Thoughts on Obama SO FAR?

[PomonaCA]

The honesty ratio is the same as it's always been. When you turn a bunch of people loose with unlimited money & no rules, they crash the system every time. The government is under constant scrutiny, & we have the opportunity to turn the whole thing inside out every 2 years. We don't have to trust the government. It's a fishbowl, & anybody can look. When was the last time you had a say in, or a peek at, what your banker or even your 401K was doing? The problem? The problem is that we keep turning a bunch of compulsive gamblers loose with other people's money.

Compulsive gamblers? Who's that? Because the term "gamble" better describes people who were takings stated income and interest only loans. You know? The people who were betting other peoples money on rising property values. It's not just the bankers, it's both sides of the credit markets. Blaming only the bankers is typical, non-productive class warfare plain and simple.

Everybody likes to talk a bunch of morality, but what is it? As far as I can figure, morality is nothing more than adherence to the universal code of human interaction, AKA the principle or ethic of reciprosity, AKA the "golden rule". Everything else is arbitrary. But we're innundated with religious, philosophical, & ideological bullshit that just confuses the issue. As far as I'm concerned, morality is a real simple concept, & I actually agree with your statement to an extent. But there's so much confusion that I don't know exactly what you're talking about.

This is just more religious intolerance from you. You disagree with religion in general so you can't help but make savage attacks on it because, afterall, according to your beliefs, humans are animal.

Everybody's playing the hedge. Inflation favors the long term borrower, unless the income source dries up. ARMs are a hedge against that, in favor of the lender. If you're late on a payment, your rate goes up & so does your payment. Sub-prime teasers are predatory because the lender knows full well that the rate the loan was based on is temporary, & that the chances are good that the borrower is going to get into trouble as soon as the payment goes up.

Ok, I fail to see who's to blame here. The banker or the guy who TOOK THE LOAN and owed it to himself to understand it to the best of his ability and perform as agreed on it. Or wait, are you arguing that the general public is incapable of reading and therefore needs nanny to step in and govern private business?

A few percentage points can double the payment on a 30 year loan. The initial lender doesn't care because they're going to palm it off on somebody else as quick as possible, & the borrowers don't understand the potential pitfalls. We gripe about the ignorant borrowers, & that's ok, but can you figure compound interest? Most people can't, & don't have one of those specialty calculators that the realtors & car salesmen carry around in their pockets.

Yes you are. You are arguing that people are incapable of understanding the terms on documents they are signing. Thanks. I guess this is how you convince yourself that we're all just a bunch of helpless citizens waiting for the government to come save us. For someone who doesn't believe in a God, you sure want to make the government yours.

I fail to see the difference between some guy going down to the payday lender to keep his lights from going out & the banker that goes to the discount window or LIBOR to balance out their overnights & hang onto their AAA rating. Well... The obvious difference is the margin of course, but it's the same principle. Short term borrowing covers the lag time between money out & money in. It's a shuffle game & it works if you're careful. Credit cards & equity lines work the same way. It's easy to get into trouble though. This is what got all those banks, non-banks, & wannabe banks into trouble. They were over leveraged & constantly borrowing on the overnights through LIBOR. Investment banks couldn't borrow from the Fed if they'd wanted to, & none of them wanted to get audited. These guys had already blown through your money & were just living on a borrowed dime. It got completely out of hand, they all knew it, & nobody cared because the money was roling in on a right now basis. It's all about the dailies anymore.

I don't know what your point here was except to point out to many that you're just another guy with novice real estate exposure plagiarizing from Andrew Murfin. Banks and near-banks? This shit is 25 years old. Borrow from someone who's actually relevant these days, will you?

No way. The money industry has crashe twice in as many decades, & that crashes everything else. There's no self restraint at all because these guys don't really have any skin in the game. None of it's their money. If any of them were personally responsible for their actions, there wouldn't be any of this recklessness. The most reckless things the government has done, other than starting wars to misdirect attention, was to lift the regulations. It doesn't work. There's over 300 million people here, & you can't govern by ideology. Everybody has their own.

The government didn't lift regulations so much as replaced regulation with a political ideology. This is what I'm talking about when I use the term "Political capital". If you put the power of money in the hands of a politician, especially a politician with an axe to grind, they will use that power to, as they say "Level the playing field". Well, they leveled the playing field and we're worse off for it.

[hippifried]

Wow spud. You sure like to jump to a lot of misguided conclusions.

Compulsive gamblers? Who's that? Because the term "gamble" better describes people who were takings stated income and interest only loans. You know? The people who were betting other peoples money on rising property values. It's not just the bankers, it's both sides of the credit markets. Blaming only the bankers is typical, non-productive class warfare plain and simple.

Where do you come up with all this silly rhetoric. You an adherent of bugeyed Becky the new age prophet, or just another dittohead?

When all this crashed, there was over $50 trillion in credit default swaps floating around just in the US. That dwarfs the US GDP. Not really sure, but that may be more than the planetary GDP. These aren't the bundled mortgage CDOs. These are just naked bets on whether the CDOs & other weird financial products would pay or fail. No skin in the game. Don't own the bundles. Just laying a bet with markers, partially backed by the investments of actual people who have no idea that any of this is going on. It's really not about housing. The "foreclosure crisis" that hit in 2006 just turned the lights on so people could see what was happening. These guys were just creating money out of thin air. It took 2 years for the press to analyze this nonsense. It's still unclear, but very little of it paid off. How do you clear the books? You don't know what you're talking about.

This is just more religious intolerance from you. You disagree with religion in general so you can't help but make savage attacks on it because, afterall, according to your beliefs, humans are animal.

??????? Well gee, it must be quite an edge to be able to read minds & be so sure of what somebody else thinks. Can your ouija board see the powerball numbers?

What does religion have to do with morality?

You don't know what you're talking about.

Ok, I fail to see who's to blame here. The banker or the guy who TOOK THE LOAN and owed it to himself to understand it to the best of his ability and perform as agreed on it. Or wait, are you arguing that the general public is incapable of reading and therefore needs nanny to step in and govern private business?

You fail to see because you're looking to affix blame to fit into this McCarthyesque "class warfare" fantasy your're trying to promote. It's pretty easy to see that you've never taken out a home loan. This isn't private business. It's other people's money. Without all those bank accounts, retirement accounts, brokerage accounts, & whatnot, the capitalist system collapses. People shouldn't have to rely on trust. We have the federal government to make sure these guys are on the up & up. That's one of the reasons they exist. You don't know what you're talking about.

Yes you are. You are arguing that people are incapable of understanding the terms on documents they are signing. Thanks. I guess this is how you convince yourself that we're all just a bunch of helpless citizens waiting for the government to come save us. For someone who doesn't believe in a God, you sure want to make the government yours.

Reality check. Nobody's dealing with the lenders. You can't get past the broker who's selling that financial product. You don't even see the final papers until you go in to sign. If you're experienced & have the extra cash, you take a lawyer with you Most people don't understand this shit. They think they're buying a home & taking out a mortgage, like Mom & Dad did, when they're really signing on to a trust deed. The more complicated the product, the less likely it is that the lendee will understand the details. First time buyers are at the mercy of whoever's explaining the legalese & bank jargon to them. You don't know what you're talking about.

I don't know what your point here was except to point out to many that you're just another guy with novice real estate exposure plagiarizing from Andrew Murfin. Banks and near-banks? This shit is 25 years old. Borrow from someone who's actually relevant these days, will you?

I have no earthly idea who Andrew Murfin is, & I don't care enough to look him up. You don't know what you're talking about.

The government didn't lift regulations so much as replaced regulation with a political ideology. This is what I'm talking about when I use the term "Political capital". If you put the power of money in the hands of a politician, especially a politician with an axe to grind, they will use that power to, as they say "Level the playing field". Well, they leveled the playing field and we're worse off for it.

You're just a parrot. You don't know what you're talking about.

[yodajazz]

Compulsive gamblers? Who's that? Because the term "gamble" better describes people who were takings stated income and interest only loans. You know? The people who were betting other peoples money on rising property values. It's not just the bankers, it's both sides of the credit markets. Blaming only the bankers is typical, non-productive class warfare plain and simple.



This is just more religious intolerance from you. You disagree with religion in general so you can't help but make savage attacks on it because, afterall, according to your beliefs, humans are animal.



Ok, I fail to see who's to blame here. The banker or the guy who TOOK THE LOAN and owed it to himself to understand it to the best of his ability and perform as agreed on it. Or wait, are you arguing that the general public is incapable of reading and therefore needs nanny to step in and govern private business?




Yes you are. You are arguing that people are incapable of understanding the terms on documents they are signing. Thanks. I guess this is how you convince yourself that we're all just a bunch of helpless citizens waiting for the government to come save us. For someone who doesn't believe in a God, you sure want to make the government yours.



I don't know what your point here was except to point out to many that you're just another guy with novice real estate exposure plagiarizing from Andrew Murfin. Banks and near-banks? This shit is 25 years old. Borrow from someone who's actually relevant these days, will you?




The government didn't lift regulations so much as replaced regulation with a political ideology. This is what I'm talking about when I use the term "Political capital". If you put the power of money in the hands of a politician, especially a politician with an axe to grind, they will use that power to, as they say "Level the playing field". Well, they leveled the playing field and we're worse off for it.

1. A "60 Minutes" piece describes the practice of credit default swaps, also know as CDO's and 'derrivatives' as legalized gambling. Since 1999 when the practice became legal some has estimated that there are trillions of dollars of obligations out there. But since the practice was entirely unregulated, there are only estimates. This also contributed to the financial crisis when companies like Bears and Stearns were not able to 'pay off their bets'. So point is that it was gambling on a large scale.

2. I disagree that morality is getting worse. I think were just getting more news about people's behaviors. Plus there are more ways to do traditional things like stealing money. It's the same behavior, just a new way of doing it.

3. "Level the playing field"? Studies have shown the the top percentage of wealth now own more of the total wealth. There has been a consistant theme since Reagan, that letting the wealth pay less taxes would be good for the economy. I argue that polictician have favored things which help the weathiest rather than 'level the playing field'. Bush's tax cut, while waging war, was a big increase on the federal deficit. Has this created more jobs? I think the governments suspending of regulations to such firms as Goldman Sachs, in 2004, (as I have quoted in previous post in this thread), does fit into your definition of "political capital". However this is another example of politicians helping big money interest, just the opposite of 'leveling the playing field'.

And the the spin doctors say taxes are being raised, when the reality is that tax cuts are due to expire. The working class pays a good percentage of their income to the government for social security. The framing of information is a important tool to manipultate public opinion.

[thombergeron]

2. I disagree that morality is getting worse. I think were just getting more news about people's behaviors. Plus there are more ways to do traditional things like stealing money. It's the same behavior, just a new way of doing it.

I think this is the key point in discussing policy, and is dramatically misunderstood by the overwhelming majority of commenters.

By literally every objective measure of the human condition, we are better off now than at any time in human history. People live longer, are healthier, have more wealth, are better educated, are safer, and enjoy greater degrees of civic equality and political freedom than ever before.

Those making the "moral" argument will ignore all this evidence because "morality" is not an objective measure. I say morality is increasing, PomonaCA says it's decreasing, and we're both correct because one's system of morals is inherently subjective.

But in terms of things like freedom, equality, and justice, human beings across the globe are unquestionably better off now than 1,000, 100, 50, or even 10 years ago.

[hippifried]

I think this is the key point in discussing policy, and is dramatically misunderstood by the overwhelming majority of commenters.

By literally every objective measure of the human condition, we are better off now than at any time in human history. People live longer, are healthier, have more wealth, are better educated, are safer, and enjoy greater degrees of civic equality and political freedom than ever before.

Those making the "moral" argument will ignore all this evidence because "morality" is not an objective measure. I say morality is increasing, PomonaCA says it's decreasing, and we're both correct because one's system of morals is inherently subjective.

But in terms of things like freedom, equality, and justice, human beings across the globe are unquestionably better off now than 1,000, 100, 50, or even 10 years ago.

I agree that things are better overall & getting better as we speak. Each generation loses some of the xenophobic fears & brings the world a little closer together, to make life just a bit easier for the next one. That's not just the American dream. Every human being (sans a few jerks) strives for that & has since prehistory.

However: I disagree that morality is necessarily subjective. The problem is that too many people claim the authority to dictate morality. Morality isn't about arbitrary rules, & can't be dictated by people who claim to speak for the omniscient, or that they've designed the ultimate ideology, or that they have a philosophical edge by reading libraries full of mumbo jumbo. Morality's about how we treat each other on a personal level. The principle/ethic of reciprosity, or the "golden rule" the universal code. Look at all those philosophers & prophets. What are they talking about other than the code? The discussion always comes back to that because that's the basis of the behavioral concept of right & wrong. Our conscience kicks in by our asking ourselves how we would feel if we were on the other side of the contemplated action. If you can't relate it to the code, it's not a moral issue. Arbitrary rules have nothing to do with morality. It's all quite simple, despite the continual efforts to make it complicated.

The Rabbi Hillel the elder (circa 100 BCE), when asked to state the law to settle an argument, said:
"What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn"
Can't get much simpler or authoritative than that.

[PomonaCA]

I think this is the key point in discussing policy, and is dramatically misunderstood by the overwhelming majority of commenters.

By literally every objective measure of the human condition, we are better off now than at any time in human history. People live longer, are healthier, have more wealth, are better educated, are safer, and enjoy greater degrees of civic equality and political freedom than ever before.

Those making the "moral" argument will ignore all this evidence because "morality" is not an objective measure. I say morality is increasing, PomonaCA says it's decreasing, and we're both correct because one's system of morals is inherently subjective.

But in terms of things like freedom, equality, and justice, human beings across the globe are unquestionably better off now than 1,000, 100, 50, or even 10 years ago.

How moral are we if the 'civil equality' you talk about is mandated by federal law? That's not morality, that's FEAR of governments and the repression of free speech. Is it moral if a black guy applies for a job, is hired and every time he turns the corner, someone calls him a nigger?

Are we more moral in a society that enforce gay rights at the point of a gun or lawsuit? That's not morality, that's fear.

And is safety a barometer of freedom and safety? Is it moral to demand that bikers wear helmets? Is that real freedom? You laugh now but give it time. Soon the government will dictate how many calories you take in, how much alcohol you take in, when you go to sleep and how much electricity you use. After all, we have to keep you SAFE from all that fossil fuel pollution.

[yodajazz]

How moral are we if the 'civil equality' you talk about is mandated by federal law? That's not morality, that's FEAR of governments and the repression of free speech. Is it moral if a black guy applies for a job, is hired and every time he turns the corner, someone calls him a nigger?

Are we more moral in a society that enforce gay rights at the point of a gun or lawsuit? That's not morality, that's fear.

And is safety a barometer of freedom and safety? Is it moral to demand that bikers wear helmets? Is that real freedom? You laugh now but give it time. Soon the government will dictate how many calories you take in, how much alcohol you take in, when you go to sleep and how much electricity you use. After all, we have to keep you SAFE from all that fossil fuel pollution.

I argue that laws reflect the will of the majority of people. It is only fear for the minority of people who disagree. Perhaps the people do not agree with the specific penalties for the law, but they agree that something should be done to promote safety, (In the case of bike helmets), and the law adresses that issue. Even nations we think of as dictatorships, usually have legislators who are responsibles for common laws that their people live by.

I must point out that freedom and morality are two different things. It would be freedom to shoot people, who disagree with us, or to drive home after having 8 drinks at a bar. I say concepts of safety and rights are based moral concepts. Now personally think our seatbelt laws do more harm in penalties than good. But in my state laws which required motorcyclists to wear helmets, was repealed. Freedom prevailed oever saftey in that case.

[yodajazz]

Wow spud. You sure like to jump to a lot of misguided conclusions.


Where do you come up with all this silly rhetoric. You an adherent of bugeyed Becky the new age prophet, or just another dittohead?

When all this crashed, there was over $50 trillion in credit default swaps floating around just in the US. That dwarfs the US GDP. Not really sure, but that may be more than the planetary GDP. These aren't the bundled mortgage CDOs. These are just naked bets on whether the CDOs & other weird financial products would pay or fail. No skin in the game. Don't own the bundles. Just laying a bet with markers, partially backed by the investments of actual people who have no idea that any of this is going on. It's really not about housing. The "foreclosure crisis" that hit in 2006 just turned the lights on so people could see what was happening. These guys were just creating money out of thin air. It took 2 years for the press to analyze this nonsense. It's still unclear, but very little of it paid off. How do you clear the books? You don't know what you're talking about.

...

Sorry I missed this part of your post, before I made a related post. I want to add that it's amazing to me that credit default swaps were illegal until 1999 or 2000, but there was 50 trillion of them out there within, say 7 years. Most people give credit to Republican sponsor Phil Gramm for writing the the bill. Bill Clinton did sign it. My point is it was the perfect experiment for the Republican philosophy that non government interference would create prosperity. I think it just created volitility. That exchange of money did not end up creating productive goods which would benefit the general public as manufacture labor, etc.

Do you know anything about how the new finance law affects these transactions? I agree with mostly all of what you have written in this thread.

[hippifried]

Do you know anything about how the new finance law affects these transactions? I agree with mostly all of what you have written in this thread.

I haven't gone through all the details of the new law yet. I don't think CDSs are outlawed though. I'm not sure it's possible to put the genie back in the bottle with so much junk paper floating around out there, without a systemic recrash. I know there's new rules on what the banks can issue, & selling naked bets could very well be a big no no for them under the new law, but I'm not sure what it does to regulate the insurance industry. The CDS, in its current form, was a creation of AIG, & most of it ran through them. It was sold as insurance & risk abatement. Very few people fully understand how these things actually work. The people I've seen who do, regardless of party affiliation or political bent, all agree on one thing: That the attempt at risk abatement didn't work & actually added to the risk.

It wasn't just them of course. Over the course of a decade, Congress systematically gutted financial regulations. Especially the antitrust provisions that disappeared under Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Everybody likes to talk a bunch of free market capitalism, but monopolies & even mega-consolidations are really anathema to a free market. Stifling competition & creating a "too big to fail" situation makes it impossible for the markets to regulate themselves through competition. Kinda makes you wonder who the real commies are.

[thombergeron]

How moral are we if the 'civil equality' you talk about is mandated by federal law? That's not morality, that's FEAR of governments and the repression of free speech. Is it moral if a black guy applies for a job, is hired and every time he turns the corner, someone calls him a nigger?

You're quite confused here. In a democratic republic, like we have right here, the authority of the state derives from the consent of the governed. That's what's commonly referred to as "elections." A state's legitimacy is based, in part, on a monopoly of the use of violence, that is, it's ability to protect its citizens from both without and within.

All this stuff is written down. Try John Locke, Max Weber, etc.

It's not altogether surprising that a fearful little bigot interprets everything around him in the context of fear, but that's not actually how things work here. Law is based on the social compact, the desire of a polity to cooperate for the collective benefit of all. If you only obey the law because you're afraid of the government's guns, then you're a sociopath, and your earlier reference to "morals" is all the more confusing.