Economics explained using cows

[bill14224]

What we have with Obama is an inexperienced politician who was raised to be an anti-Britain, anti-colonialist Marxist like his father (don't yell at me, read his book) who is married to Wall St. bankers who got him where he is.  That's why were seeing him being a Mao wannabe on one hand, but a crony capitalist on the other.  This is the formula of a one-term president.  I think the people, uninformed as they are, will see this and throw him out.

What you said bill is correct, however it is misleading in 1 aspect. The proof is in the actions not in whatever he (obama) has said.

Saying Obama is married to wall street bankers - I cannot see it as anything but untrue especially because he was putting in place the consumer protection agency and putting elizabeth warren as its cheif architect to police banks and wall street. Republicans blocked it, and they want to setup that agency as a committee. Which will let it get watered down.

Obama may have PAC contributions from wall street firms ... however PAC is political contributions from employees of that company - say I working @ wells fargo decide to donate $ to 1 specific PAC - it will go to that party/candidate with the wells fargo PAC label on it. That really doesn't indicate he is in the pocket of wells fargo.

Anyway Obama was begining to get tough on banks for a lot of their business practices, republicans have been blocking it. A consumer protection agency with elizabeth warren driving it would have really made a difference. Now the banks are parking their $ @ the fed and getting a small interest and not lending. She was proposing to charge them a fee for overnight deposits.

Seriously no one who isn't a big executive @ a bank was opposed to that.

Cool.
Buddha.

I don't disagree with anything you added but when he's running up more debt in the last three years than all previous administrations combined, the added bank regulations he wants don't seem to matter much.

I don't, however, favor more regulation in this area.  The whole mortgage bubble/crash was not caused by lack of regulation.  It was caused by elected officials (hello, Barney and Chris) pressuring bankers to make more and more bad mortgage loans under threat of new regulations.  Many banks resisted the pressure, but some banks were less resistant than others, especially some larger ones.  It kept going until, well, you all know the rest.  Now the Annointed One presides over our great land, and he doesn't say or do a thing about it.

[yamahonkawazuki]

What we have with Obama is an inexperienced politician who was raised to be an anti-Britain, anti-colonialist Marxist like his father (don't yell at me, read his book) who is married to Wall St. bankers who got him where he is.  That's why were seeing him being a Mao wannabe on one hand, but a crony capitalist on the other.  This is the formula of a one-term president.  I think the people, uninformed as they are, will see this and throw him out.

What you said bill is correct, however it is misleading in 1 aspect. The proof is in the actions not in whatever he (obama) has said.

Saying Obama is married to wall street bankers - I cannot see it as anything but untrue especially because he was putting in place the consumer protection agency and putting elizabeth warren as its cheif architect to police banks and wall street. Republicans blocked it, and they want to setup that agency as a committee. Which will let it get watered down.

Obama may have PAC contributions from wall street firms ... however PAC is political contributions from employees of that company - say I working @ wells fargo decide to donate $ to 1 specific PAC - it will go to that party/candidate with the wells fargo PAC label on it. That really doesn't indicate he is in the pocket of wells fargo.

Anyway Obama was begining to get tough on banks for a lot of their business practices, republicans have been blocking it. A consumer protection agency with elizabeth warren driving it would have really made a difference. Now the banks are parking their $ @ the fed and getting a small interest and not lending. She was proposing to charge them a fee for overnight deposits.

Seriously no one who isn't a big executive @ a bank was opposed to that.

Cool.
Buddha.

I don't disagree with anything you added but when he's running up more debt in the last three years than all previous administrations combined, the added bank regulations he wants don't seem to matter much.

I don't, however, favor more regulation in this area.  The whole mortgage bubble/crash was not caused by lack of regulation.  It was caused by elected officials (hello, Barney and Chris) pressuring bankers to make more and more bad mortgage loans under threat of new regulations.  Many banks resisted the pressure, but some banks were less resistant than others, especially some larger ones.  It kept going until, well, you all know the rest.  Now the Annointed One presides over our great land, and he doesn't say or do a thing about it.

except pad freddies fanny. er pad freddie and fanny. LW likes to blame this on bush. but no this started with a certain peanut farmer. with his community reinvestment act. and every single admin since has had a part to do with it. including obummer

[The Buddha]

I don't disagree with anything you added but when he's running up more debt in the last three years than all previous administrations combined, the added bank regulations he wants don't seem to matter much.

I don't, however, favor more regulation in this area.  The whole mortgage bubble/crash was not caused by lack of regulation.  It was caused by elected officials (hello, Barney and Chris) pressuring bankers to make more and more bad mortgage loans under threat of new regulations.  Many banks resisted the pressure, but some banks were less resistant than others, especially some larger ones.  It kept going until, well, you all know the rest.  Now the Annointed One presides over our great land, and he doesn't say or do a thing about it.

The reason the debt is increasing and no its not increasing more in 3 years than all previous administrations combined, Bush is in a leage all by himself there but understandable due to having to wage wars against Iraq and afganisthan, anyway, the growing entitlements are what is swelling the size of government, and the reason entitlements are growing is because people are starting to collect SS and spending on medicaid/care cos people are getting older.

Mmmm sorry, Dodd/Frank was instituted after the collapse - 2008 - look it up. In fact its still not being instituted its still got many aspects being debated.

The predominant thing that occoured during the housing bubble is that the rules for classifying mortgage and securitisation were re written to allow junk house loans to get graded as AAA and short term interest rates were kept so low that the loan originators borrowed on the short term market and loaned out on long term housing mortgages. That is just stupid.

Without regulation it will happen again. Without regulation there will be more Madoff's, more 100 million bonuses when the company goes under like MF global, more CEO's making millions when their company fails like lehmann and bear sterns and enron. With regulation its likely to happen on a smaller scale. I actually want such tight oversight that they cannot breathe wihtout someone approving it. The MF global type - missing 1.2 billion ... gee where did it go ... under the desk ? what about in the mattress ? I think they need to bring back debtors prison and toss these white collar criminals in with the hardended criminals pending investigation, and then take your time investigating ... Dude its 1.2 billion, where the fruck is it.

Cool.
Buddha.

[Phil B]

Without regulation it will happen again.

you make it sound like, 'if we can just make more rules, people will stop being dishonest with money".

That's about as accurate as, "if we can just make more laws, we wont need as many lawyers" (cause everyone will know what to do, and not break the law)

seems like we have a lot more laws than we did 100 years ago. Now, do we have more, or less, lawyers than back then?

[The Buddha]

I dont know about the numbers of lawyers, but we had the great depression in 1929.
We didn't have great depression yet in 2007-11.

Regulations stopped that. In fact regulations stopped that from happening and the regulations have been relaxed allowing the banks to not "mark to market" and hence the down turn is more prolonged.
Without regulations the stock market big wigs - aka goldman sachs and the big banks will rob the common man blind.
They handle deposits ... your pay check ...
What prevents them from waking up one morning and deciding they are keeping the $ and walking away wiht it ... yea regulations, and they have many different names, FDIC and the banking and whatever act of whenever ...

No regulations = you stuff your $ in a mattress and if you have a fire, flood or theft you're SOL.

Cool.
Buddha.

[yamahonkawazuki]

water proof canister , or in my properties case, a small cave

[Phil B]

...
What prevents them from waking up one morning and deciding they are keeping the $ and walking away wiht it ... yea regulations, and they have many different names, FDIC and the banking and whatever act of whenever ...

That's not regulations. that's "standardized deposit insurance".
If you tell a bunch of money-grubbing cheating swindling bankers, "you MUST do things this way, to stop you cheating people", they'll just find a newer more creative way to cheat people.

If, on the other hand, you say, "here's a standard, or a service: you can choose to make use of it or not", then it will be "market driven".   If it's a good standard, then smart people will make use of it, and keep their money safe. And then for all the greedy swindlers, there are "non FDIC insured" alternatives, to offer all the greedy and stupid people.

THAT is basically why FDIC works. Not because it's an enforced anti-swindling regulation... but because, sadly, it gives the dishonest people room to cheat greedy/stupid people. So they dont bother the "safe" zones like FDIC backed areas.

[yamahonkawazuki]

...
What prevents them from waking up one morning and deciding they are keeping the $ and walking away wiht it ... yea regulations, and they have many different names, FDIC and the banking and whatever act of whenever ...

That's not regulations. that's "standardized deposit insurance".
If you tell a bunch of money-grubbing cheating swindling bankers, "you MUST do things this way, to stop you cheating people", they'll just find a newer more creative way to cheat people.

If, on the other hand, you say, "here's a standard, or a service: you can choose to make use of it or not", then it will be "market driven".   If it's a good standard, then smart people will make use of it, and keep their money safe. And then for all the greedy swindlers, there are "non FDIC insured" alternatives, to offer all the greedy and stupid people.

THAT is basically why FDIC works. Not because it's an enforced anti-swindling regulation... but because, sadly, it gives the dishonest people room to cheat greedy/stupid people. So they dont bother the "safe" zones like FDIC backed areas.

yeah bankers are greedy. LMAOsame as the unions that obama supports. why he sold GM to them. to me he should have allowed htem to go bankrupt FIRST. by law contracts would have been voided. forcing all to come to table for new ones. i bought 1 share in all 3 automakers main reason is to force them to show me budgets annually. only time i gfeel as though ceos shoudl be capped on pay is if theyre recieving bailout funds. people Buddha Loves You about CEO bonuses. yeah i feel they have a right to Buddha Loves You. that aside. by contract they have a right to it. that is why i keep saying they shoudl have been forced into bankruptcy, theyreby voiding all contracts, including theirs. courts would have agreed to this. and forced company to pay their bonuses had they sued. regardless if it was mroally right or not.

[Phil B]

yeah bankers are greedy. LMAOsame as the unions that obama supports.

Yup.

I think that unions are a microcosm of liberal politics.
The union BOSSES are like democrat politicians, "elected" by the people they represent, but mostly holding power and wealth for themselves. They hold power, by using what they have, to cater to special interests. And also to squeeze the resources available to them to give some small amount of kickbacks to those who voted for them... reguardless of whether it is good for the long term benefit of the company (aka the country).

[The Buddha]

FDIC is a instrument of regulation, it was created after the great depression.
The bunch of greedy crooks called bankers are being told you cant do it this way or it will be illegal, and they find a new way and more complicated way to be a crook - aka commit securities fraud and that is why you see people get charged with insider trading or with securities fraud ... there are a lot of rules and a lot of man power is required to enforce them, else ti falls apart.

And wasn't the auto bail out done by bush ? Look it up, started by bush, continued by obama.

Cool.
Buddha.

[yamahonkawazuki]

FDIC is a instrument of regulation, it was created after the great depression.
The bunch of greedy crooks called bankers are being told you cant do it this way or it will be illegal, and they find a new way and more complicated way to be a crook - aka commit securities fraud and that is why you see people get charged with insider trading or with securities fraud ... there are a lot of rules and a lot of man power is required to enforce them, else ti falls apart.

And wasn't the auto bail out done by bush ? Look it up, started by bush, continued by obama.

Cool.
Buddha.

partially, but bush had nothing to do wiht selling GM to the uaw. btw hte obama initiated bailout has made a shovel ready job/s. in mexico. GM is building an engine plant. there. granted i can put blame on this to the unions. going back further than barack o'buyout unions i support are when htey look out for workers rights, not become greedy, and want more and more without chipping in anything themselves. ill use an old analogy. regarding why our companies are going overseas for labour. vcr's say buddha has a company building them. union staffed. theres overhead, the building, the pwoer, etc. cost of materiel, and hte staffing. now every dime buddhavision makes is by selling his product. say he got a hundred for each one sold. to hte middleman etc. anyhoo this is paying the bills fairly well, then contracts are up, buddha wont budge on pay. lets say hes already paying 25/hr. but union strikes, nothing being made. by anybody. well buddha caves, goes to 30/hr union contributes nothing. again lol. now profit margin shrinks, certain things cant be paid withouteither cutting staff, then production falls, ( self annihilation of com[any) or he finds a company in china or india, who can build these units for 10 each. anyhoo buddhavision closes up his plant and moves production to india. it is after all a business. not a charity, it has to make money. sure id LOVE to make CEO pay. it will motivate me to better myself to be able to perhaps GOD willing one day be able to do so

[The Buddha]

Every other automaker in the world ... every japanese one, and nearly every european one is propped up by their govt.
So is every transit system in the world, and nearly every electric system and transportation system. I dont think its possible to run it otherwise.
Cool.
Buddha.

[ojstinson]

Are their leaders propped up, controlled by, and beholden to high power unions and uber wealthy anti-American socialist/Communist, like what's is going on with this administration? I love how Obama trashes the rich, the rich got him to this place, this place far far above his pathetic level of competence.

Liberals kill me--Please give us higher taxes, bigger government/less freedom, send our jobs overseas, spend  us into destruction, increase regulation to the point that it's kills incentive and destroys the capitalist system that sets us apart from all others, turn us into a welfare state that can be compared to the parasite that eventually kills it's host.

[The Buddha]

You're somehow dreaming that Bush was not owned by big busniess.
The TEA party is owned by the Koch brothers.
All the alternatives we ever had were bought and paid for several 1000 times over.

Obama's rhetoric is to curb and regulate wall street.
The Tea party and republicans have been blocking that.
Obama is owned by auto unions. However the bail out was initiated by bush.
There are no good options, its only a game of the lesser of evils.

However Government involvement in auto companies is simply a reflection of the rest of the world.

Cool.
Buddha.

[ojstinson]

News flash, Bush is no longer the president, now we have a much bigger and more dangerous idiot, and have had for 3 years. Wasn't this supposed to be the era of Hope and Change, transparency, a whole new way of doing business? We now have Bush 3 to the fourth power, Bush did it, Bush did it first-----that's pretty much all the guy has to run on---well, he did kill some people who really needed to die.

[bill14224]

Buddha, that's what I'm talking about.  I don't want new rules, I want to go back to the old rules, the ones that worked for generations.  Barney and Chris have been in charge in congress for a long time, and as he housing bubble grew G.W. warned at least twice that something needed to be done about fannie and freddie, but barney stonewalled him, even suggesting Bush was against the poor.  All the while Barney was holding the door open while the chicken coop was fleeced.  Now don't get me started about mortgage backed securities.  That sounds like something that's safe, not a ticking time bomb.  That is a scam on its face.

[The Buddha]

I am not blaming bush for housing bubble. The potential presidential candidates in the last 30 years have al been owned by big business. No sense calling any one an Idiot and saying any one is in the pocket of big business, cos that implies the others are not. They are all corrupt, stupid or both.

I am however blaming bush for going to war against Iraq, that is one aspect that will not have occoured if someone else was president. Afghanisthan, no, everyone after 9/11 was going to fight afghanisthan. Iraq is a pet project of Cheney and his hand puppet.

The new rules - well, the old rules did exist to prevent most of it, the enforcement wasn't staffed.

And just as an example OJ - and I am not saying this really cos Obama hasn't shown any inclination to change it - Yes we do have a new president now, and yes we have had for 3 years. However the ill effects of 8 years of bush are still like a hangover. It may only take 10 mins to wreck something, it could well take 3 months to fix. Like a car run without oil. OK Obama isn't any different in a real aspect fro mbush, neither was McCain, and oddly Al Bore would have been even worse if he had ever got to the WH.

In fact the first Bush term in retrospect where Cheney had a full on presidential role would have been a lot worse if bush had lost.

Anyway guys stop dreaming any president was going to have been different. That's all I'm saying.

Cool.
Buddha.

[yamahonkawazuki]

congress approved iraq. making it a LEGAL war. not the illegal one in libya lol. ( wich never went before congress. yeah htey all run on what can they do to get back in. once htey become a lame duck, then were in a world of shaZam!. pray that obummer doesnt get back in. need to start fresh

[mister]

Liberals kill me--Please give us higher taxes, bigger government/less freedom, send our jobs overseas, spend  us into destruction, increase regulation to the point that it's kills incentive and destroys the capitalist system that sets us apart from all others, turn us into a welfare state that can be compared to the parasite that eventually kills it's host.

It seems puzzling until you understand...

1 - the Young liberals are merely Useful Idiots. In their mind, equal means, we take the big house and share it up and we all have a big house. They cannot see that they end up with 2/5ths of stuff all. These are the Occupy Crowds as I've explained elsewhere in my research into Who they are - down here. Controlled by communists and socialists.

2 - The  Elitist Liberals can weather any storm. Increase tax? Sure. I already have my $100 million and make $20 million a year. Won't make bugger all difference if I have to pay an extra million on tax - BUT - it will help prevent others from getting as wealthy as me, thus I cement my elite position.

Michael

[ojstinson]

True, and those idiots fail to realize that under socialism/Marxism the masses become and remain Equally poor ( poor as in destitute/starving ), only those in control become wealthy and powerful.