[quote=""HuggyPierre""]
"I'm curious to hear the argument that the economical crisis is the fault of the American financial sector. I know that's what the news says, but the news is largely crap (can a Briton let me know if I spelled that correctly Razz ) and a news report is not evidence. How exactly is America responsible for the global crisis?"
[/quote]
i will try it to explain it in simple terms because this matter is already to complicated. k you all know about the cheap credits in the american housesector and about how people couldn't pay it. Those credits were repacked ' (subprime) and selled to european banks. You would think it's their own fault, but those packages are always rated by rating desks (or bureaus) and they gave those packages a decent rating in thrustwhorty.
Those subrpimes began to lower in value and now our banks have suddenly gaps of billions of euro's because of those american credits. Our banks have now finacial problems. Because of this they don't dare to open credit lines for other banks, you get it domino express.
it's the main reason. the economical crisis began on the american home loan market.
My country has no real problems with our own credits.
No end in sight
Moderator: Global Moderator
-
wicked_assassin
- N3O Member
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 11:27 pm
- Location: Belgium
-
Kaiser_von_Nuben
- Honorary Member
- Posts: 2186
- Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 11:40 pm
- Location: New York, NY USA
Re: No end in sight
Ooof! Another double post, but again, this thread is getting far too interesting, even for me 
1. About the credit crisis: I have a solution to this problem, and you can read about it on my blog: http://reasoncommercejustice.blogspot.c ... a-inc.html :twisted:
2. About America's contribution to World Wars I and II : (a) Germany had WWI won in 1918. If America had not thrown in 2 million fresh troops, Germany most certainly would have defeated the exhausted French and British forces in the West. Don't forget that the Russians were out by January 1918, and even signed a peace treaty with Germany that gave Germany virtually all of the Ukraine. The entire German Eastern army joined the Western army in March 1918 for an all-out attack (die Ludendorffoffensive) that almost won the war. Without the Americans to tip the scales, that attack would have succeeded. (b) America might not have been the decisive military participant in WWII, but its sheer industrial might and inexhaustible reserves combined to crush the Germans and the Japanese. Russia did most of the grunt work in WWII; without the Russian contribution, America would not have had a place to put all its tanks and planes on European soil. Most German casualties in WWII occurred in the East. The Western Front was always secondary to the monumental struggle in Russia. Just look at the numbers: The Russians lost 25 million people (roughly 15 million civilian). The Germans lost about 4 million.
(mostly military). The Americans basically stepped in and finished the work the Russians began., and the British/Canadians/French tagged along for the ride... and some territory in West Germany after the war, not to mention seats on the Nuremberg tribunal from which they could pour righteous accusations on hated Nazi thugs, then hang 'em high.
3. On German savings: Indy, I am sure your statistics are correct. But Huggy is right from a "pedestrian" perspective. On the surface, it seems that Germans spend less and save more than Americans. Whenever I travel to Berlin, a big topic of conversation is always: "Americans and their credit." The Germans pride themselves on not having access to "E-Z" credit, and they scold Americans for giving in to the consumption urge, even if they don't have "das Geld" to buy stuff. Real estate is about the only thing Germans can reliably get on credit. If they can't afford fun stuff like cars, plasma TVs and electronic gizmos, Deutsche Bank will say: "Nein" to the credit application. "Kein Geld, kein Spass. Zurueck zum Arbeitsplatz." In America, the bank says: "You are only worth $4,000 net? No problem; you can buy this Cadillac truck."
4. I think Germany gets a bad rap for WWI because everyone's memory has been poisoned by WWII. Imperial Germany was nothing at all like the Third Reich. If anyone is interested in my analysis, I welcome you to check out my defense at: http://reasoncommercejustice.blogspot.c ... ys_30.html
OK, done... for now
1. About the credit crisis: I have a solution to this problem, and you can read about it on my blog: http://reasoncommercejustice.blogspot.c ... a-inc.html :twisted:
2. About America's contribution to World Wars I and II : (a) Germany had WWI won in 1918. If America had not thrown in 2 million fresh troops, Germany most certainly would have defeated the exhausted French and British forces in the West. Don't forget that the Russians were out by January 1918, and even signed a peace treaty with Germany that gave Germany virtually all of the Ukraine. The entire German Eastern army joined the Western army in March 1918 for an all-out attack (die Ludendorffoffensive) that almost won the war. Without the Americans to tip the scales, that attack would have succeeded. (b) America might not have been the decisive military participant in WWII, but its sheer industrial might and inexhaustible reserves combined to crush the Germans and the Japanese. Russia did most of the grunt work in WWII; without the Russian contribution, America would not have had a place to put all its tanks and planes on European soil. Most German casualties in WWII occurred in the East. The Western Front was always secondary to the monumental struggle in Russia. Just look at the numbers: The Russians lost 25 million people (roughly 15 million civilian). The Germans lost about 4 million.
(mostly military). The Americans basically stepped in and finished the work the Russians began., and the British/Canadians/French tagged along for the ride... and some territory in West Germany after the war, not to mention seats on the Nuremberg tribunal from which they could pour righteous accusations on hated Nazi thugs, then hang 'em high.
3. On German savings: Indy, I am sure your statistics are correct. But Huggy is right from a "pedestrian" perspective. On the surface, it seems that Germans spend less and save more than Americans. Whenever I travel to Berlin, a big topic of conversation is always: "Americans and their credit." The Germans pride themselves on not having access to "E-Z" credit, and they scold Americans for giving in to the consumption urge, even if they don't have "das Geld" to buy stuff. Real estate is about the only thing Germans can reliably get on credit. If they can't afford fun stuff like cars, plasma TVs and electronic gizmos, Deutsche Bank will say: "Nein" to the credit application. "Kein Geld, kein Spass. Zurueck zum Arbeitsplatz." In America, the bank says: "You are only worth $4,000 net? No problem; you can buy this Cadillac truck."
4. I think Germany gets a bad rap for WWI because everyone's memory has been poisoned by WWII. Imperial Germany was nothing at all like the Third Reich. If anyone is interested in my analysis, I welcome you to check out my defense at: http://reasoncommercejustice.blogspot.c ... ys_30.html
OK, done... for now
"The German Army will not stand for it!"
-Colonel Bockner, King Solomon's Mines (1985)
-Colonel Bockner, King Solomon's Mines (1985)
Re: No end in sight
[quote=""IndyBrit""]Stock markets around the world don't collapse because the U.S. stock market collapses. Those stock markets collaps if the companies traded on those markets are similarly overvalued. The collapse of the U.S. market may be the trigger for those companies to be properly valued.[/quote]
Everything is connected. Things went seriously wrong everywhere, but some banks in the US just did things, where a normal thinking human should have realized that this will never work out. So for example german banks bought stocks from these banks. They went down. German banks lost alot of money. Other companies who invested in german banks lost, too, because the german banks lost and so on. Geez, i wish i had decent economic english skillZ. Sorry for that.
Everything is connected. Things went seriously wrong everywhere, but some banks in the US just did things, where a normal thinking human should have realized that this will never work out. So for example german banks bought stocks from these banks. They went down. German banks lost alot of money. Other companies who invested in german banks lost, too, because the german banks lost and so on. Geez, i wish i had decent economic english skillZ. Sorry for that.
I don't understand this. German people have around 2 Billion Euros (2.000.000.000.000 € not 2.000.000.000) in the banks as backup. It's private and does not belong to the state. Germany has - like the US - alot of depts. Why should the working people give their private money, when the economy made mistakes and simply sucked (i know: normally now you should spend all your money to get the economy going, but economy is a psychological thing). Our former chancellor Helmut Schmidt (the best by far btw) said 3 or 4 weeks before the crisis started that this will happen. Now it's about to solve problems. Because of the globalization process we only can it together. It absolutley makes no sense to not support the United States or other Countries in this matter. Yes we canU.S. debt levels prior to our recent stimulus orgy in Washington were very similar to debt levels in European countries. I don't know exactly what European countries are doing, but given that they're joining us in the stimulus orgy I'm going to guess that will remain the case. If Germans are saving so much money, why are they in trouble with the rest of us? In fact, Germans save at similar rates to many other countries, they run a few points higher than the U.S., and they've tracked with the U.S.
-
wicked_assassin
- N3O Member
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 11:27 pm
- Location: Belgium
Re: No end in sight
[quote=""Kaiser_von_Nuben""]
4. I think Germany gets a bad rap for WWI because everyone's memory has been poisoned by WWII. [/quote]
Don't you worry about that lol, that is something from the past. You can't stay blaming people for what their ancestors have done. More then the half of europe invaded my country and supressed us. Without ww1 and WW 2 you would be a minority jk.
[quote ="huggy"]
Everything is connected. Things went seriously wrong everywhere, but some banks in the US just did things, where a normal thinking human should have realized that this will never work out. So for example german banks bought stocks from these banks. They went down. German banks lost alot of money. Other companies who invested in german banks lost, too, because the german banks lost and so on. Geez, i wish i had decent economic english skillZ. Sorry for that[/quote]
I tried to say the same thing a couple posts above. lol
4. I think Germany gets a bad rap for WWI because everyone's memory has been poisoned by WWII. [/quote]
Don't you worry about that lol, that is something from the past. You can't stay blaming people for what their ancestors have done. More then the half of europe invaded my country and supressed us. Without ww1 and WW 2 you would be a minority jk.
[quote ="huggy"]
Everything is connected. Things went seriously wrong everywhere, but some banks in the US just did things, where a normal thinking human should have realized that this will never work out. So for example german banks bought stocks from these banks. They went down. German banks lost alot of money. Other companies who invested in german banks lost, too, because the german banks lost and so on. Geez, i wish i had decent economic english skillZ. Sorry for that[/quote]
I tried to say the same thing a couple posts above. lol
Re: No end in sight
[quote=""Kaiser_von_Nuben""]Rufio, I think the South truly believed it had a constitutional right to secede from the Union in 1860-1861. After all, the Constitution says nothing about a State's right to withdraw from the federal compact. In the most basic way, the Constitution is a contract. States agreed to give up some of their sovereign prerogatives in exchange for protection from an overreaching--though limited--federal sovereign. The Constitution explains what powers the new "federal sovereign" has, as well as the limitations on those powers. It also explains what States may and may not do under the "contract." But nowhere does it say a State may or or may not "leave the contract" if it feels the deal has gone wrong. It also says nothing about slavery, at least explicitly. When South Carolina moved to secede in 1860, it thought it was merely canceling a contract that was no longer working. It thought the federal sovereign was overreaching its authority by limiting slavery, so that gave each State a right to cancel the deal.
This may sound like a decent argument. But the Civil War proved that the Constitution is NOT a voidable contract. Once you're in, you're in. If you try to leave, the federal government will FORCE you back into line. Only a full-scale revolution can topple the current constitutional regime. And revolutions don't happen unless LOTS AND LOTS of people are VERY, VERY upset with their lives. We are not there yet
If only we had 1000 food, 1000 wood and 1000 coin...then maybe we could consider a revolution ::/[/quote]
So in the eyes of the south, the agreement had been voided by the federal government breaking the boundaries of the contract. If what you say is true, then the Civil War did not prove that the Constitution is not a voidable contract, it proved that the contract had been voided and a democratic dictatorship was better at using guns.
This may sound like a decent argument. But the Civil War proved that the Constitution is NOT a voidable contract. Once you're in, you're in. If you try to leave, the federal government will FORCE you back into line. Only a full-scale revolution can topple the current constitutional regime. And revolutions don't happen unless LOTS AND LOTS of people are VERY, VERY upset with their lives. We are not there yet
If only we had 1000 food, 1000 wood and 1000 coin...then maybe we could consider a revolution ::/[/quote]
So in the eyes of the south, the agreement had been voided by the federal government breaking the boundaries of the contract. If what you say is true, then the Civil War did not prove that the Constitution is not a voidable contract, it proved that the contract had been voided and a democratic dictatorship was better at using guns.
"Rock and roll is the hamburger that ate the world." --Peter York
-
Kaiser_von_Nuben
- Honorary Member
- Posts: 2186
- Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 11:40 pm
- Location: New York, NY USA
Re: No end in sight
[quote=""rufio_eht""][quote=""Kaiser_von_Nuben""]Rufio, I think the South truly believed it had a constitutional right to secede from the Union in 1860-1861. After all, the Constitution says nothing about a State's right to withdraw from the federal compact. In the most basic way, the Constitution is a contract. States agreed to give up some of their sovereign prerogatives in exchange for protection from an overreaching--though limited--federal sovereign. The Constitution explains what powers the new "federal sovereign" has, as well as the limitations on those powers. It also explains what States may and may not do under the "contract." But nowhere does it say a State may or or may not "leave the contract" if it feels the deal has gone wrong. It also says nothing about slavery, at least explicitly. When South Carolina moved to secede in 1860, it thought it was merely canceling a contract that was no longer working. It thought the federal sovereign was overreaching its authority by limiting slavery, so that gave each State a right to cancel the deal.
This may sound like a decent argument. But the Civil War proved that the Constitution is NOT a voidable contract. Once you're in, you're in. If you try to leave, the federal government will FORCE you back into line. Only a full-scale revolution can topple the current constitutional regime. And revolutions don't happen unless LOTS AND LOTS of people are VERY, VERY upset with their lives. We are not there yet
If only we had 1000 food, 1000 wood and 1000 coin...then maybe we could consider a revolution ::/[/quote]
So in the eyes of the south, the agreement had been voided by the federal government breaking the boundaries of the contract. If what you say is true, then the Civil War did not prove that the Constitution is not a voidable contract, it proved that the contract had been voided and a democratic dictatorship was better at using guns.[/quote]
That is one way to look at it. In contract law, the stronger party basically dictates what the contract means. If there is a dispute, the stronger party generally wins. Courts have a duty to be neutral intermediaries applying "neutral rules," but when the strong party writes the contract, the court can't do much to change the terms. When it comes to geopolitical "contracts," like the Constitution, even a party "technically correct" about an interpretation will lose if the stronger party says: "Nope, you can't get out of it. And if you keep on about it, I'll kill you and force your descendants to adhere to YOUR obligations."
In the Civil War example, the South had decent Constitutional arguments on its side. The South only ratified the Constitution after receiving tacit assurances that the new Federal government would not disturb the institution of slavery. When the Federal government started limiting--then attacking--slavery, the South reasonably believed that the Federal government was breaking the deal it made in 1787. True, there was nothing in the Constitution that addressed whether an aggrieved State could leave the Union, but the South felt that such a right was IMPLIED based on the unwritten assurances made in 1787. But again, the North forced its hand because it was the stronger party to the contract. No matter how correct the South may have been from a legal standpoint, guns always beat court rulings. Just ask the Cherokee. 8O
This may sound like a decent argument. But the Civil War proved that the Constitution is NOT a voidable contract. Once you're in, you're in. If you try to leave, the federal government will FORCE you back into line. Only a full-scale revolution can topple the current constitutional regime. And revolutions don't happen unless LOTS AND LOTS of people are VERY, VERY upset with their lives. We are not there yet
If only we had 1000 food, 1000 wood and 1000 coin...then maybe we could consider a revolution ::/[/quote]
So in the eyes of the south, the agreement had been voided by the federal government breaking the boundaries of the contract. If what you say is true, then the Civil War did not prove that the Constitution is not a voidable contract, it proved that the contract had been voided and a democratic dictatorship was better at using guns.[/quote]
That is one way to look at it. In contract law, the stronger party basically dictates what the contract means. If there is a dispute, the stronger party generally wins. Courts have a duty to be neutral intermediaries applying "neutral rules," but when the strong party writes the contract, the court can't do much to change the terms. When it comes to geopolitical "contracts," like the Constitution, even a party "technically correct" about an interpretation will lose if the stronger party says: "Nope, you can't get out of it. And if you keep on about it, I'll kill you and force your descendants to adhere to YOUR obligations."
In the Civil War example, the South had decent Constitutional arguments on its side. The South only ratified the Constitution after receiving tacit assurances that the new Federal government would not disturb the institution of slavery. When the Federal government started limiting--then attacking--slavery, the South reasonably believed that the Federal government was breaking the deal it made in 1787. True, there was nothing in the Constitution that addressed whether an aggrieved State could leave the Union, but the South felt that such a right was IMPLIED based on the unwritten assurances made in 1787. But again, the North forced its hand because it was the stronger party to the contract. No matter how correct the South may have been from a legal standpoint, guns always beat court rulings. Just ask the Cherokee. 8O
"The German Army will not stand for it!"
-Colonel Bockner, King Solomon's Mines (1985)
-Colonel Bockner, King Solomon's Mines (1985)
-
wicked_assassin
- N3O Member
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 11:27 pm
- Location: Belgium
Re: No end in sight
kaiser von nuben i have to admit, you got a really detailed knowledgde about the american history for a german.
edit: just read on your blog your an american. lol nvm
edit: just read on your blog your an american. lol nvm
Last edited by wicked_assassin on Thu Feb 12, 2009 1:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: No end in sight
[quote=""Kaiser_von_Nuben""] http://reasoncommercejustice.blogspot.c ... a-inc.html [/quote]
This is a really well written blog. I added it to my favourites.
This is a really well written blog. I added it to my favourites.
-
Kaiser_von_Nuben
- Honorary Member
- Posts: 2186
- Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 11:40 pm
- Location: New York, NY USA
Re: No end in sight
[quote=""wicked_assassin""]kaiser von nuben i have to admit, you got a really detailed knowledgde about the american history for a german.
edit: just read on your blog your an american. lol nvm[/quote]
Ha ha, well, a German-American... I am a third-generation descendant of an East Prussian/Saxon family.
@Huggy: Thanks for reading the blog! It means a lot; and don't forget to tell your friends about it, even if it is in English
edit: just read on your blog your an american. lol nvm[/quote]
Ha ha, well, a German-American... I am a third-generation descendant of an East Prussian/Saxon family.
@Huggy: Thanks for reading the blog! It means a lot; and don't forget to tell your friends about it, even if it is in English
"The German Army will not stand for it!"
-Colonel Bockner, King Solomon's Mines (1985)
-Colonel Bockner, King Solomon's Mines (1985)
Re: No end in sight
[quote=""wicked_assassin""][quote=""HuggyPierre""]
"I'm curious to hear the argument that the economical crisis is the fault of the American financial sector. I know that's what the news says, but the news is largely crap (can a Briton let me know if I spelled that correctly Razz ) and a news report is not evidence. How exactly is America responsible for the global crisis?"
[/quote]
i will try it to explain it in simple terms because this matter is already to complicated. k you all know about the cheap credits in the american housesector and about how people couldn't pay it. Those credits were repacked ' (subprime) and selled to european banks. You would think it's their own fault, but those packages are always rated by rating desks (or bureaus) and they gave those packages a decent rating in thrustwhorty.
Those subrpimes began to lower in value and now our banks have suddenly gaps of billions of euro's because of those american credits. Our banks have now finacial problems. Because of this they don't dare to open credit lines for other banks, you get it domino express.
it's the main reason. the economical crisis began on the american home loan market.
My country has no real problems with our own credits.[/quote]
Your proposed mechanism is fine, if it were true. Unfortunately, the world markets have lost far more value than United States home values have declined (which is the source of losses you propose). Further, we know that home values in other countries have decreased just as they have in the United States. For example, median new home prices have fallen about 11% in the USA and about 14% in the UK. The USA foreclosure rate has climbed to 1/416 homes. Foreclosure data for European countries are more difficult to find, but the UK advertised repossession rates at 0.23% at the beginning of 2008 (just under 1 in 400). Given that repossession is the next step after foreclosure, and given that rates increased during 2008, it's safe to say that UK foreclosures are worse than US foreclosures, but you see for yourself the sketchy data so make your own conclusion.
Similar data for other countries is very difficult to find, so if anyone has it that might be interesting to see.
My point is, the contribution to this crisis from the USA is similar, on a percentage basis, to that of other countries. Granted, as a large fish, we make a big splash, but then our economy also absorbs a larger portion of the losses.
I may be willing to entertain the argument that, as a leader of fiscal policy, we have caused others to mimic our own bad policy. I'm not sure what data we could look to if we wanted to try to measure that.
"I'm curious to hear the argument that the economical crisis is the fault of the American financial sector. I know that's what the news says, but the news is largely crap (can a Briton let me know if I spelled that correctly Razz ) and a news report is not evidence. How exactly is America responsible for the global crisis?"
[/quote]
i will try it to explain it in simple terms because this matter is already to complicated. k you all know about the cheap credits in the american housesector and about how people couldn't pay it. Those credits were repacked ' (subprime) and selled to european banks. You would think it's their own fault, but those packages are always rated by rating desks (or bureaus) and they gave those packages a decent rating in thrustwhorty.
Those subrpimes began to lower in value and now our banks have suddenly gaps of billions of euro's because of those american credits. Our banks have now finacial problems. Because of this they don't dare to open credit lines for other banks, you get it domino express.
it's the main reason. the economical crisis began on the american home loan market.
My country has no real problems with our own credits.[/quote]
Your proposed mechanism is fine, if it were true. Unfortunately, the world markets have lost far more value than United States home values have declined (which is the source of losses you propose). Further, we know that home values in other countries have decreased just as they have in the United States. For example, median new home prices have fallen about 11% in the USA and about 14% in the UK. The USA foreclosure rate has climbed to 1/416 homes. Foreclosure data for European countries are more difficult to find, but the UK advertised repossession rates at 0.23% at the beginning of 2008 (just under 1 in 400). Given that repossession is the next step after foreclosure, and given that rates increased during 2008, it's safe to say that UK foreclosures are worse than US foreclosures, but you see for yourself the sketchy data so make your own conclusion.
Similar data for other countries is very difficult to find, so if anyone has it that might be interesting to see.
My point is, the contribution to this crisis from the USA is similar, on a percentage basis, to that of other countries. Granted, as a large fish, we make a big splash, but then our economy also absorbs a larger portion of the losses.
I may be willing to entertain the argument that, as a leader of fiscal policy, we have caused others to mimic our own bad policy. I'm not sure what data we could look to if we wanted to try to measure that.
Re: No end in sight
The financial crisis is surprisingly easy to explain, provided you don't listen to politicians explain it.
It's pretty clear the causes of the financial crisis start and end in the US.
Exhibit A: I went down to a local GM dealer and bought a new car a while back. A month later, I was infuriated by the arrival of a loan payment notice from Citibank. For one, this bank is not local and represents a significant Saudi Arabian investment. Another, more important point for me is that I did not agree to a loan with them. What happened to my local loan where the lender and the borrower are invested in one another and the community? This problem is in large part due to deregulation and globalization which has occurred over the past generation.
Exhibit B: The American way of life, meaning the insatiable American appetite for oil and lead coated children's toys from China, and who's preservation is a primary reason given by politicians to persuade Americans to go to war, means that large sums of money flow out of the US and into China and oil rich countries primarily.
Exhibit C: The people to whom all this money flows, it turns out they have extra money they can invest - a lot of it. The money available globally for investment doubled from 1900 to 2000 (a hundred years). It just took 6 years for it to double yet again in 2006. It piled up so fast, investors had to find some place to get rid of it with investments.
Exhibit D: The usual investments were basically all invested out. Investors needed some place new and big to get rid of all their extra money. It didn't take long for those charged with investing this excess money to come up with an innovative solution. Since no multi-billion dollar investor is gonna want to buy home loans $100,000 or so at a time, Wall Street set out to buy up home loans and bundle them into one neat little package and sell shares. Since it was once customary for lenders to screen borrowers before giving out loans, this seemed like a pretty safe bet.
Exhibit E: So here's the rub. The amount of investment money exerted a lot of pressure to come up with more and more bundles of mortgages. It kind of went like this: A broker gets the home loan and sells it to a small bank, the bank turns around and sells the home loans to an investment firm on Wall Street. Wall Street in turn sells shares in the bundled home loans. Deregulation now allowed the mixing of these assets.
Exhibit F: To make these loans and pass them upstream was pretty competitive and soon became a race to the bottom. Loan standards fell but the investment rating did not. Eventually, they were making NINO (no income, no asset) loans for houses that were over half a million dollars. Without oversight or regulation (who cares if they can't pay, I just sold the loan, ha ha), "honest" brokers were quickly overrun by more aggressive ones.
Exhibit G: People started defaulting on their mortgages and the whole financial system seized up. The boy who cried wolf, err Bush who had lost credibility even with his own party, sounded an alarm that was quite real. Commercial Paper (the daily loan transactions of large companies) completely seized up one day for the first time ever. The defaulted loans completely sapped the life out of the financial system in the US. Other countries invested in the US are sucked in as well.
Mac
It's pretty clear the causes of the financial crisis start and end in the US.
Exhibit A: I went down to a local GM dealer and bought a new car a while back. A month later, I was infuriated by the arrival of a loan payment notice from Citibank. For one, this bank is not local and represents a significant Saudi Arabian investment. Another, more important point for me is that I did not agree to a loan with them. What happened to my local loan where the lender and the borrower are invested in one another and the community? This problem is in large part due to deregulation and globalization which has occurred over the past generation.
Exhibit B: The American way of life, meaning the insatiable American appetite for oil and lead coated children's toys from China, and who's preservation is a primary reason given by politicians to persuade Americans to go to war, means that large sums of money flow out of the US and into China and oil rich countries primarily.
Exhibit C: The people to whom all this money flows, it turns out they have extra money they can invest - a lot of it. The money available globally for investment doubled from 1900 to 2000 (a hundred years). It just took 6 years for it to double yet again in 2006. It piled up so fast, investors had to find some place to get rid of it with investments.
Exhibit D: The usual investments were basically all invested out. Investors needed some place new and big to get rid of all their extra money. It didn't take long for those charged with investing this excess money to come up with an innovative solution. Since no multi-billion dollar investor is gonna want to buy home loans $100,000 or so at a time, Wall Street set out to buy up home loans and bundle them into one neat little package and sell shares. Since it was once customary for lenders to screen borrowers before giving out loans, this seemed like a pretty safe bet.
Exhibit E: So here's the rub. The amount of investment money exerted a lot of pressure to come up with more and more bundles of mortgages. It kind of went like this: A broker gets the home loan and sells it to a small bank, the bank turns around and sells the home loans to an investment firm on Wall Street. Wall Street in turn sells shares in the bundled home loans. Deregulation now allowed the mixing of these assets.
Exhibit F: To make these loans and pass them upstream was pretty competitive and soon became a race to the bottom. Loan standards fell but the investment rating did not. Eventually, they were making NINO (no income, no asset) loans for houses that were over half a million dollars. Without oversight or regulation (who cares if they can't pay, I just sold the loan, ha ha), "honest" brokers were quickly overrun by more aggressive ones.
Exhibit G: People started defaulting on their mortgages and the whole financial system seized up. The boy who cried wolf, err Bush who had lost credibility even with his own party, sounded an alarm that was quite real. Commercial Paper (the daily loan transactions of large companies) completely seized up one day for the first time ever. The defaulted loans completely sapped the life out of the financial system in the US. Other countries invested in the US are sucked in as well.
Mac
Last edited by Macabee on Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: No end in sight
[quote=""IndyBrit""]
The problem is, that to see the Bush-Iraq business as lying, you have to have a template ready and read all supporting data into your template while ignoring any counter data. This is an engine for bad decisions, as we have seen vividly demonstrated.[/quote]
I think I get how this works. Bush, who was almost always wrong whether one agrees he lied or not, is really right because he's like a Forrest Gump where things somehow work out anyway (in the opinion of some).
Then there's me, Since before the Iraq war, so many things I've predicted and said about Iraq's wmd , unmanned drones, etc should make me better than the Oracle of Delphi or something, but I'm wrong because my template is "broken". Makes perfect sense.
I've been looking over poll's leading up to the Iraq war. Some seem to forget but Americans opposed the war throughout the lead up. Polls indicated that Americans believed there was not enough proof of wmd. After the war started, something like 90% of Americans supported the war as one might expect they would rally to the President.
It's pretty amazing that so many Americans believed that the evidence was not there. The Bush administration orchestrated the most sophisticated media propaganda program since Nazi Germany and yet most Americans didn't see the evidence. They planted false news stories ahead of Sunday talk shows so that **** Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Condoleezza Rice could comment on and spin, it did not appear they leaked the story at the time but later turned out to be proved false. Judith Miller and Michael Gordon come to mind as prime example of this media manipulation/propaganda campaign.
Mac
The problem is, that to see the Bush-Iraq business as lying, you have to have a template ready and read all supporting data into your template while ignoring any counter data. This is an engine for bad decisions, as we have seen vividly demonstrated.[/quote]
I think I get how this works. Bush, who was almost always wrong whether one agrees he lied or not, is really right because he's like a Forrest Gump where things somehow work out anyway (in the opinion of some).
Then there's me, Since before the Iraq war, so many things I've predicted and said about Iraq's wmd , unmanned drones, etc should make me better than the Oracle of Delphi or something, but I'm wrong because my template is "broken". Makes perfect sense.
I've been looking over poll's leading up to the Iraq war. Some seem to forget but Americans opposed the war throughout the lead up. Polls indicated that Americans believed there was not enough proof of wmd. After the war started, something like 90% of Americans supported the war as one might expect they would rally to the President.
It's pretty amazing that so many Americans believed that the evidence was not there. The Bush administration orchestrated the most sophisticated media propaganda program since Nazi Germany and yet most Americans didn't see the evidence. They planted false news stories ahead of Sunday talk shows so that **** Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Condoleezza Rice could comment on and spin, it did not appear they leaked the story at the time but later turned out to be proved false. Judith Miller and Michael Gordon come to mind as prime example of this media manipulation/propaganda campaign.
Mac
Last edited by Macabee on Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: No end in sight
Macabee:
Post 1 - great post. And "surprisingly easy", just as advertised.
Post 2 - since the intelligence agencies of Britain and Russia thought he had the weapons, that's pretty inconvenient for your world view. Also, the Democrats thought he had the weapons. The difference between Bush and Clinton is that Bush acted on the intelligence and Clinton did not. Especially today, it's easy to consider the Clinton policy in this regard to be superior. However, again, to call that lying by Bush - ie he believed what his predecessor, foreign governments, and his political opposition believed - is to simply ignore counter facts and only give weight to those that support your position. Which, again, is what Bush did in deciding to go into Iraq.
I was likening your analysis of Bush to Bush's analysis of Iraq. Yet your post seems to suggest that I'm saying Bush was better than you, which is not the case at all. I'm not sure which position of yours I'm debating anymore, but mine is pretty clearly stated in the previous paragraph.
Post 1 - great post. And "surprisingly easy", just as advertised.
Post 2 - since the intelligence agencies of Britain and Russia thought he had the weapons, that's pretty inconvenient for your world view. Also, the Democrats thought he had the weapons. The difference between Bush and Clinton is that Bush acted on the intelligence and Clinton did not. Especially today, it's easy to consider the Clinton policy in this regard to be superior. However, again, to call that lying by Bush - ie he believed what his predecessor, foreign governments, and his political opposition believed - is to simply ignore counter facts and only give weight to those that support your position. Which, again, is what Bush did in deciding to go into Iraq.
I was likening your analysis of Bush to Bush's analysis of Iraq. Yet your post seems to suggest that I'm saying Bush was better than you, which is not the case at all. I'm not sure which position of yours I'm debating anymore, but mine is pretty clearly stated in the previous paragraph.
Re: No end in sight
[quote=""IndyBrit""]Macabee:
Post 1 - great post. And "surprisingly easy", just as advertised.
Post 2 - since the intelligence agencies of Britain and Russia thought he had the weapons, that's pretty inconvenient for your world view. Also, the Democrats thought he had the weapons. The difference between Bush and Clinton is that Bush acted on the intelligence and Clinton did not. Especially today, it's easy to consider the Clinton policy in this regard to be superior. However, again, to call that lying by Bush - ie he believed what his predecessor, foreign governments, and his political opposition believed - is to simply ignore counter facts and only give weight to those that support your position. Which, again, is what Bush did in deciding to go into Iraq.
I was likening your analysis of Bush to Bush's analysis of Iraq. Yet your post seems to suggest that I'm saying Bush was better than you, which is not the case at all. I'm not sure which position of yours I'm debating anymore, but mine is pretty clearly stated in the previous paragraph.[/quote]
Part of the problem is that it was the Bush administration that took it's flawed information and presented it to other nations as well as Democrats in the US. That they gave Bush the benefit of the doubt does not mean that they believed him.
That Bush gave false intelligence to other countries and then pointed to them and same false intelligence, claiming they had intelligence that supported his does not corroborate his story at all. This should be obvious.
Mac
Post 1 - great post. And "surprisingly easy", just as advertised.
Post 2 - since the intelligence agencies of Britain and Russia thought he had the weapons, that's pretty inconvenient for your world view. Also, the Democrats thought he had the weapons. The difference between Bush and Clinton is that Bush acted on the intelligence and Clinton did not. Especially today, it's easy to consider the Clinton policy in this regard to be superior. However, again, to call that lying by Bush - ie he believed what his predecessor, foreign governments, and his political opposition believed - is to simply ignore counter facts and only give weight to those that support your position. Which, again, is what Bush did in deciding to go into Iraq.
I was likening your analysis of Bush to Bush's analysis of Iraq. Yet your post seems to suggest that I'm saying Bush was better than you, which is not the case at all. I'm not sure which position of yours I'm debating anymore, but mine is pretty clearly stated in the previous paragraph.[/quote]
Part of the problem is that it was the Bush administration that took it's flawed information and presented it to other nations as well as Democrats in the US. That they gave Bush the benefit of the doubt does not mean that they believed him.
That Bush gave false intelligence to other countries and then pointed to them and same false intelligence, claiming they had intelligence that supported his does not corroborate his story at all. This should be obvious.
Mac
Re: No end in sight
Can I just point out that suspecting that Iraq might have had WMD's and then going out and saying "there can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more" (as Powell did to the UN Security Council in Feb 2003) is nothing less than a lie.
For me though, I don't really care whether or not Saddam Hussein had WMDs. What gives any country the right to go and "pre-emptively" attack another? Does this mean Iran should be able to pre-emptively strike Israel or the United States? After all, there have been plenty of threats to bomb Iran. Or is the right to aggression only reserved for the good guys? Who are the good guys anyway?
I guess I should just trust the words of former US State Department legal advisor, Abraham Soefer:
Since most of the world cannot be "counted on to share our view", we must "reserve to ourselves the power to determine" how we will act and which matters fall "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States, as determined by the United States"
For me though, I don't really care whether or not Saddam Hussein had WMDs. What gives any country the right to go and "pre-emptively" attack another? Does this mean Iran should be able to pre-emptively strike Israel or the United States? After all, there have been plenty of threats to bomb Iran. Or is the right to aggression only reserved for the good guys? Who are the good guys anyway?
I guess I should just trust the words of former US State Department legal advisor, Abraham Soefer:
Since most of the world cannot be "counted on to share our view", we must "reserve to ourselves the power to determine" how we will act and which matters fall "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States, as determined by the United States"