understanding of TVM ("they don't understand TVM; time value of money. Bottom line is that if you can borrow dollars now, pay back the principle (plus interest) later, while investing those loaned dollars for years in the meantime, you'll come out ahead if you invest well...) was so effective, then how do you explain the subprime mess that overly relied on credit?

When you say "subprime mess that overly relied on credit" (whatever that means), I assume you mean banks lending to people with questionable credit?

Of course it's a big IF "you invest well", lol. IF those people paid their mortgages back and on time. IF greedy mortgage brokers/banks didn't give a full line of home equity credit to a fcking bum for the front side commission with a loaded ARM. IF. And that is why credit doesn't work, because when it's overextended without regulation it's screwed. Which is why an economy that is not kept in check will FAIL. I agree that we need credit, but in smaller doses. Much smaller doses, even if growth is restricted.

I never said anything about unrestricted credit lines. I'm not advocating banks give interest-only no down loans to people with sub-600 credit scores earning 20K a year. Those bad lending practices are part of what started this and I'm well aware of it. I'm questioning those who claim debt as the root of the problem. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding of (as one example) TVM; i.e. there is a very real and sensible place for debt financing, both for firms and individuals. And like any investor, if they make ill-informed, poorly diversified, short-term decisions, U.S. history says they're probably going to end up losing money.

Last, your proclamation of "without question... risk a global fucking depression" is completely fanatical, fear-mongering drivel spewed out by someone who has succumbed to more fear tactics. What are you so scared of, tell us? Why do you talk like a freaking crazed lunatic? I'd love to hear your explanation of how the EU will go into a global depression, this should be great. /grabs popcorn

Who says the EU has to go into a depression for the planet to be in one? Don't put words in my mouth. Though it isn't exactly hard to make the case for EU entering a dire situation, as there have already been bank bailouts in Europe today as a direct response to our current turmoil in the states. Read up: http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/2...postversion=2008092911. Here, I'll even quote you a pertinent passage: "European governments had to step in with a flurry of major bank bailouts from Iceland to Germany as fear and turmoil from the U.S. credit crisis spread through the financial system."

Ok, why don't we bet on who recovers first: the euro or the dollar? Care to wager?

Re: subprime mess, yes. Also, I do agree with you that debt is generally good for the economy. However, I think that risky debt, or too much debt (obviously subjective per size of company) is the killer.

 

[Brovane]

My History is a little fuzzy but wasn't a credit freeze like we are currently seeing one of the causes of the US Great Depression that started in 1929 that then went into a world wide Depression?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Brovane
My History is a little fuzzy but wasn't a credit freeze like we are currently seeing one of the causes of the US Great Depression that started in 1929 that then went into a world wide Depression?

It is pretty much the same exact thing.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Brovane
My History is a little fuzzy but wasn't a credit freeze like we are currently seeing one of the causes of the US Great Depression that started in 1929 that then went into a world wide Depression?

It is pretty much the same exact thing.

According to some. The causes and prolonging of the Great Depression are debatable.