On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:11:18 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


Let's see, a few fat cats making millions on Wall Street burp, and
millions of Americans are now out of work. Some business cycle. I
fully accept the consequences of my mistakes, but I should accept the
consequences of their mistakes?



Absolutely not. And it's not just mistakes, it is greed as Harry
constantly reminds us of as if we didn't know.
The solution is to attack the problem, not the symptoms.

We did, after the Great Depression. It was just recently Republicans
introduced the "deregulation" mantra. Ever look at an economic
timeline? Pre-Great Depression, there was a Panic every ten years or
so. After the Depression, and it's reforms, we have had recessions, even
some severe recessions, but for the most part, the economy has run
considerably smoother. The peaks and valleys of the business cycle were
tolerable.

Totally "free" markets are a disaster. There needs to be limited, well
thought out, regulation. Personally, I feel greed is an essential part
of Wall Street, but it has to be balanced with the risk threat. Greed
got the upper hand, and unfortunately, other people are paying the price.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:11:18 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


Let's see, a few fat cats making millions on Wall Street burp, and
millions of Americans are now out of work. Some business cycle. I
fully accept the consequences of my mistakes, but I should accept the
consequences of their mistakes?



Absolutely not. And it's not just mistakes, it is greed as Harry
constantly reminds us of as if we didn't know.
The solution is to attack the problem, not the symptoms.

We did, after the Great Depression. It was just recently Republicans
introduced the "deregulation" mantra. Ever look at an economic
timeline? Pre-Great Depression, there was a Panic every ten years or
so. After the Depression, and it's reforms, we have had recessions, even
some severe recessions, but for the most part, the economy has run
considerably smoother. The peaks and valleys of the business cycle were
tolerable.

Totally "free" markets are a disaster. There needs to be limited, well
thought out, regulation. Personally, I feel greed is an essential part
of Wall Street, but it has to be balanced with the risk threat. Greed
got the upper hand, and unfortunately, other people are paying the price.



Good job. You just identified the problem.
The solution is not to fundamentally change the basis of our form of
government or economy.

Eisboch

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:32:54 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


Good job. You just identified the problem. The solution is not to
fundamentally change the basis of our form of government or economy.

I'm not calling to fundamentally change our form of government or
economy, yet. But if this spirals out of control, and we end up with
breadlines, I might. Something is fundamentally flawed when a few fat
cats can bring down the world's economy. Business cycles are one thing,
market crashes are another.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:32:54 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


Good job. You just identified the problem. The solution is not to
fundamentally change the basis of our form of government or economy.

I'm not calling to fundamentally change our form of government or
economy, yet. But if this spirals out of control, and we end up with
breadlines, I might. Something is fundamentally flawed when a few fat
cats can bring down the world's economy. Business cycles are one thing,
market crashes are another.



It is a very serious aberration. If we can survive the ramifications and
correct the loopholes that allowed them, we will be ok.

It's not time to over-react or allow those with a different agenda to
control our destiny.

We need to take our lumps, fix the problem and get on with it.

Eisboch

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:52:19 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


It is a very serious aberration. If we can survive the ramifications
and correct the loopholes that allowed them, we will be ok.

Oh we'll be OK. One thing I have learned about this country, it is
incredibly resilient.


It's not time to over-react or allow those with a different agenda to
control our destiny.

We need to take our lumps, fix the problem and get on with it.

Yeah but, that's a tough sell to the 1/2 million people who lost their
jobs last month. Their lumps are considerably bigger than our lumps.

On Feb 11, 3:55*am, thunder wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:52:19 -0500, Eisboch wrote:
It is a very serious aberration. *If we can survive the ramifications
and correct the loopholes that allowed them, we will be ok.

Oh we'll be OK. *One thing I have learned about this country, it is
incredibly resilient. *

It's not time to over-react or allow those with a different agenda to
control our destiny.

We need to take our lumps, fix the problem and get on with it.

Yeah but, that's a tough sell to the 1/2 million people who lost their
jobs last month. *Their lumps are considerably bigger than our lumps.

Yeah, I don't think we can afford to just sit around and do NOTHING.

wrote in message
...
On Feb 11, 3:55 am, thunder wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:52:19 -0500, Eisboch wrote:
It is a very serious aberration. If we can survive the ramifications
and correct the loopholes that allowed them, we will be ok.

Oh we'll be OK. One thing I have learned about this country, it is
incredibly resilient.

It's not time to over-react or allow those with a different agenda to
control our destiny.

We need to take our lumps, fix the problem and get on with it.

Yeah but, that's a tough sell to the 1/2 million people who lost their
jobs last month. Their lumps are considerably bigger than our lumps.

Yeah, I don't think we can afford to just sit around and do NOTHING.

Nothing is better than the wrong thing.

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:44:05 -0600, thunder
wrote:

Something is fundamentally flawed when a few fat
cats can bring down the world's economy.

It was more than a few. The problem became systemic and very wide
spread. Half of the people in south Florida, ordinary people for the
most part, were either involved in real estate speculation or helping
to facilitate it in some way. It was a lot of fun while the party
lasted and no one was complaining.

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:44:05 -0600, thunder
wrote:

Something is fundamentally flawed when a few fat
cats can bring down the world's economy.

It was more than a few. The problem became systemic and very wide
spread. Half of the people in south Florida, ordinary people for the
most part, were either involved in real estate speculation or helping
to facilitate it in some way. It was a lot of fun while the party
lasted and no one was complaining.


When we bought the first house in Jupiter one of my native neighbors tried
to get me into speculative investing. This was just before the end of the
explosion of house values. He was living high off the hog flipping houses
but was maxed out on his bank's willingness to extend further credit. He
wanted me to fund some additional investments, promising huge returns.

Being the conservative and economically stupid person I am, I passed. Good
thing. In less than a year the housing market crashed and he was stuck
upside down in several investments.

Eisboch

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:24:03 -0500, "Eisboch"
wrote:

Being the conservative and economically stupid person I am, I passed. Good
thing. In less than a year the housing market crashed and he was stuck
upside down in several investments.

Did I ever tell you about my broker who wanted me to join a CDO hedge
fund in 2004?

So I looked through the prospectus, lot of legal mumbo jumbo and then
the numbers - I'm pretty good with numbers - they were talking 20 to 1
leverage factors with returns in the 15/20% range per annum.

37 pages of agreements on packaging the security, monies obtained,
leverages/averages and every other type of X-ages you can name.

Something didn't look right, so I got out the old scientific
calculator and made my own calculations based on their assumptions
over time.

It never came out the same twice. In theory, one parameter change
shouldn't affect all other parameters to the extend I was finding to
be true.

The upshot was while they were claiming 20 to 1, it was closer to 30
to 1 - it was the only way the math would work they way they claimed.

No freakin' wonder we got into that mortgage mess.

--

If we aren't supposed to eat animals,
why are they made of meat?