Try Not To Be Big Giant Babies And Just Read The Damn Link...

[copernicus 0]

Well, I'm sure they cut those fanufacturing projects and raises because they know Obama's going to be President and therefore the economy's going to fail. Just like the main reason that the stocks are down is because investors know Obama's going to win, eh Copernicus.

There is definitely an element of the market downturn that is attributable to the -EV of an Obama win. That doesnt say "main reason" and doesnt say "going to win". I have never said anything different.

[copernicus 0]

ok. how?

You must be trying to be argumentative here. If youve read anything in the past month you know that it is Democrat policies going back to Clinton, and event to some extent Carter, that are primarily responsbile for the credit crunch. If not, just watch the 60 minutes link without blinders on and figure out who pushed subprime mortgages, who twisted arms at FNMA/FRE, and who tried to impose some discipline but all efforts were blocked by the Dems.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Quit being a baby and just read the link.

nope, not gonna, you're not the boss of me.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

You must be trying to be argumentative here. If youve read anything in the past month you know that it is Democrat policies going back to Clinton, and event to some extent Carter, that are primarily responsbile for the credit crunch. If not, just watch the 60 minutes link without blinders on and figure out who pushed subprime mortgages, who twisted arms at FNMA/FRE, and who tried to impose some discipline but all efforts were blocked by the Dems.

How would you portion out the blame for Credit Default Swaps and the lack of regulation of them as they appear to be more damaging to the credit crisis than the mortgages. The mortgages were the match that lit the fuse on the Credit Default Swap bomb.If anybody says either the Democrats or Reptublicans are more responsible for them they are either lying or are so blinded by partisanship they can't think straight.

[hblask 1]

If anybody says either the Democrats or Reptublicans are more responsible for them they are either lying or are so blinded by partisanship they can't think straight.

As I'm sure you've figured out, I equally hate politicians on both sides of the aisle, so I'm happy to blame both. When I first started reading about this, I agreed with you. But the more I read, the more videos I watch, the closer I follow it, this one is clearly much more on the Democrats than the Republicans. It's not even close, probably 90% Ds, 10% Rs. I guess you could argue that by being passive about getting the word out, the Republicans are also guilty, but it seems to me that actively obstructing reform, the way the Democrats did, is way, way worse than not making the battle public enough, like the Republicans.So yeah, the Republicans were cowards. When they had the chance, the should've gone to the public and said "Look, there's a problem here, and if we try to fix it the Democrats will say we are taking housing away from the poor. They are wrong about that, we are trying to prevent a repeat of the S&L crisis." They failed in that regard, and therefore deserve some of the blame. But the party that said "You hate the poor, and we will do everything we can to block reforms, and we will use this against you on election day if you pass it" deserves MOST of the blame.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

As I'm sure you've figured out, I equally hate politicians on both sides of the aisle, so I'm happy to blame both. When I first started reading about this, I agreed with you. But the more I read, the more videos I watch, the closer I follow it, this one is clearly much more on the Democrats than the Republicans. It's not even close, probably 90% Ds, 10% Rs. I guess you could argue that by being passive about getting the word out, the Republicans are also guilty, but it seems to me that actively obstructing reform, the way the Democrats did, is way, way worse than not making the battle public enough, like the Republicans.So yeah, the Republicans were cowards. When they had the chance, the should've gone to the public and said "Look, there's a problem here, and if we try to fix it the Democrats will say we are taking housing away from the poor. They are wrong about that, we are trying to prevent a repeat of the S&L crisis." They failed in that regard, and therefore deserve some of the blame. But the party that said "You hate the poor, and we will do everything we can to block reforms, and we will use this against you on election day if you pass it" deserves MOST of the blame.

You are talking mortgages and I'm talking about the Credit Default Swaps. They are separate but connected issues.To my knowledge everybody was for Credit Default Swaps being unregulated and nobody suggested reform of them until the mess blew up.

[copernicus 0]

You are talking mortgages and I'm talking about the Credit Default Swaps. They are separate but connected issues.To my knowledge everybody was for Credit Default Swaps being unregulated and nobody suggested reform of them until the mess blew up.

Why would you expect warnings about CDS...nobody understood them, including the investment bankers who hired the mathematicians who invented and then modeled them poorly.CDS could not have become as massive a problem without the huge quantity of underlying debts that were so default prone, and that leads straight back to the Dems. Barney Frank misapplied ye olde venture capital adage. He said, essentially, that "like venture capital companies, the more shaky mortgages we put out there, the better chance we have of hitting gold on some of them". The retards fallacy is obvious.

[El Guapo 8]

Why would you expect warnings about CDS...nobody understood them, including the investment bankers who hired the mathematicians who invented and then modeled them poorly.CDS could not have become as massive a problem without the huge quantity of underlying debts that were so default prone, and that leads straight back to the Dems. Barney Frank misapplied ye olde venture capital adage. He said, essentially, that "like venture capital companies, the more shaky mortgages we put out there, the better chance we have of hitting gold on some of them". The retards fallacy is obvious.

A great example is options. These too were mismanaged and misunderstood. A lot of similarities in timing, and where the markets were when problems arised.The CBOE was created in 1973, guess what we were in the middle of a financial crisis then too, some because of the mis-use of options that traders and arithmeticians did not fully understand. Problem was fixed, for the most part, and now options are a normal everyday investment vehicle, albeit still a confusing one.

[FCP Bob 1,312]

Why would you expect warnings about CDS...nobody understood them, including the investment bankers who hired the mathematicians who invented and then modeled them poorly.CDS could not have become as massive a problem without the huge quantity of underlying debts that were so default prone, and that leads straight back to the Dems. Barney Frank misapplied ye olde venture capital adage. He said, essentially, that "like venture capital companies, the more shaky mortgages we put out there, the better chance we have of hitting gold on some of them". The retards fallacy is obvious.

Interesting paper from the Bank of Canada. They held a workshop on swaps and derivatives 2 years ago.http://www.bankofcanada.ca/en/review/autumn07/gravelle.pdf

The concerns raised about the use of derivatives areoften related to their innovative features and complexity.As is the case whenever broad and rapidadoption of substantially new financial instrumentsoccurs, there is the concern that market participantsare not completely aware of, or do not fully understand,the explicit or implicit risks that arise in trading creditderivatives. History has shown that when this is thecase, it often leads to an overextension of risk taking,a mispricing of financial instruments, and a hiddenbuildup of financial system vulnerabilities.Workshopdiscussion further highlighted how financial systemdistress is more likely to involve the evaporation ofmarket liquidity in credit derivatives markets and tohave far-reaching cross-border effects, given both thegreater dependence of the credit-creation process onmarket liquidity (and in turn on an effective secondarymarket price-discovery process) and the globalizationof finance.

[strategy 4]

You must be trying to be argumentative here. If youve read anything in the past month you know that it is Democrat policies going back to Clinton[1], and event to some extent Carter[2], that are primarily responsbile for the credit crunch. If not, just watch the 60 minutes link without blinders on[3] and figure out who pushed subprime mortgages, who twisted arms at FNMA/FRE, and who tried to impose some discipline but all efforts were blocked by the Dems[4].

1. 50% of subprime loans were issued by banks not subject to comprehensive federal supervision, and above and beyond that, the hardest-hit markets reside almost entirely in the s&p/case-schiller home price indices. let that sink in for a minute before citing the NY times article regarding clinton asking FNMA/FRE to loosen lending standards for lower income areas back in 1998.2. the CRA had nothing to do with the number of fraudulent, no background check type loans we've seen. for example, what govt legislation encouraged lenders to use obviously crooked appraisers repeatedly? 3. I'm in KU business. I've attended multiple non-partisan lectures on the topic from a number of widely respected econ professors... thanks, but I don't think 60 minutes has much to offer me, LOL4. what, you mean the legislation mccain attempted to introduce in 2005, when the seeds had already been planted?more reading on the topic, if anyone else is still convinced that the CRA or the GSEs are to blame:"It's still not CRA""Misunderstanding Credit and Housing Crises: Blaming the CRA, GSEs"

[Loismustdie 0]

Having a thread with a condescending title like " Try not to be big giant babies and just read the damn link" makes me want to do the exact opposite.

Well, you're a big giant baby so I wouldn't expect much less. No offense.

[Loismustdie 0]

Why would you expect warnings about CDS...nobody understood them, including the investment bankers who hired the mathematicians who invented and then modeled them poorly.CDS could not have become as massive a problem without the huge quantity of underlying debts that were so default prone, and that leads straight back to the Dems. Barney Frank misapplied ye olde venture capital adage. He said, essentially, that "like venture capital companies, the more shaky mortgages we put out there, the better chance we have of hitting gold on some of them". The retards fallacy is obvious.

This, and what Guapo said. There is no possible way to give the Republicans the whole of the blame on any of this, or even a large part. Of course, people will try, but every bit of evidence says the opposite. So, assuming people actually read the link I would imagine that voters for Obama are just cool with the consequences? Because AK's story is not unique, companies are cutting the **** back in anticipation of doing business differently. It's going to cost them more to do business, they will be passing that on to us, us will have less money to spend therefore they will take in less money and consequently hire less us? Doesn't anyone want to refuse this or are we just taking the "I don't care he's no Bush" line of thinking? And, Nimue, I am glad my post reached you. It was meant to reach that whom it could, to maybe give you some hope in an election that is almost devoid of it.

[loogie 115]

[nutzbuster 7]

like...wow!

[copernicus 0]

like...wow!

way over my head.

[timwakefield 68]

way over my head.

I don't know the context of the post, but as far as I can tell and unless I am way off, it is a picture of Loogie himself, wearing make-up to appear Asian (possibly for a performance, possibly for other reasons), and then (this is the new part) photoshopped to make him look like a creepy child.Wait, I get it - "Try not to be giant babies..."

[Whalers2005 0]

All these topics with the cons. rep. are just parrots of Rush...wow talking about kool aid.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

1. 50% of subprime loans were issued by banks not subject to comprehensive federal supervision, and above and beyond that, the hardest-hit markets reside almost entirely in the s&p/case-schiller home price indices. let that sink in for a minute before citing the NY times article regarding clinton asking FNMA/FRE to loosen lending standards for lower income areas back in 1998.2. the CRA had nothing to do with the number of fraudulent, no background check type loans we've seen. for example, what govt legislation encouraged lenders to use obviously crooked appraisers repeatedly? 3. I'm in KU business. I've attended multiple non-partisan lectures on the topic from a number of widely respected econ professors... thanks, but I don't think 60 minutes has much to offer me, LOL4. what, you mean the legislation mccain attempted to introduce in 2005, when the seeds had already been planted?more reading on the topic, if anyone else is still convinced that the CRA or the GSEs are to blame:"It's still not CRA""Misunderstanding Credit and Housing Crises: Blaming the CRA, GSEs"

This was a very informative post.