In lame men's terms, WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON?

[Kulindahr]

Re: In lame men's terms, WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON

R.A. The Pugs have nothing to paint.
Read the words of The Speaker & Majority Leader.

. . . . .

Just another fine example of this Do Nothing Congress. Ya okay Harry & Nancy , sit on your hands & hope the blame from the media will shift to "it's GWB's fault. "

Did YOU read the words of the Speaker and the Majority Leader?
They admitted that they don't know what to do, that they don't have the knowledge or background to handle this. I'd say that's pretty darned refreshing from a politician!
And when you don't know what to do, the only time you do anything is if no one else knows, either -- but they conceded that there are two people who at least have a clue, so they're acting wisely: waiting till those two call for help, and -- hopefully -- specify what that help should be.
I never really expected good sense on a financial crisis from Democrats, but I'm seeing it here.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: In lame men's terms, WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON

Whether or not the Hank Paulson plan to stopgap a run by depositors on the financial institutions will work, I am amazed at the reaction on CNBC by the talking heads. They all agreed on friday that it was necessary, now they are bemoaning the fact that the government has put a 10 day hiatus rule against short selling.

Short selling brought Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and others to bankruptcy and was threatening to do the same to giants AIG and Goldman Sachs. They want it both ways! These greedy pigs are still hungry and they want a full trough, slopped this time by you, the taxpayer!

The taxpayers should get what any rescuing company would get: stock in the outfits being rescued.
And I'd fine the people in charge of those institutions -- in stock.

 

[JayHawk]

Re: In lame men's terms, WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON

It's still obnoxious, and it's the reason for my position on the "death tax": I oppose it, but would replace it with a maximum a person/estate can bequeath to any individual or individual entity -- say, McCain's $5 million.

So a person with a wealth of $5 billion would have to split the fortune at least 1,000 ways.

Hmmm...Is that socialism or communism?

What is obnoxious is thinking somehow other people are entitled to what you have earned.

 

[hotatlboi]

Re: In lame men's terms, WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON

Hmmm...Is that socialism or communism?

What is obnoxious is thinking somehow other people are entitled to what you have earned.

+1 for this.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: In lame men's terms, WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON

Hmmm...Is that socialism or communism?

What is obnoxious is thinking somehow other people are entitled to what you have earned.

It's neither -- it's the avoidance of economic feudalism, which is the inevitable result of ever-increasing concentration of wealth.

And if we're concerned about other people getting what they haven't earned, then the inheritance tax ought to be 100%.

 

[naked gent]

Re: In lame men's terms, WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON

Thank you, King Louis XVI.

This comment only points out what a tragedy it would be if it turns out that the economic distribution of a meritocracy matches that of an aristocracy.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: In lame men's terms, WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON

This comment only points out what a tragedy it would be if it turns out that the economic distribution of a meritocracy matches that of an aristocracy.

Both suffer from the concentration of accumulated, unearned wealth.
That accumulation leads to an aristocracy, whether it's called one or not.

 

[hotatlboi]

Re: In lame men's terms, WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON

Both suffer from the concentration of accumulated, unearned wealth.
That accumulation leads to an aristocracy, whether it's called one or not.

And if you force income redistribution on people that takes away incentive to increase one's position in society, discourages new investments, and hinders economic growth.

I get your point of view, but America still has a strong middle class.

 

[smelter]

Re: In lame men's terms, WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON

The taxpayers should get what any rescuing company would get: stock in the outfits being rescued.
And I'd fine the people in charge of those institutions -- in stock.

I don't know what will be in the final legislation bill to fund this monstrosity. I agree there should be both an equity interest for the taxpayer together with some punitive measures for the responsible parties .... your idea sounds good to me!

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: In lame men's terms, WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON

And if you force income redistribution on people that takes away incentive to increase one's position in society, discourages new investments, and hinders economic growth.

I get your point of view, but America still has a strong middle class.

I'm not advocating "income redistribution", I'm saying that the maximum amount a person ought to be able to will to a single individual or entity should be $5 million.
The individual still gets to decide where his wealth will be given; he just has to spread it around.
I don't see how that's going to discourage new investment; in fact, I'd expect that a fair number of those chosen to receive such a bequest would do well with it. Nor do I see how it would hinder economic growth.

 

[pausanias_usa]

Re: In lame men's terms, WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON

The FBI are getting in on the act according to the latest headlines.

Enron, anyone? And remember how long it took to nail the crooks?

Will be long after the election -- or the vote on this bill.

 

[hotatlboi]

Re: In lame men's terms, WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON

I guess you didn't really understand me.

If you compare America to the rest of the world, we do have a strong middle class.

If you meant as compared to the middle class in America at some previous point, I won't disagree that there has been pressure and weakening of it recently.

 

[hotatlboi]

Re: In lame men's terms, WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON

I'm not advocating "income redistribution", I'm saying that the maximum amount a person ought to be able to will to a single individual or entity should be $5 million.
The individual still gets to decide where his wealth will be given; he just has to spread it around.
I don't see how that's going to discourage new investment; in fact, I'd expect that a fair number of those chosen to receive such a bequest would do well with it. Nor do I see how it would hinder economic growth.

Ok, sorry maybe I misunderstood you. If that's all you meant, I don't really disagree with you. My comments were referring more to the idea that we have to tax the rich more heavily because they have too much money, and we have to give more of that to poor people. That's one area I disagree with Obama on (even though I'm still voting for him). I think the rich already pay more than their fair share (which is the vast majority of the total tax revenue). Just because you've done well for yourself doesn't mean you should be forced to give all your money to the gov.

 

[andysayshi]

Re: In lame men's terms, WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON

Here's a great breakdown of the For And Against arguments for the $700 billion buyout:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7635420.stm

 

[hotatlboi]

Re: In lame men's terms, WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON

Of course when times get desperate like this it leads to senseless hostility, like here in NC where a man pulled out a gun at a gas station cuz he had been waiting TEN MINUTES.

If someone pulled a gun at a gas station for waiting ten minutes, the cause is not "desperate times", the cause is simply because that person is a loser and a fucking idiot.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: In lame men's terms, WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON

If someone pulled a gun at a gas station for waiting ten minutes, the cause is not "desperate times", the cause is simply because that person is a loser and a fucking idiot.

That's not quite right.

That should read "a loser and fucking undisciplined idiot".

 

[AsianDream]

Re: In lame men's terms, WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON

with this Wall-street, Lehman brothers, financial structure shit? For about an hour a day I read news stuff on the financial crisis and it just sounds like a huge fucking confusing circle.

The only part I understand is that banks gave out loans to people who couldn't/didn't pay them back. WTF happens after that?

I'm sure there are 9 billion answers but, if you could, break it down into simple terms so knuckleheads like me can understand what the hell is happening.

The basic problem in the USA relates to land values - a typical house costs about $80,000 to build – but sits on land worth between $5,000 an acre (Midwest farmland) and $200 million per acre (downtown NY).

The average value of a US House is more related to land cost than construction cost – so a $80K house will typically sit on land worth $220K. But that land is only worth as much based on scarcity value.

If people have borrowed more than other people will pay for their houses – then they (and their Banks) are in deep trouble.

Hence the whole “sub-prime” crisis in the USA

 

[sonny10305]

Re: In lame men's terms, WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: In lame men's terms, WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON

The basic problem in the USA relates to land values - a typical house costs about $80,000 to build – but sits on land worth between $5,000 an acre (Midwest farmland) and $200 million per acre (downtown NY).

The average value of a US House is more related to land cost than construction cost – so a $80K house will typically sit on land worth $220K. But that land is only worth as much based on scarcity value.

If people have borrowed more than other people will pay for their houses – then they (and their Banks) are in deep trouble.

Hence the whole “sub-prime” crisis in the USA

I'm sitting here thinking about some houses on the coast here, up on the bluffs around where I have my safety and conservation project going. A year ago there were signs along the road selling lots -- 1/5 acre -- for from $90,000 to $125,000. Those signs are gone now, and instead there are signs for 'homes', in price from $220,000 to $360,000.

I happen to know that the flora and fauna on each lot are about the same, and the houses aren't much different (shuffled floor plans, mostly).

What makes the difference in price for otherwise near-identical parcels of land and houses? It would have been hard for most people to figure out if they'd gone up to look at just the lots, and pictures of the yet-to-be-built houses. But if you go into the houses and stand in the main room (combo living room, dining, multi-use).

In the cheapest house, the main window is a huge bay window with a view of ocean and the mouth of the bay -- maybe a 100-degree sweep, if you glance out a side window. The most expensive house has a bay room with three windows providing a view of the cape to the south, the entire bay, the cape to the north and the lighthouse on it... The total sweep of the view is better than 180 degrees.
The difference in the views results from the topography, primarily but not entirely the altitude.

Now if we use your $80,000 figure, we conclude that the view for the $360k house is worth: 360 - 125 - 80 = $155,000.

 

[JayHawk]

Re: In lame men's terms, WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON

Thank you, King Louis XVI.

I wish. My assets would be far from being touched by this floating imaginary wealth world we live in.