Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Mark Kerr on December 24, 2008, 11:25:19 AM
-
We're fuvked.
-
We're fuvked.
I am a small business owner and feel the same way as this article. Things are going to get far worse before it gets better any time soon.
Businesses and individuals are so loaded up with debt there is nowhere left to go.
I see housing having to go down at least another 30-40 percent things turn around, if not more.
-
Bernanke and Paulson and 99% of the politicians: "No one could see this coming." ::)
Americans had their chance with Ron Paul but instead they laughed at him and some morons on this board still laugh at him and call him crazy. Unbelievable. It's too bad the ones laughing are the ones that are sucking everyone else down by voting/voted for douchbags like McCain or slick talkers like Obama or politicians that share their philosophy.
A year ago.
Paul comments after McCain and Romney suggested we are better off economically today.
-
People made the huge gambles in Real Estate on the basis that the prices would never go down.
However, those gambles have no gone bad.
Additionally, R/E was no different than the Maddoff ponzi scheme. The flippers, R/E agents, mortgage brokers, and speculators all figured that there was another fool to keep paying higher and higher prices for the same homes.
However, peoples incomes did not go up at the same ration and the only way to finance these purchases was through crazy mortgage instruments that were sent on to other banks only backed up by inflated and bogus appraisals.
The chickens of a few decades of outright gambling are coming home to roost.
-
Americans had their chance with Ron Paul but instead they laughed at him and some morons on this board still laugh at him and call him crazy.
Someone who says the best thing to do is to just let everything collapse, let the market regulate itself is clearly not all there.
The "Market" has been de-regulated over the years and finally we arrive at this.
Ron Paul's cure: De-regulate some more. ::)
He also believe that if we let everything just take care of itself, it will be over in a year.
How is that gonna work out for blue collar workers, for people with mortgages on their homes, et al?
If tens of millions of people start losing their jobs, there's a new Depression.
Also look at how Hoover decided it was best to let the market regulate itself and use a minimalist financial politics.
Then compare that to Ron Paul's ideas.
And also compare both of them to Franklin D Roosevelt and the "New Deal".
Not to mention, Ron Paul's a bible thumper (like Obama and McCain).
I've said it before: The big problem is that the budget during the booming years of the economy weren't run with a surplus and/or with political reforms that would chill down the overheated economy like eg tax raises and lowered economical subsidies.
The fed rate were way too low as well. A higher fed rate would've encouraged people to save money instead of spending it and loaning.
Low fed rate - low rates at the bank, both for saving and loaning. Few incitements to save.
High fed rate - results that the banks and loaning institutes raises their rates, both for saving and loaning. Suddenly it's not as good business to loan money.
-
You are 10000% incorrect. The market was very regulated and the Federal Reserve, through manipulation of the interest rates helped this mess along.
The problem is not lack of regulation, it is lack of regulators doing their jobs.
Same as guns, we have over 20,000 gun laws, the issue is not laws but enfocrment.
To my knowledge, submitting a fraudulent mortgage application to a bank is a crime. Has one mortgage broker gone to jail yet?????
The SEC was warned in 1999 about Madoff and then again in 2005. They did nothing.
The laws and regulations are there, the issue is lack of enforcement.
-
Someone who says the best thing to do is to just let everything collapse, let the market regulate itself is clearly not all there.
The "Market" has been de-regulated over the years and finally we arrive at this.
Ron Paul's cure: De-regulate some more. ::)
He also believe that if we let everything just take care of itself, it will be over in a year.
How is that gonna work out for blue collar workers, for people with mortgages on their homes, et al?
If tens of millions of people start losing their jobs, there's a new Depression.
Also look at how Hoover decided it was best to let the market regulate itself and use a minimalist financial politics.
Then compare that to Ron Paul's ideas.
And also compare both of them to Franklin D Roosevelt and the "New Deal".
Not to mention, Ron Paul's a bible thumper (like Obama and McCain).
I've said it before: The big problem is that the budget during the booming years of the economy weren't run with a surplus and/or with political reforms that would chill down the overheated economy like eg tax raises and lowered economical subsidies.
The fed rate were way too low as well. A higher fed rate would've encouraged people to save money instead of spending it and loaning.
Low fed rate - low rates at the bank, both for saving and loaning. Few incitements to save.
High fed rate - results that the banks and loaning institutes raises their rates, both for saving and loaning. Suddenly it's not as good business to loan money.
Do you even watch the videos I post? Did you read any of his books? Just curious.
-
Unemployment claims highest since '82
Number of Americans filing for state unemployment benefits rises to a 26-year high of 586,000, according to Labor Department.
-
Do you even watch the videos I post? Did you read any of his books? Just curious.
You expect people to read a book to formulate responses to your posts on Getbig?
-
You expect people to read a book to formulate responses to your posts on Getbig?
No expectations for him to read the books but it seems to me he formulates his opinion through the media and not from the man himself. I'd like to know where Ron said the best solution for the economy is to do nothing. I must have missed it.
-
No expectations for him to read the books but it seems to me he formulates his opinion through the media and not from the man himself. I'd like to know where Ron said the best solution for the economy is to do nothing. I must have missed it.
Fair enough.
-
Fair enough.
The politicians and socialists are no different than alcoholics thinking the cure is just one more drink.
It is a pavlovian situation where these bums make the problems worse and then claim to have the cure only by doing more of the same, over and over and over again.
Ron Paul, and especially his advisor, Peter Schiff, have been 1000% accurate on financial matters.
-
The politicians and socialists are no different than alcoholics thinking the cure is just one more drink.
It is a pavlovian situation where these bums make the problems worse and then claim to have the cure only by doing more of the same, over and over and over again.
Ron Paul, and especially his advisor, Peter Schiff, have been 1000% accurate on financial matters.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of certain aspects of Ron Paul and what he proposes.
-
People made the huge gambles in Real Estate on the basis that the prices would never go down.
However, those gambles have no gone bad.
Additionally, R/E was no different than the Maddoff ponzi scheme. The flippers, R/E agents, mortgage brokers, and speculators all figured that there was another fool to keep paying higher and higher prices for the same homes.
However, peoples incomes did not go up at the same ration and the only way to finance these purchases was through crazy mortgage instruments that were sent on to other banks only backed up by inflated and bogus appraisals.
The chickens of a few decades of outright gambling are coming home to roost.
Depending on where you invest, property values always eventually go up. Those trying to flip properties and/or many wanting to sell may have problems, but those who buy and hold are fine. The real estate market will correct itself. Always does (depending on location).
-
Homes will be forced to come down to honest values, or else they will not sell. The price gouging and greed of all involved will have to be tightly regulated or this mess will happen again. The excesses will be written off as losses and passed to taxpayers and will further our downfall.
Un regulated capitialism soon becomes a pyramid scheme that collapses when the bottom can no longer buy in to feed the top.
Mark my words. The govt and states will bust the unions.(To make way for mexican labor)
The bailouts will lead to more bailouts and collapse the dollar soon.
The Amero will come in to save the day after civil unrest (pissed off americans)
The canadian military will patrol our streets, legally.
You will be told how much a job pays and you will take it or starve, while 10 other guys
take it and smile.
This is a global economy now ,and fat cat americans will be forced to share homes, food
medicine etc.....
Have a nice day. ;D
-
[...]Additionally, R/E was no different than the Maddoff ponzi scheme. The flippers, R/E agents, mortgage brokers, and speculators all figured that there was another fool to keep paying higher and higher prices for the same homes.
This is so true it ain't even funny.
You had so-called "experts" telling people it was OK to get a two million dollar loan to buy a property at 250% appraised value. When something alike is done by someone out on the street it is known as A SCAM.
Capitalism 101.
-
No expectations for him to read the books but it seems to me he formulates his opinion through the media and not from the man himself. I'd like to know where Ron said the best solution for the economy is to do nothing. I must have missed it.
In an interview with CNN.
He's a regular contributor there with articles as well.
Ron Paul expressed the view that it was wrong to bail out the banks and that if we instead would let everything work itself out, the financial crisis would be over in a year.
That to me sounds very much like classic Hoover which ultimately led to disaster.
Ron Paul is a populist lightweight.
I haven't seen him suggest that taxes needs to be raised during good times and lowered during the bad times.
He only proposes lowering of taxes period.
Which may be popular to say, but irresponsible considering the need for DYNAMIC economic politics.
-
In an interview with CNN.
He's a regular contributor there with articles as well.
Ron Paul expressed the view that it was wrong to bail out the banks and that if we instead would let everything work itself out, the financial crisis would be over in a year.
That to me sounds very much like classic Hoover which ultimately led to disaster.
Could you please show me the article where he said everything will work itself out if we just do nothing. Thanks.
-
The 2nd Wave of Foreclosures has finally made it to the mainstream Media. CBS’s 60 Minutes had a segment on 12/14/08, but they missed a very important point.
I would like to bring a very important bit of information to your attention that relates to this economic crisis that was overlooked until now.
On Sunday, 12/14/08, CBS 60 Minutes aired a segment “The Mortgage Meltdown”.
Scott Pelley’s piece on the 2nd Wave of Foreclosures overlooked a critical fact.
The segment missed the fact that this next wave of Foreclosures in 2009 Will Take Self-Employed and Smaller Businesses who have these TOXIC mortgages. In fact, ALT-A, Option ARMS, Interest-Only, the TOXIC Mortgages that are considered the “Troubled” assets in TARP were specifically marketed to the self-employed who fell prey to them.
The upcoming defaults on these risky “Toxic Mortgages” will result in an increase in foreclosures. But worse, once these small businesses fail, the resulting loss of jobs will cause millions to add to the ranks of the unemployed. Note that self-employed business owners (16.2 million according to the SBA) employ between 1-10 employees.
An NASE survey at http://www.nase.org , was the first to provide compelling evidence of small business involvement in the upcoming toxic mortgage crisis. The survey was created by Prof. Samuel D. Bornstein and Jung I. Song, CPA of BornsteinSong Consultants in Oakhurst,NJ,and was conducted by the National Association for the Self-Employed (NASE) which issued a Press Release on November 21, 2008.
According to this survey, it is estimated that 3,709,800 small business owners hold Alt-A and other toxic mortgages, and 1,279,800 are already delinquent as they have missed one to three or more monthly mortgage payments at mid-November, before the expected Resets that are scheduled to begin in 4th Quarter 2008 through 2012.
These small business owners will be at-risk of payment shock and default as their monthly mortgage payments skyrocket. Small business owners were especially targeted for these Alt-A loans which required little or no documentation of income which appealed to many small business owners who previously were unable to qualify.
The resulting defaults will be the cause of the upcoming second tsunami wave of foreclosures that will dwarf the subprime crisis and will take many homeowners, small business owners, and their employees at this critical time when our economy can ill afford it.
-
In an interview with CNN.
He's a regular contributor there with articles as well.
Ron Paul expressed the view that it was wrong to bail out the banks and that if we instead would let everything work itself out, the financial crisis would be over in a year.
That to me sounds very much like classic Hoover which ultimately led to disaster.
Ron Paul is a populist lightweight.
I haven't seen him suggest that taxes needs to be raised during good times and lowered during the bad times.
He only proposes lowering of taxes period.
Which may be popular to say, but irresponsible considering the need for DYNAMIC economic politics.
And I guess you are a socialist heavyweight??????????????
-
Homes will be forced to come down to honest values, or else they will not sell. The price gouging and greed of all involved will have to be tightly regulated or this mess will happen again. The excesses will be written off as losses and passed to taxpayers and will further our downfall.
Un regulated capitialism soon becomes a pyramid scheme that collapses when the bottom can no longer buy in to feed the top.
Mark my words. The govt and states will bust the unions.(To make way for mexican labor)
The bailouts will lead to more bailouts and collapse the dollar soon.
The Amero will come in to save the day after civil unrest (pissed off americans)
The canadian military will patrol our streets, legally.
You will be told how much a job pays and you will take it or starve, while 10 other guys
take it and smile.
This is a global economy now ,and fat cat americans will be forced to share homes, food
medicine etc.....
Have a nice day. ;D
All 60,000 thousand of them. ::)
Obama wants to strengthen the Unions, not bust em. Very insightful.
-
Could you please show me the article where he said everything will work itself out if we just do nothing. Thanks.
I found it.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/01/paul.qanda/
So, we should get out of the way
-
And I guess you are a socialist heavyweight??????????????
I am no socialist, obviously.
But technically, yes, I am a heavyweight at the moment (weighing in at around 212 lbs currently, heavyweight class is usually 220 lbs). 8)
-
I found it.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/01/paul.qanda/
I reread an earlier post of yours and some of your comments I agree with. I only disagree with your "do nothing" statement.
Some of the underlined and bolded lines Ron goes into plenty of detail of what needs to be changed or strengthed in those area's in his books. If you read them, you'll find it's far from doing nothing. My mistake is that I'm more familiar with his views so I can read a lot more into these types of interviews and assume everyone else can read deeper into what he means, but I can understand to a degree how you saw it differently. Unfortunalty, Im pressed for time, but I wouldn't mind discussing this in more detail when i can free some of it up.
Paul: So, we should get out of the way and not buy up bad debt. There's illiquid assets, but most of those are probably worthless. They're mostly derivatives. And we're sticking those with the taxpayer. So we have to recognize that the liquidation of debt is crucial. And if we did that, we would have tough times, there's no doubt about it, for a year. But if we keep propping a system up that's not viable, we're going to have a problem for decades, just like we did in the Depression. That's what we're on the verge of doing.
Roberts: So, instead of the bills that are currently before the Senate, the one that may be before the House as early as Thursday, what would you do?
Paul: Well, we need to do a lot, but a lot differently. We have to recognize how we got into this problem. We have too much debt. We have too much malinvestment. You have to liquidate those mistakes. Those mistakes were made due to monetary policy. So you have to allow the market to adjust prices downward. And that's what we're not allowing it to do.
If you had a market economy and then if you had a market-adjusted FDIC, where insurance was based on the strength of the bank, this would have happened on a daily basis. But instead, we insure everybody, no matter what the bank is doing, and we do it, either we overkill -- we give you too much credit on bad investments -- and then we make changes all of a sudden, and they're drastic, to what they have done.
So, it's impossible. It's either too little or too much. And what you need is insurance of, FDIC type of insurance, has to be driven by the marketplace to measure the viability of a bank.
-
I am no socialist, obviously.
But technically, yes, I am a heavyweight at the moment (weighing in at around 212 lbs currently, heavyweight class is usually 220 lbs). 8)
Pretty much what we have discussed ont he boards. ;D
-
Pretty much what we have discussed ont he boards. ;D
Look.
I also think debt is bad, and that the housing market is way overpriced.
But I believe it is because "the government" failed to raise the taxes, to raise the fed rate, to slash subsidies during the economic boom in the early 2000's.
All these things would've cooled off the economy and led to less spending, less mortgaging (since the rate was higher), more saving (yes, the rate is higher for savings accounts too), lower houseprices (fewer would have speculated in houses, since fewer would've gotten mortgages).
And not to mention, a balanced budget with a healthy surplus.
Then, once the economy started to slow down, the taxes could be lowered, the fed rate could be lowered, and subsidies or infrastructure projects could be implemented.
In order to avoid a shut down of the economy and get it cruising again.
But apparently this makes me a socialist? ::)
No offence, but all I see in Ron Paul is a guy who believe that we have to let the market take care of itself. Let it self-regulate.
I just don't believe that.
What I think has been fundamentally wrong over the last few years instead, is that the Fed and the White house administrations have listened too much to what Wall street wants.
Of course they want low rates and low taxes, even during economic booms. That will increase their wins.
But only temporarily. Because it's a gigantic bubble.
The White house and the Fed acted irresponsible. They should have cooled off the economy much more than they did, and much earlier.
Especially the White house is to blame. Running up a deficit. Introducing unfinanced tax cuts. Despite the economy booming.
That's just horrible.
Again, I don't see what so great with Ron Paul. He's got some things half right. But when he claims that it won't work to buy up bad dept he is just wrong.
When the banks were saved here in Sweden, it worked out just fine.
Today, Sweden and the Swedish banks are handling the current financial crisis better than many other countries, perhaps because of the past experiences of the 90's where the lesson was learned to be more fiscally responsible.
Eg, I think the last 10 years the Swedish budget has been balanced with a slight surplus. Next year is projected to be break even.
But that came after the early 90's where the economy was fcuked up good.
Regarding the US housing market:
The prices will fall even if the government help solidify the banks. But if you don't buy up the bad dept, and let the banks collapse, you may soon have millions of people on the streets without no homes.
Is that a price Ron Paul is willing to pay?
-
Regarding the US housing market:
The prices will fall even if the government help solidify the banks. But if you don't buy up the bad dept, and let the banks collapse, you may soon have millions of people on the streets without no homes.
Is that a price Ron Paul is willing to pay?
Government help in action. ::)
Remember Hope for Homeowners? We didn't think so. In July, Congress passes the only housing rescue to date: a plan to guarantee up to $300 billion worth of mortgages and prevent more than 300,000 foreclosures.
But to participate, banks must take steep losses -- and doing so is voluntary. The anti-climactic upshot: A piddling 321 applications have been filed since the program's Oct. 1 launch - and not one loan workout has been completed, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
So that, plus the 700 billion TARP program and the banks still havent done shit to help homeowners. Thats a trillion dollars so far to "help banks, help homeowners". Who knows how much more money went to banks and other institutions that they wont tell us about? How much more money do we have to spend to help "some homeowners" at the expense of crushing the dollar, which in turn effects everyone?
-
Look.
I also think debt is bad, and that the housing market is way overpriced.
But I believe it is because "the government" failed to raise the taxes, to raise the fed rate, to slash subsidies during the economic boom in the early 2000's.
All these things would've cooled off the economy and led to less spending, less mortgaging (since the rate was higher), more saving (yes, the rate is higher for savings accounts too), lower houseprices (fewer would have speculated in houses, since fewer would've gotten mortgages).
And not to mention, a balanced budget with a healthy surplus.
Then, once the economy started to slow down, the taxes could be lowered, the fed rate could be lowered, and subsidies or infrastructure projects could be implemented.
In order to avoid a shut down of the economy and get it cruising again.
But apparently this makes me a socialist? ::)
No offence, but all I see in Ron Paul is a guy who believe that we have to let the market take care of itself. Let it self-regulate.
I just don't believe that.
What I think has been fundamentally wrong over the last few years instead, is that the Fed and the White house administrations have listened too much to what Wall street wants.
Of course they want low rates and low taxes, even during economic booms. That will increase their wins.
But only temporarily. Because it's a gigantic bubble.
The White house and the Fed acted irresponsible. They should have cooled off the economy much more than they did, and much earlier.
Especially the White house is to blame. Running up a deficit. Introducing unfinanced tax cuts. Despite the economy booming.
That's just horrible.
Again, I don't see what so great with Ron Paul. He's got some things half right. But when he claims that it won't work to buy up bad dept he is just wrong.
When the banks were saved here in Sweden, it worked out just fine.
Today, Sweden and the Swedish banks are handling the current financial crisis better than many other countries, perhaps because of the past experiences of the 90's where the lesson was learned to be more fiscally responsible.
Eg, I think the last 10 years the Swedish budget has been balanced with a slight surplus. Next year is projected to be break even.
But that came after the early 90's where the economy was fcuked up good.
Regarding the US housing market:
The prices will fall even if the government help solidify the banks. But if you don't buy up the bad dept, and let the banks collapse, you may soon have millions of people on the streets without no homes.
Is that a price Ron Paul is willing to pay?
Solid argument. Ron Paul is living in never never land in much of his ideology. Lack of government intervention is as bad as too much intervention. Like everything there needs to be a balance. Our government has lost the ability to find that balance. So we go back to social darwinistic economy? Yeah real smart in the 21st century.
-
Solid argument. Ron Paul is living in never never land in much of his ideology. Lack of government intervention is as bad as too much intervention. Like everything there needs to be a balance. Our government has lost the ability to find that balance. So we go back to social darwinistic economy? Yeah real smart in the 21st century.
Balance is key.
Government help in action. ::)
Remember Hope for Homeowners? We didn't think so. In July, Congress passes the only housing rescue to date: a plan to guarantee up to $300 billion worth of mortgages and prevent more than 300,000 foreclosures.
But to participate, banks must take steep losses -- and doing so is voluntary. The anti-climactic upshot: A piddling 321 applications have been filed since the program's Oct. 1 launch - and not one loan workout has been completed, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
So that, plus the 700 billion TARP program and the banks still havent done shit to help homeowners. Thats a trillion dollars so far to "help banks, help homeowners". Who knows how much more money went to banks and other institutions that they wont tell us about? How much more money do we have to spend to help "some homeowners" at the expense of crushing the dollar, which in turn effects everyone?
Where did I state that all kind of government action is great?
Or that the bailout is done right?
I think it was right to step in and avoid that the banks went under.
But I think that the US government should've done what many other countries did in November and December.
They should've temporarily partially nationalize these banks.
Eg, if Lehman Bros would've been partially nationalized and secured until the bad debt was gone, the markets may not have freezed up the way they did.
After a few years, once the debt and the problems are gone, the government would get out of Lehman bros.
The banks gets protection from the government and will avoid bankruptcy.
But at the same time, they won't be able to just fill their own pockets.
It's been done before, elsewhere.
Government action doesn't automatically mean it's something good.
Or something bad.
That's where Ron Paul is wrong.
He seems to be stuck ideologically with the whole laissez faire mindset of minimal government.
Regardless of how the reality looks, he refuses to look at any alternative theories.
But theories are just that.
Theories.
The reality is something else.
That's why many die hard neo liberals will tell you that UK did the right thing when they partially nationalized Royal Bank of Scotland and a couple of other big banks.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27078582/