"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 11:44:17 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

Who was it that said "I am confident about the American economy"?


I guess since about 7/8 years ago when I was saying it wasn't so good.

???? Are you perhaps answering the wrong message? Maybe you're smoking
something? What I asked was: Who was it that said "I am confident about
the
American economy"? Your answer seems to have nothing to do with the
question. The question was a "who" question, not a "when" or "since"
question.


Oh, I get it... you mean this quote, of which you convenient left out the
last part...

"I am confident about the American economy. But we're going to have to have
some leadership in Washington."

The answer is Sen. Barack Obama.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 13:18:53 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

of which you convenient left out the
last part...

When I was listening to the debate I nearly burst out laughing. Here he
was
trying to take McCain to task for saying the economy was basically sound,
and then saying when he was asked whether he thought the economy would get
much worse before it gets better: "No. I am confident about the American
economy." Gimme a break.



I'm sure you need one, but I didn't almost burst out laughing when McCain
said:

"I have a plan to fix this problem"

"And with the plan that -- that I have, that will do that"
"We've got to have a package of reforms and it has got to lead to reform
prosperity and peace in the world. And I think that this problem has become
so severe, as you know, that we're going to have to do something about home
values."

"I like Meg Whitman [former CEO of eBay and current McCain campaign
adviser], she knows what it's like to be out there in the marketplace. She
knows how to create jobs." (and lay them off, apparently)

"I left my campaign and suspended it to go back to Washington to make sure
that there were additional protections for the taxpayer in the form of good
oversight, in the form of taxpayers being the first to be paid back when our
economy recovers -- and it will recover -- and a number of other measures."

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 11:16:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

Generally accurate, but with two exceptions.

Really? Please quote the clause in the Community Reinvestment Act that
told investment banks to leverage their position in subprime CD0s to
suicidal heights. This mess isn't because of the CRA, it's because of
greed, and Wall Street group-think. Subprime mortgage defaults are only
the visible cause. A healthy bank can withstand a 25% default rate in
the subprime sector, leverage that risk to 33-1, as one bank did, and
it's bye-bye. Greed and bad business practices brought on this mess.

On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 13:51:07 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 13:26:02 -0500, said:

Really? Please quote the clause in the Community Reinvestment Act that
told investment banks to leverage their position in subprime CD0s to
suicidal heights. This mess isn't because of the CRA, it's because of
greed, and Wall Street group-think. Subprime mortgage defaults are only
the visible cause. A healthy bank can withstand a 25% default rate in
the subprime sector, leverage that risk to 33-1, as one bank did, and
it's bye-bye. Greed and bad business practices brought on this mess.

I think you'd best go take a nap while those who know something about
the topic have this discussion.

Like the management of Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, AIG?

wrote in message
t...
On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 13:51:07 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 13:26:02 -0500, said:

Really? Please quote the clause in the Community Reinvestment Act that
told investment banks to leverage their position in subprime CD0s to
suicidal heights. This mess isn't because of the CRA, it's because of
greed, and Wall Street group-think. Subprime mortgage defaults are only
the visible cause. A healthy bank can withstand a 25% default rate in
the subprime sector, leverage that risk to 33-1, as one bank did, and
it's bye-bye. Greed and bad business practices brought on this mess.

I think you'd best go take a nap while those who know something about
the topic have this discussion.

Like the management of Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, AIG?


I think we should all take a listen to President Ronald Reagan's words...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqfedYAAGEI

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

said:
Really? *Please quote the clause in the Community Reinvestment Act that
told investment banks to leverage their position in subprime CD0s to
suicidal heights. *...... *A healthy bank can withstand a 25% default rate in
the subprime sector, leverage that risk to 33-1, as one bank did, and
it's bye-bye. *Greed and bad business practices brought on this mess.


Dave wrote:
I think you'd best go take a nap while those who know something about the
topic have this discussion.

Looks like he he does know something about it....

....something you'd rather sweep under the rug in the rush to blame
those evil libby-rull Democrats!

DSK

...something you'd rather sweep under the rug in the rush to blame
those evil libby-rull Democrats!

Dave wrote:
Nope. I blame the failures of the investment banks on their own stupidity in
over-leveraging their capital and their undue concentration of assets. The
guvmint should have let all of them run to the bankruptcy courts if they
couldn't continue to meet their obligations, instead of bailing them out.

OK, good so far.

The only problem I have is that if we simply let the banks fail in an
economy that has grown increasingly dependent on credit.... addicted
to it, you might say.... then failure will spread quickly thru every
level of the economy. Bank failure was one of the tripwires of the
Great Depression.

But apparently Thunder doesn't know the difference between a bank and an
investment bank. No one who did would mention CRA in the same sentence with
investment bank. That's why I suggested he take a nap while those who know
something about the subject discuss it.

I think I got it.

We have a financial crisis caused by the CRA and commercial banks
giving mortgages to unsuitable lenders. But the investment banks have
nothing at all to do with the CRA and they're the biggest part of this
crisis.

Maybe you can explain just a little further Dave. You may be making a
leap of faith here that I can't follow....

DSK

wrote in message
...
...something you'd rather sweep under the rug in the rush to blame
those evil libby-rull Democrats!

Dave wrote:
Nope. I blame the failures of the investment banks on their own stupidity
in
over-leveraging their capital and their undue concentration of assets.
The
guvmint should have let all of them run to the bankruptcy courts if they
couldn't continue to meet their obligations, instead of bailing them out.

OK, good so far.

The only problem I have is that if we simply let the banks fail in an
economy that has grown increasingly dependent on credit.... addicted
to it, you might say.... then failure will spread quickly thru every
level of the economy. Bank failure was one of the tripwires of the
Great Depression.

But apparently Thunder doesn't know the difference between a bank and an
investment bank. No one who did would mention CRA in the same sentence
with
investment bank. That's why I suggested he take a nap while those who
know
something about the subject discuss it.

I think I got it.

We have a financial crisis caused by the CRA and commercial banks
giving mortgages to unsuitable lenders. But the investment banks have
nothing at all to do with the CRA and they're the biggest part of this
crisis.

Maybe you can explain just a little further Dave. You may be making a
leap of faith here that I can't follow....

DSK

Many investment banks bought huge amounts of the mortgages and packaged them
into "Collateralized Mortgage Obligations" ("CMO"), slicing and dicing the
packages into multiple tranches and then selling the various tranches to
investors, including banks, private investors, and hedge funds. The MBA's
on Wall Street kept getting wilder and wilder until no one knew what they
were buying anymore, or what the CMOs were worth. When rates went up and
mortgage holders with adjustable rate mortgages started defaulting some of
the higher yielding tranches (riskier tranches) cash flow became impaired
and investors started asking hard questions. The answers scared them and
they quit buying. Market values fell, mark to market rules required write
downs, and now we are in free fall.

"jlrogers±³©" wrote:
Many investment banks bought huge amounts of the mortgages and packaged them
into "Collateralized Mortgage Obligations" ("CMO"), slicing and dicing the
packages into multiple tranches and then selling the various tranches to
investors, including banks, private investors, and hedge funds. *The MBA's
on Wall Street kept getting wilder and wilder until no one knew what they
were buying anymore, or what the CMOs were worth. *When rates went up and
mortgage holders with adjustable rate mortgages started defaulting some of
the higher yielding tranches (riskier tranches) cash flow became impaired
and investors started asking hard questions. *The answers scared them and
they quit buying. *Market values fell, mark to market rules required write
downs, and now we are in free fall.


Yep, looks right on the mark to me... but how is it the CRA's fault?
Just because everything from gas prices to warm beer is always blamed
on the nearest handy Democrat?

Looks to me like the crash was caused by greed & stupidity, helped
along by some concurrent bubbles popping.

As a private individual, if I buy an investment without carefully
researching it's true risk, then it's my fault if it goes south. I
take the hit. If dozens of investment banks do the same thing, to the
tune of squajillions of dollars, then it drags the rest of us down...
a bail-out to avoid massive bank failure may be in the best public
interest (although my vote would be to take the first round of bail-
out money from the pockets of those CEOs)... it's sure not the fault
of some muddle-headed doo-gooders who decades ago said, "hey wouldn't
it be nice if banks offered nice mortgages to poor people?"

The proble is that we Americans have a whole slew of unhealthy
addictions. Addiction to oil and addiction to credit are the two
biggies. Our borrow-and-spend government is merely a reflection of the
fact that the U.S. has a negative savings rate. The "average" US
household carries about $10K in credit card debt and our total average
indebtedness is over $150K per person. I've pointed this out as a
problem many times (even though it's not the way I manage my own
finances) long before the current banking/mortgage/credit crisis hit
the headlines.

We are addicted to oil and credit. Both are very destructive habits
that we *will* break in the near future... one problem we have is that
oil companies and financial companies are both profiting heavily from
these bad habits, just like cigarette companies profit from addiction
to nicotine. It's going to be either a fight break free or a complete
wreckage of the nation when we hit bottom.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:09:55 -0500, "jlrogers±³©"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
...something you'd rather sweep under the rug in the rush to blame
those evil libby-rull Democrats!

Dave wrote:
Nope. I blame the failures of the investment banks on their own stupidity
in
over-leveraging their capital and their undue concentration of assets.
The
guvmint should have let all of them run to the bankruptcy courts if they
couldn't continue to meet their obligations, instead of bailing them out.

OK, good so far.

The only problem I have is that if we simply let the banks fail in an
economy that has grown increasingly dependent on credit.... addicted
to it, you might say.... then failure will spread quickly thru every
level of the economy. Bank failure was one of the tripwires of the
Great Depression.

But apparently Thunder doesn't know the difference between a bank and an
investment bank. No one who did would mention CRA in the same sentence
with
investment bank. That's why I suggested he take a nap while those who
know
something about the subject discuss it.

I think I got it.

We have a financial crisis caused by the CRA and commercial banks
giving mortgages to unsuitable lenders. But the investment banks have
nothing at all to do with the CRA and they're the biggest part of this
crisis.

Maybe you can explain just a little further Dave. You may be making a
leap of faith here that I can't follow....

DSK

Many investment banks bought huge amounts of the mortgages and packaged them
into "Collateralized Mortgage Obligations" ("CMO"), slicing and dicing the
packages into multiple tranches and then selling the various tranches to
investors, including banks, private investors, and hedge funds. The MBA's
on Wall Street kept getting wilder and wilder until no one knew what they
were buying anymore, or what the CMOs were worth. When rates went up and
mortgage holders with adjustable rate mortgages started defaulting some of
the higher yielding tranches (riskier tranches) cash flow became impaired
and investors started asking hard questions. The answers scared them and
they quit buying. Market values fell, mark to market rules required write
downs, and now we are in free fall.

And it didn't help that the lowest yielding, most secure tranches
were often rated AAA by the rating agencies, so investors thought they
were getting a sound investment. It turns out that many of those so
called triple A's became riddled with defaults.

But Doug, when problem solving you always need to look for root cause.
The red X in statistical DOE terms. There are many contributing
factors, however the root cause, the red X is simply setting up a
system to give people who could not afford these properties and loans
in the first place a way to get them with no skin in the game. That's
why I blame the dems. Just another social engineering experiment gone
bad.

If the systems were not set up, they wouldn't get the loans, they
wouldn't get the properties, they wouldn't default the loans, the
loan originators, incentified by commission and no skin in the game
wouldn't have sprouted on every street corner, the stinky CMO's would
never have been created, the CEO's of Fannie and Freddie would not
have become multimillionaires based on an incentive system that
resulted from quantitiy of loans made, demand for housing wouldn't
have accelerated artificially driving prices higher, and the list goes
on.........

On the other side of the once heated market is the pre-construction
flipper. Another entity with no skin in the game, but at least in
that game someone other than the taxpayer had to take the hit.

Frank