|
OT govt. regulation (troll food)
Shamelessly stolen from another newsgroup
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From the OPINION section of today's Wall Street Journal Regulatory Overkill By ALLAN H. MELTZER March 27, 2008; Page A14 The claim that deregulation went too far is coming from many sides. snip most of the article The financial system cannot survive if the bankers make the profits and the taxpayers take the losses. I think the above sentences sum up where we are heading. The same people who whine about oil company profits will soon notice that the banks are quite profitable, and the government has relieved them of the risk. At that time there will be calls for banking to be taken over by the government. The current call for more regulation is just the first step down that road. |
OT govt. regulation (troll food)
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:21:55 -0400, "
wrote: Shamelessly stolen from another newsgroup ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From the OPINION section of today's Wall Street Journal Regulatory Overkill By ALLAN H. MELTZER March 27, 2008; Page A14 The claim that deregulation went too far is coming from many sides. snip most of the article The financial system cannot survive if the bankers make the profits and the taxpayers take the losses. I think the above sentences sum up where we are heading. The same people who whine about oil company profits will soon notice that the banks are quite profitable, and the government has relieved them of the risk. At that time there will be calls for banking to be taken over by the government. The current call for more regulation is just the first step down that road. I agree being a free market type. Having said that, there is room for regulation in terms of margins on hedge funding (which is the real problem). Currently, $1 million will buy you $10 million call on commodity markets - that is what is driving up prices so dramatically. You layout $1 million on, say an oil contract, for $10 million, then sell that $10 million contract for $11 million, you haven't risked very much for a $1 million dollar payday effectively doubling your money. That's gotta be fixed. |
OT govt. regulation (troll food)
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
... On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:21:55 -0400, " wrote: Shamelessly stolen from another newsgroup ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From the OPINION section of today's Wall Street Journal Regulatory Overkill By ALLAN H. MELTZER March 27, 2008; Page A14 The claim that deregulation went too far is coming from many sides. snip most of the article The financial system cannot survive if the bankers make the profits and the taxpayers take the losses. I think the above sentences sum up where we are heading. The same people who whine about oil company profits will soon notice that the banks are quite profitable, and the government has relieved them of the risk. At that time there will be calls for banking to be taken over by the government. The current call for more regulation is just the first step down that road. I agree being a free market type. Having said that, there is room for regulation in terms of margins on hedge funding (which is the real problem). Currently, $1 million will buy you $10 million call on commodity markets - that is what is driving up prices so dramatically. You layout $1 million on, say an oil contract, for $10 million, then sell that $10 million contract for $11 million, you haven't risked very much for a $1 million dollar payday effectively doubling your money. That's gotta be fixed. Good luck fixing it. The trading fees are a cash cow for the financial services industry, which donates heavily to all the candidates. |
OT govt. regulation (troll food)
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:21:55 -0400, "
wrote: Shamelessly stolen from another newsgroup ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From the OPINION section of today's Wall Street Journal Regulatory Overkill By ALLAN H. MELTZER March 27, 2008; Page A14 The claim that deregulation went too far is coming from many sides. snip most of the article The financial system cannot survive if the bankers make the profits and the taxpayers take the losses. I think the above sentences sum up where we are heading. The same people who whine about oil company profits will soon notice that the banks are quite profitable, and the government has relieved them of the risk. At that time there will be calls for banking to be taken over by the government. The current call for more regulation is just the first step down that road. Probably better to keep this stuff secret. Whose business it anyway if lenders choose to write bad loans? Doesn't hurt me. Same with this oil nonsense. Prices haven't hurt me. Making this stuff public just riles people up. Oughtta be a law against all this rabble-rousing. --Vic |
OT govt. regulation (troll food)
On Mar 27, 12:42*pm, Vic Smith
wrote: On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:21:55 -0400, " wrote: Shamelessly stolen from another newsgroup --------------------------------------------------------------------------*--- From the OPINION section of today's Wall Street Journal Regulatory Overkill By ALLAN H. MELTZER March 27, 2008; Page A14 The claim that deregulation went too far is coming from many sides. snip most of the article The financial system cannot survive if the bankers make the profits and the taxpayers take the losses. I think the above sentences sum up where we are heading. *The same people who whine about oil company profits will soon notice that the banks are quite profitable, and the government has relieved them of the risk. *At that time there will be calls for banking to be taken over by the government. The current call for more regulation is just the first step down that road. Probably better to keep this stuff secret. Whose business it anyway if lenders choose to write bad loans? Doesn't hurt me. Same with this oil nonsense. *Prices haven't hurt me. Making this stuff public just riles people up. Oughtta be a law against all this rabble-rousing. --Vic *- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - There are lots of countries you can go to that there are laws against free speech as well as lots of other "rabble-rousing". |
OT govt. regulation (troll food)
"Vic Smith" wrote in message
... On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:19:27 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message . .. On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:21:55 -0400, " wrote: Shamelessly stolen from another newsgroup ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From the OPINION section of today's Wall Street Journal Regulatory Overkill By ALLAN H. MELTZER March 27, 2008; Page A14 The claim that deregulation went too far is coming from many sides. snip most of the article The financial system cannot survive if the bankers make the profits and the taxpayers take the losses. I think the above sentences sum up where we are heading. The same people who whine about oil company profits will soon notice that the banks are quite profitable, and the government has relieved them of the risk. At that time there will be calls for banking to be taken over by the government. The current call for more regulation is just the first step down that road. I agree being a free market type. Having said that, there is room for regulation in terms of margins on hedge funding (which is the real problem). Currently, $1 million will buy you $10 million call on commodity markets - that is what is driving up prices so dramatically. You layout $1 million on, say an oil contract, for $10 million, then sell that $10 million contract for $11 million, you haven't risked very much for a $1 million dollar payday effectively doubling your money. That's gotta be fixed. Good luck fixing it. The trading fees are a cash cow for the financial services industry, which donates heavily to all the candidates. You guys work on getting laws that favor you passed. Others will work on laws that favor THEM. The above is mixed up, and I can't figure out if Tom is talking about options or contracts. But I know nothing of hedge funds. In any case there is risk taken by taken by the speculator/hedger/spreader/producer/consumer. Options have premiums that are paid up front. On a futures contract there is initial margin and maintenance margin. Go below maintenance and you have a margin call that has to be paid. I've had a few of those. They'll come after your house if you don't. In that oil example if the market goes against you, you can lose the million. Two sides, finding a price. Keep that in mind. For every long trying to goose prices up, there's a short trying to drive them down. That's not to say "unethical" forces can't move commodity prices. But all in all much cleaner and more real than the current Wall Street stock bull****, where P/E and dividends have become meaningless. That'll change as the dollar continues to lose value. --Vic DISCLAIMER The views expressed above are not intended as advice, or represent claims of financial expertise. They are purely personal meanderings of the author. Mind if I ask what business you're in? I'm asking because I think I can demonstrate how YOUR business could be meddled with by people who are totally unrelated to your business. |
OT govt. regulation (troll food)
"Vic Smith" wrote in message
... On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:49:24 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: Mind if I ask what business you're in? I'm asking because I think I can demonstrate how YOUR business could be meddled with by people who are totally unrelated to your business. I'm in the retirement business, participating. And "people" are still in my face! I just ignore them, though. Well, not really. The price of Cheerios ****es me off. Ethanol taking oat acreage out of production. Probably other factors to complain about too. I could go on and on. But go ahead and grind your axe. I'll comment on the sparks if I can. --Vic What was your business before retirement? |
OT govt. regulation (troll food)
"Vic Smith" wrote in message
... On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 18:09:39 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Vic Smith" wrote in message . .. On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:49:24 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: Mind if I ask what business you're in? I'm asking because I think I can demonstrate how YOUR business could be meddled with by people who are totally unrelated to your business. I'm in the retirement business, participating. And "people" are still in my face! I just ignore them, though. Well, not really. The price of Cheerios ****es me off. Ethanol taking oat acreage out of production. Probably other factors to complain about too. I could go on and on. But go ahead and grind your axe. I'll comment on the sparks if I can. --Vic What was your business before retirement? IT - analyst. OK. I'm going to take the right financial industry people and regulators to lunch a few dozen times, bribe as necessary, and create a new futures market involving computer hardware. Just like the oil commodities markets, we will allow people to fiddle in it even if they have absolutely no connection to the computer industry. They will just be there to gamble. Within 6 months, computers of all kinds will become so prohibitively expensive that corporations will not be able to own more than just one or two, for use by the head honchos. Most of your IT department will be out of work. Price fluctuations for computers will be based on such things as: "fear of renewed violence in Baghdad" "unseasonal amounts of rain in Korea" .....or just about any other drunken reason which frightens the amateur traders in the commodity you depend on. That's what's happening with oil. You don't believe it yet. But, it's absolutely true. It doesn't ***ALL*** the price swings, but it explains some of it. |
OT govt. regulation (troll food)
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:19:27 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:21:55 -0400, " wrote: Shamelessly stolen from another newsgroup ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- From the OPINION section of today's Wall Street Journal Regulatory Overkill By ALLAN H. MELTZER March 27, 2008; Page A14 The claim that deregulation went too far is coming from many sides. snip most of the article The financial system cannot survive if the bankers make the profits and the taxpayers take the losses. I think the above sentences sum up where we are heading. The same people who whine about oil company profits will soon notice that the banks are quite profitable, and the government has relieved them of the risk. At that time there will be calls for banking to be taken over by the government. The current call for more regulation is just the first step down that road. I agree being a free market type. Having said that, there is room for regulation in terms of margins on hedge funding (which is the real problem). Currently, $1 million will buy you $10 million call on commodity markets - that is what is driving up prices so dramatically. You layout $1 million on, say an oil contract, for $10 million, then sell that $10 million contract for $11 million, you haven't risked very much for a $1 million dollar payday effectively doubling your money. That's gotta be fixed. Good luck fixing it. The trading fees are a cash cow for the financial services industry, which donates heavily to all the candidates. You guys work on getting laws that favor you passed. Others will work on laws that favor THEM. The above is mixed up, and I can't figure out if Tom is talking about options or contracts. But I know nothing of hedge funds. In any case there is risk taken by taken by the speculator/hedger/spreader/producer/consumer. Options have premiums that are paid up front. On a futures contract there is initial margin and maintenance margin. Go below maintenance and you have a margin call that has to be paid. I've had a few of those. They'll come after your house if you don't. In that oil example if the market goes against you, you can lose the million. Two sides, finding a price. Keep that in mind. For every long trying to goose prices up, there's a short trying to drive them down. That's not to say "unethical" forces can't move commodity prices. But all in all much cleaner and more real than the current Wall Street stock bull****, where P/E and dividends have become meaningless. That'll change as the dollar continues to lose value. --Vic DISCLAIMER The views expressed above are not intended as advice, or represent claims of financial expertise. They are purely personal meanderings of the author. |
OT govt. regulation (troll food)
|
OT govt. regulation (troll food)
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:49:24 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: Mind if I ask what business you're in? I'm asking because I think I can demonstrate how YOUR business could be meddled with by people who are totally unrelated to your business. I'm in the retirement business, participating. And "people" are still in my face! I just ignore them, though. Well, not really. The price of Cheerios ****es me off. Ethanol taking oat acreage out of production. Probably other factors to complain about too. I could go on and on. But go ahead and grind your axe. I'll comment on the sparks if I can. --Vic |
OT govt. regulation (troll food)
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 18:09:39 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "Vic Smith" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:49:24 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: Mind if I ask what business you're in? I'm asking because I think I can demonstrate how YOUR business could be meddled with by people who are totally unrelated to your business. I'm in the retirement business, participating. And "people" are still in my face! I just ignore them, though. Well, not really. The price of Cheerios ****es me off. Ethanol taking oat acreage out of production. Probably other factors to complain about too. I could go on and on. But go ahead and grind your axe. I'll comment on the sparks if I can. --Vic What was your business before retirement? IT - analyst. |
OT govt. regulation (troll food)
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:42:47 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote: Whose business it anyway if lenders choose to write bad loans? Doesn't hurt me. That's naive. If the government ends up bailing out the lender "to save the economy" who do you think ends up paying for that? Sooner or later we all do, either in taxes or with a depreciated dollar. |
OT govt. regulation (troll food)
"Vic Smith" wrote in message ... On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 18:18:11 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Vic Smith" wrote in message . .. On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 18:09:39 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Vic Smith" wrote in message m... On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:49:24 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: Mind if I ask what business you're in? I'm asking because I think I can demonstrate how YOUR business could be meddled with by people who are totally unrelated to your business. I'm in the retirement business, participating. And "people" are still in my face! I just ignore them, though. Well, not really. The price of Cheerios ****es me off. Ethanol taking oat acreage out of production. Probably other factors to complain about too. I could go on and on. But go ahead and grind your axe. I'll comment on the sparks if I can. --Vic What was your business before retirement? IT - analyst. OK. I'm going to take the right financial industry people and regulators to lunch a few dozen times, bribe as necessary, and create a new futures market involving computer hardware. Just like the oil commodities markets, we will allow people to fiddle in it even if they have absolutely no connection to the computer industry. They will just be there to gamble. Within 6 months, computers of all kinds will become so prohibitively expensive that corporations will not be able to own more than just one or two, for use by the head honchos. Most of your IT department will be out of work. Price fluctuations for computers will be based on such things as: "fear of renewed violence in Baghdad" "unseasonal amounts of rain in Korea" ....or just about any other drunken reason which frightens the amateur traders in the commodity you depend on. That's what's happening with oil. You don't believe it yet. But, it's absolutely true. It doesn't ***ALL*** the price swings, but it explains some of it. Why do all that when you can just offshore it? Or bring in H1-B analysts from India? Remember that actual producers and consumers of commodities use the futures markets to lock in prices in managing their businesses, and that futures aren't the spot market. The reason oil costs what it does isn't because of futures, but because of what the market will bear. Supply and demand. Wrong. You will find out otherwise in the near future. |
OT govt. regulation (troll food)
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 18:18:11 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "Vic Smith" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 18:09:39 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Vic Smith" wrote in message ... On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:49:24 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: Mind if I ask what business you're in? I'm asking because I think I can demonstrate how YOUR business could be meddled with by people who are totally unrelated to your business. I'm in the retirement business, participating. And "people" are still in my face! I just ignore them, though. Well, not really. The price of Cheerios ****es me off. Ethanol taking oat acreage out of production. Probably other factors to complain about too. I could go on and on. But go ahead and grind your axe. I'll comment on the sparks if I can. --Vic What was your business before retirement? IT - analyst. OK. I'm going to take the right financial industry people and regulators to lunch a few dozen times, bribe as necessary, and create a new futures market involving computer hardware. Just like the oil commodities markets, we will allow people to fiddle in it even if they have absolutely no connection to the computer industry. They will just be there to gamble. Within 6 months, computers of all kinds will become so prohibitively expensive that corporations will not be able to own more than just one or two, for use by the head honchos. Most of your IT department will be out of work. Price fluctuations for computers will be based on such things as: "fear of renewed violence in Baghdad" "unseasonal amounts of rain in Korea" ....or just about any other drunken reason which frightens the amateur traders in the commodity you depend on. That's what's happening with oil. You don't believe it yet. But, it's absolutely true. It doesn't ***ALL*** the price swings, but it explains some of it. Why do all that when you can just offshore it? Or bring in H1-B analysts from India? Remember that actual producers and consumers of commodities use the futures markets to lock in prices in managing their businesses, and that futures aren't the spot market. The reason oil costs what it does isn't because of futures, but because of what the market will bear. Supply and demand. I traded oil a few times when it was around 17.00 a barrel, as purely technical trades (chart formations) but look at it differently than most commodities, where supply can be increased as price goes up. If I was willing to take the risk with my retirement money, I would be long in it right now. BTW, commodities trading replaced playing the horses for me, and since I don't produce or use the commodity, it's just gambling, and that's how I look at it. I don't take the view that stock market gamblers do that I'm a patriot because I "invest" in a mutual fund whose components I know nothing about, such as whether or not they promote pornography, offshore jobs that weaken America and so on. If I buy or sell a futures contract I''m simply gambling, be it a smart gamble or not. If I lose I don't cry about it, ask for a guv bailout, or claim it's bad for America. Used to be the average investor invested in stocks for dividends and some growth, with an eye to supporting a company that reflected the investor's values. That's no longer true. It's only about the money. For futures speculators it's always been about the money, but most had the honesty to say it. Early on I would say I'm providing liquidity to the price-finding market, oiling the gears of commerce. The patriotic American, supporting the machinery of Capitalism. After a few margin calls, I decided it was about the money - and the thrill of gambling. But I can say none of my commodity trades supported pornography or weakened America by offshoring to make a buck. Don't get me wrong. I'm a very small time trader, trade off and on, and though I'm ahead about 25 grand in a bit over 20 years of trading, my retirement money isn't large. Most of it got there the old fashioned way - I worked, avoided debt and saved. Hell, just driving old Chevys probably added 100k to my retirement. --Vic |
OT govt. regulation (troll food)
"Vic Smith" wrote in message
... On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:16:34 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Vic Smith" wrote in message The reason oil costs what it does isn't because of futures, but because of what the market will bear. Supply and demand. Wrong. You will find out otherwise in the near future. Is that a threat? --Vic It's a promise. Neither of us knows what percentage of oil price increases are due to simple gambling, but it's significant enough that it's getting more attention. Oil is a product whose price affects virtually everything we buy. There is no excuse for allowing recreational gamblers affect the price. Let the oil companies hedge, but not players at any level. |
OT govt. regulation (troll food)
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:33:54 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote: Whose business it anyway if lenders choose to write bad loans? Doesn't hurt me. That's naive. If the government ends up bailing out the lender "to save the economy" who do you think ends up paying for that? Sooner or later we all do, either in taxes or with a depreciated dollar. Sounds like you want it regulated. Actually not. My real preference would be to let the lenders fail, except for the one that is paying my pension and holding my retirement $$$s. Life is complicated. :-) |
OT govt. regulation (troll food)
"Vic Smith" wrote in message
... On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:47:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Vic Smith" wrote in message . .. On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:16:34 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Vic Smith" wrote in message The reason oil costs what it does isn't because of futures, but because of what the market will bear. Supply and demand. Wrong. You will find out otherwise in the near future. Is that a threat? --Vic It's a promise. Neither of us knows what percentage of oil price increases are due to simple gambling, but it's significant enough that it's getting more attention. Oil is a product whose price affects virtually everything we buy. There is no excuse for allowing recreational gamblers affect the price. Let the oil companies hedge, but not players at any level. Here's how it works. When you refuse to buy gasoline, refuse to fly, or cut back on use, the price *may* come down. Including the futures prices. Here's another option for you. Plant some oil acreage or find some inexhaustible oil fields. Until then, live with it. Jesus H. Christ, you act like the world owes you low oil prices. And I thought I was over the top complaining about Cheerios. --Vic Vic, you're reciting the fairy tale version. Please stop. It's not befitting of a grown man. Let's take it a step at a time. Do you agree that some players in oil commodities are completely unrelated to the oil business itself? Not acting on behalf of an oil company that's hedging its raw materials, in other words. |
OT govt. regulation (troll food)
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:47:43 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote: On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:42:47 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: Whose business it anyway if lenders choose to write bad loans? Doesn't hurt me. That's naive. If the government ends up bailing out the lender "to save the economy" who do you think ends up paying for that? Sooner or later we all do, either in taxes or with a depreciated dollar. Sounds like you want it regulated. --Vic |
OT govt. regulation (troll food)
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:47:43 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote: On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:42:47 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: Whose business it anyway if lenders choose to write bad loans? Doesn't hurt me. That's naive. If the government ends up bailing out the lender "to save the economy" who do you think ends up paying for that? Sooner or later we all do, either in taxes or with a depreciated dollar. You know what I think the solution is? You freeze all those entry level mortgages before they reset. In return, the GSE's buy the paper from the banks and sits on it. In return for having a mortgage freeze, borrowers agree to the following: Not sell the house for a minimum of 10 years. No equity loans. When the term is finished, 30% of any profit on a sale rolls over to the GSEs right off the top. That establishes a floor. Secondarily, the GSEs, can redistribute the risk by picking the performing loans to keep and wholesaling the non-performing loans into Junk Bonds. Win-win. |
OT govt. regulation (troll food)
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:16:34 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "Vic Smith" wrote in message The reason oil costs what it does isn't because of futures, but because of what the market will bear. Supply and demand. Wrong. You will find out otherwise in the near future. Is that a threat? --Vic |
OT govt. regulation (troll food)
"Vic Smith" wrote in message
... On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 21:25:32 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: Let's take it a step at a time. Do you agree that some players in oil commodities are completely unrelated to the oil business itself? Not acting on behalf of an oil company that's hedging its raw materials, in other words. Of course. Joe, we won't agree on this, so let's not play 20 questions. I believe the price of oil is almost entirely related to how much the buyer can be squeezed. You think futures speculators have a large impact on the price. We won't agree. Can you agree to that? Let's just carry on with our boating discussion now. When do you expect to go fishing? --Vic As soon as the ice is gone, the boat goes in. Two weeks? Who knows. Meanwhile, a couple of trout streams are ice-free. |
OT govt. regulation (troll food)
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:47:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "Vic Smith" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:16:34 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Vic Smith" wrote in message The reason oil costs what it does isn't because of futures, but because of what the market will bear. Supply and demand. Wrong. You will find out otherwise in the near future. Is that a threat? --Vic It's a promise. Neither of us knows what percentage of oil price increases are due to simple gambling, but it's significant enough that it's getting more attention. Oil is a product whose price affects virtually everything we buy. There is no excuse for allowing recreational gamblers affect the price. Let the oil companies hedge, but not players at any level. Here's how it works. When you refuse to buy gasoline, refuse to fly, or cut back on use, the price *may* come down. Including the futures prices. Here's another option for you. Plant some oil acreage or find some inexhaustible oil fields. Until then, live with it. Jesus H. Christ, you act like the world owes you low oil prices. And I thought I was over the top complaining about Cheerios. --Vic |
OT govt. regulation (troll food)
"Vic Smith" wrote in message
... On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 21:58:05 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Vic Smith" wrote in message When do you expect to go fishing? As soon as the ice is gone, the boat goes in. Two weeks? Who knows. Meanwhile, a couple of trout streams are ice-free. Which reminds of when I used to fresh water fish. Mostly in the depths of summer. But sometimes during the spawn. Talking crappies and bluegills. The crappies went deep and didn't have much appetite mid-summer, so spawn time was the salad days for fishing. How's it work where you're at regarding the spawn? --Vic http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/7917.html |
OT govt. regulation (troll food)
"Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:33:54 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: Whose business it anyway if lenders choose to write bad loans? Doesn't hurt me. That's naive. If the government ends up bailing out the lender "to save the economy" who do you think ends up paying for that? Sooner or later we all do, either in taxes or with a depreciated dollar. Sounds like you want it regulated. Actually not. My real preference would be to let the lenders fail, except for the one that is paying my pension and holding my retirement $$$s. Life is complicated. :-) I just heard on Chris Matthews's "Hardball" show of a plan being kicked around that would provide government financing for banks to re-negotiate some of these sub-prime loans with home owners having trouble with their mortgage. But, here's the kicker. In this plan, not only would the rates and terms be re-negotiated, but also the prinicple owed .... meaning it would be lowered as well as the house "value", decreasing taxes. I am not sure I completely understand this .... or even heard it correctly, but it sounds rather bizzare. Those who have managed to keep their conventional 30 year mortgage payments by working two jobs to make ends meet receive no benefit or consideration. Sounds like those who are financially responsible, live within their means and borrow what they can afford finish last. Those that took chances and advantage of loose lending practices with mortgages they couldn't afford, win. Eisboch |
OT govt. regulation (troll food)
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:05:43 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote: On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:33:54 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: Whose business it anyway if lenders choose to write bad loans? Doesn't hurt me. That's naive. If the government ends up bailing out the lender "to save the economy" who do you think ends up paying for that? Sooner or later we all do, either in taxes or with a depreciated dollar. Sounds like you want it regulated. Actually not. My real preference would be to let the lenders fail, except for the one that is paying my pension and holding my retirement $$$s. Life is complicated. :-) Only when you won't accept responsibility for your action or inaction. That's what I meant when I said it doesn't hurt me. I really don't care what happens with the bad loan situation, since I wasn't responsible for it. Not that it's rocket science. I saw it coming, as did anyone with their eyes open and not heavily sedated. If I were responsible I would have regulated loans to prevent it. But nobody asked me. Would not have looked good for "record home ownership" statistics that GWB often crowed about. Just wouldn't be prudent. And I don't care about the taxes or depreciated dollar. I just don't. Nobody asked me to be the boss of that, and I admit I didn't volunteer. I just left it the business community. with proper gov oversight. And here we are. Okay with me. Why get upset about it? --Vic (feeling laid back, and a bit high on Stabil) |
OT govt. regulation (troll food)
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... "Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:33:54 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: Whose business it anyway if lenders choose to write bad loans? Doesn't hurt me. That's naive. If the government ends up bailing out the lender "to save the economy" who do you think ends up paying for that? Sooner or later we all do, either in taxes or with a depreciated dollar. Sounds like you want it regulated. Actually not. My real preference would be to let the lenders fail, except for the one that is paying my pension and holding my retirement $$$s. Life is complicated. :-) I just heard on Chris Matthews's "Hardball" show of a plan being kicked around that would provide government financing for banks to re-negotiate some of these sub-prime loans with home owners having trouble with their mortgage. But, here's the kicker. In this plan, not only would the rates and terms be re-negotiated, but also the prinicple owed .... meaning it would be lowered as well as the house "value", decreasing taxes. I am not sure I completely understand this .... or even heard it correctly, but it sounds rather bizzare. Those who have managed to keep their conventional 30 year mortgage payments by working two jobs to make ends meet receive no benefit or consideration. Sounds like those who are financially responsible, live within their means and borrow what they can afford finish last. Those that took chances and advantage of loose lending practices with mortgages they couldn't afford, win. Eisboch That is the Democratic way. Steal from the working stiff and give a little to the slackers and those looking for a free ride. The rest finds it's way to the lawmakers and their friends. |
OT govt. regulation (troll food)
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 21:25:32 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: Let's take it a step at a time. Do you agree that some players in oil commodities are completely unrelated to the oil business itself? Not acting on behalf of an oil company that's hedging its raw materials, in other words. Of course. Joe, we won't agree on this, so let's not play 20 questions. I believe the price of oil is almost entirely related to how much the buyer can be squeezed. You think futures speculators have a large impact on the price. We won't agree. Can you agree to that? Let's just carry on with our boating discussion now. When do you expect to go fishing? --Vic |
OT govt. regulation (troll food)
wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... "Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:33:54 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: Whose business it anyway if lenders choose to write bad loans? Doesn't hurt me. That's naive. If the government ends up bailing out the lender "to save the economy" who do you think ends up paying for that? Sooner or later we all do, either in taxes or with a depreciated dollar. Sounds like you want it regulated. Actually not. My real preference would be to let the lenders fail, except for the one that is paying my pension and holding my retirement $$$s. Life is complicated. :-) I just heard on Chris Matthews's "Hardball" show of a plan being kicked around that would provide government financing for banks to re-negotiate some of these sub-prime loans with home owners having trouble with their mortgage. But, here's the kicker. In this plan, not only would the rates and terms be re-negotiated, but also the prinicple owed .... meaning it would be lowered as well as the house "value", decreasing taxes. I am not sure I completely understand this .... or even heard it correctly, but it sounds rather bizzare. Those who have managed to keep their conventional 30 year mortgage payments by working two jobs to make ends meet receive no benefit or consideration. Sounds like those who are financially responsible, live within their means and borrow what they can afford finish last. Those that took chances and advantage of loose lending practices with mortgages they couldn't afford, win. Eisboch That is the Democratic way. Steal from the working stiff and give a little to the slackers and those looking for a free ride. The rest finds it's way to the lawmakers and their friends. Ahh. I knew there was an explanation for the big brokerage house bailout. |
OT govt. regulation (troll food)
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 21:58:05 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "Vic Smith" wrote in message When do you expect to go fishing? As soon as the ice is gone, the boat goes in. Two weeks? Who knows. Meanwhile, a couple of trout streams are ice-free. Which reminds of when I used to fresh water fish. Mostly in the depths of summer. But sometimes during the spawn. Talking crappies and bluegills. The crappies went deep and didn't have much appetite mid-summer, so spawn time was the salad days for fishing. How's it work where you're at regarding the spawn? --Vic |
OT govt. regulation (troll food)
" wrote in message
... "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:33:54 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: Whose business it anyway if lenders choose to write bad loans? Doesn't hurt me. That's naive. If the government ends up bailing out the lender "to save the economy" who do you think ends up paying for that? Sooner or later we all do, either in taxes or with a depreciated dollar. Sounds like you want it regulated. Actually not. My real preference would be to let the lenders fail, except for the one that is paying my pension and holding my retirement $$$s. Life is complicated. :-) I just heard on Chris Matthews's "Hardball" show of a plan being kicked around that would provide government financing for banks to re-negotiate some of these sub-prime loans with home owners having trouble with their mortgage. But, here's the kicker. In this plan, not only would the rates and terms be re-negotiated, but also the prinicple owed .... meaning it would be lowered as well as the house "value", decreasing taxes. I am not sure I completely understand this .... or even heard it correctly, but it sounds rather bizzare. Those who have managed to keep their conventional 30 year mortgage payments by working two jobs to make ends meet receive no benefit or consideration. Sounds like those who are financially responsible, live within their means and borrow what they can afford finish last. Those that took chances and advantage of loose lending practices with mortgages they couldn't afford, win. Eisboch That is the Democratic way. Steal from the working stiff and give a little to the slackers and those looking for a free ride. The rest finds it's way to the lawmakers and their friends. Actually, republicans do it, too. The difference is this: Democrats have the balls for formalize the deal by codifying it into law. Republicans play smoke & mirror games, like claiming the war is cheap and there's no deficit. Their followers are stupid enough to believe it. 54%, ya know? |
OT govt. regulation (troll food)
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 22:08:24 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "Vic Smith" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 21:58:05 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Vic Smith" wrote in message When do you expect to go fishing? As soon as the ice is gone, the boat goes in. Two weeks? Who knows. Meanwhile, a couple of trout streams are ice-free. Which reminds of when I used to fresh water fish. Mostly in the depths of summer. But sometimes during the spawn. Talking crappies and bluegills. The crappies went deep and didn't have much appetite mid-summer, so spawn time was the salad days for fishing. How's it work where you're at regarding the spawn? --Vic http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/7917.html 9"' minimum on Crappie! Them's big crappie. Thought they only grew them like that down south, calling them "slabs" and other rustic names. --Vic |
OT govt. regulation (troll food)
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 18:10:38 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Wayne.B" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:33:54 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: Whose business it anyway if lenders choose to write bad loans? Doesn't hurt me. That's naive. If the government ends up bailing out the lender "to save the economy" who do you think ends up paying for that? Sooner or later we all do, either in taxes or with a depreciated dollar. Sounds like you want it regulated. Actually not. My real preference would be to let the lenders fail, except for the one that is paying my pension and holding my retirement $$$s. Life is complicated. :-) I just heard on Chris Matthews's "Hardball" show of a plan being kicked around that would provide government financing for banks to re-negotiate some of these sub-prime loans with home owners having trouble with their mortgage. But, here's the kicker. In this plan, not only would the rates and terms be re-negotiated, but also the prinicple owed .... meaning it would be lowered as well as the house "value", decreasing taxes. I am not sure I completely understand this .... or even heard it correctly, but it sounds rather bizzare. The idea is that the prices are in a deflationary direction, thus the principle has deflated in value along with the loan. In that paradigm, it makes sense to revalue the amount of principle by writing off a portion of the principle, renegotiating the interest on the remaining principle to a rate and time period in which the now lowered principle w/interest can be paid. This revaluation of the loan, including the principle, will lower property taxes because the house involved will not be in line with actual fair market value rather than an inflated market valuation - the tax base will be revalued at a lower price point. It's a complicated way to establish a floor on mortgage valuations and personally, I don't think it's worth discussing for a number of reasons - in particular the whole "let's spread the pain" scenario. Those who have managed to keep their conventional 30 year mortgage payments by working two jobs to make ends meet receive no benefit or consideration. Sounds like those who are financially responsible, live within their means and borrow what they can afford finish last. That's one way of looking at it. Another way would be to ask what advantage do you gain? In one way, it does do something to establish a value on any given mortgage package. Another way would be to say that there isn't a specific moral hazard in any practice that grants asylum to people who over estimated the real estate market. To my way of thinking, everybody who wrote these loans is just as responsible as the person requesting the loan. Since when did giving a $450,000 jumbo loan at 2% introductory rate over two years make economic sense? Or a $250,000 loan at 2% with no qualifiers - no job qualifications, no down payment, no nothing. All on the bet that you will sell your $250,000 (or 450) home for 60K more than you paid for two years from now. If one is a true free market type, then you let it go - let those who screwed up and made bad bets lose everything. The complication is that toxic paper extends globally - almost every country's central bank is involved along with Swedish towns, Norweign government, Singapore, Chinese banks - almost everyone has a piece of this American mortgage mess. The potential of taking down the entire global financial system is enourmous because that system requires that you have confidence in the system. No confidence, no system. So that's the dynamic. Those that took chances and advantage of loose lending practices with mortgages they couldn't afford, win. Sadly, that's the other half of the problem - how do you compensate those who played the system correctly for their losses essentially incurred by those who didn't? I still think I have the right solution - but nobody pays attention to me. :) |
OT govt. regulation (troll food)
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... I still think I have the right solution - but nobody pays attention to me. :) Read your post with interest. (no pun intended) I snipped it just for brevity here. I think I agree with the plan, after reading your explanation and thinking about it some more. One of the arguments against it was that the re-valued properties would also tend to de-value the property of those who have been paying consciensously. But ... housing values are dropping anyway and *all* had become overvalued. I noticed another very interesting thing about a month ago. Zillow.com publishes estimated market values for properties based on recorded data in the registry of deeds, local market factors and a bunch of other components that they feed into their calculator. Their estimated house values peaked several months ago, and has been dropping ever since. But, what is interesting is that they recalculated the estimated historical value as well. In other words, the peak value published a year ago no longer exists in their data base. Everything was dropped, and by a considerable amount, depending on the particular house value. Eisboch |
OT govt. regulation (troll food)
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Vic Smith" wrote in message ... On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:47:59 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Vic Smith" wrote in message ... On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:16:34 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Vic Smith" wrote in message The reason oil costs what it does isn't because of futures, but because of what the market will bear. Supply and demand. Wrong. You will find out otherwise in the near future. Is that a threat? --Vic It's a promise. Neither of us knows what percentage of oil price increases are due to simple gambling, but it's significant enough that it's getting more attention. Oil is a product whose price affects virtually everything we buy. There is no excuse for allowing recreational gamblers affect the price. Let the oil companies hedge, but not players at any level. Here's how it works. When you refuse to buy gasoline, refuse to fly, or cut back on use, the price *may* come down. Including the futures prices. Here's another option for you. Plant some oil acreage or find some inexhaustible oil fields. Until then, live with it. Jesus H. Christ, you act like the world owes you low oil prices. And I thought I was over the top complaining about Cheerios. --Vic Vic, you're reciting the fairy tale version. Please stop. It's not befitting of a grown man. Let's take it a step at a time. Do you agree that some players in oil commodities are completely unrelated to the oil business itself? Not acting on behalf of an oil company that's hedging its raw materials, in other words. Airlines hedge oil prices. Not just gas companies. Is a major reason the Southwest Airlines was very profitable the last few years. Those hedged contracts have now expired. Lots of uses also hedge the futures market. Was a major reason the market was started. Farmer sold part of his crop ahead of time for a set price. Gave him the money to plant his complete crop and raise it to maturity. If big crop he made big money, small crop, he still did not go bankrupt. Been futures trading for ever by those gambling. George Soros made his billions on trading currency futures. Enough futures that he most likely manipulated the market for huge gains. Oil refiners are not a big profit percentage game. CVX only pays about 2.7% dividend. XOM is about 1/2 that. Citigroup a couple of years ago had a gross profit margin of about 35%. Maybe there should be a windfall profits tax on all those multi megabuck bonuses the executives got while showing huge profits from bad investing? |
OT govt. regulation (troll food)
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:21:43 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message .. . I still think I have the right solution - but nobody pays attention to me. :) Read your post with interest. (no pun intended) I snipped it just for brevity here. I think I agree with the plan, after reading your explanation and thinking about it some more. One of the arguments against it was that the re-valued properties would also tend to de-value the property of those who have been paying consciensously. But ... housing values are dropping anyway and *all* had become overvalued. Exactly right - it's hurting everybody, not just those who made stupid bets or stupid loans. So, in the interest of stabilizing the industry and trying to recover some kind of value and establish a floor, it requires that the GSEs do their thing and make that happen. The interesting thing is that if the GSEs did this, it doesn't cost the taxpayers anything and in fact, it will actually make money. I noticed another very interesting thing about a month ago. Zillow.com publishes estimated market values for properties based on recorded data in the registry of deeds, local market factors and a bunch of other components that they feed into their calculator. Their estimated house values peaked several months ago, and has been dropping ever since. But, what is interesting is that they recalculated the estimated historical value as well. In other words, the peak value published a year ago no longer exists in their data base. Everything was dropped, and by a considerable amount, depending on the particular house value. Zillow has a chart feature on houses - if you go to the bottom of the page to the charts section, you can do a 1, 5 or 10 year average along with all kinds of intersting data that involves time. It does keep historical data - I can send you a link via email that shows the historical data for a house I own in Danielson. |
OT govt. regulation (troll food)
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:21:43 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: Everything was dropped, and by a considerable amount, depending on the particular house value. Zillow has a chart feature on houses - if you go to the bottom of the page to the charts section, you can do a 1, 5 or 10 year average along with all kinds of intersting data that involves time. It does keep historical data - I can send you a link via email that shows the historical data for a house I own in Danielson. There's something funny going on at Zillow. I think they did something within the last 2 or 3 months with their "calculator". According to the "old" historical data, our primary house peaked about 4 months ago. It now is valued almost 700K lower. But, if you go back and look at the new graph and the value it shows 4 months ago, the peak is 400K lower than the old graph. Almost like they revaluated all the historical data. So, I guess that's good. We've only lost 300K in value instead of 400K. :-) I haven't checked the detailed data on the other two houses we own. Eisboch |
OT govt. regulation (troll food)
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... There's something funny going on at Zillow. I think they did something within the last 2 or 3 months with their "calculator". According to the "old" historical data, our primary house peaked about 4 months ago. It now is valued almost 700K lower. But, if you go back and look at the new graph and the value it shows 4 months ago, the peak is 400K lower than the old graph. Almost like they revaluated all the historical data. So, I guess that's good. We've only lost 300K in value instead of 400K. :-) I haven't checked the detailed data on the other two houses we own. Eisboch Mis-typed. Shuda said, " ... 300K in value instead of 700K. |
OT govt. regulation (troll food)
On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 05:07:01 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:21:43 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: Everything was dropped, and by a considerable amount, depending on the particular house value. Zillow has a chart feature on houses - if you go to the bottom of the page to the charts section, you can do a 1, 5 or 10 year average along with all kinds of intersting data that involves time. It does keep historical data - I can send you a link via email that shows the historical data for a house I own in Danielson. There's something funny going on at Zillow. I think they did something within the last 2 or 3 months with their "calculator". According to the "old" historical data, our primary house peaked about 4 months ago. It now is valued almost 700K lower. But, if you go back and look at the new graph and the value it shows 4 months ago, the peak is 400K lower than the old graph. Almost like they revaluated all the historical data. So, I guess that's good. We've only lost 300K in value instead of 400K. :-) I haven't checked the detailed data on the other two houses we own. Ah - I understand now. Let me go look. Hmmm - that's interesting. The house peaked about 4 months ago at $250K and it's now $224K which I expected, but as I remember it it was $265 back then. You know what they may have done is readjust the historical data to reflect actual market conditions at that time. To tell the truth, that house was never worth $250K. It does have a high assessment because it's an unusual house lot - the apartments are huge - the total house is like 2,780 square feet. The house we're living in now peaked at $450K - it's now down about $385K. - which is kind of bogus - the land is worth more than the house. :) Interesting times - interesting times. |
OT govt. regulation (troll food)
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... Ah - I understand now. Let me go look. Hmmm - that's interesting. The house peaked about 4 months ago at $250K and it's now $224K which I expected, but as I remember it it was $265 back then. You know what they may have done is readjust the historical data to reflect actual market conditions at that time. To tell the truth, that house was never worth $250K. It does have a high assessment because it's an unusual house lot - the apartments are huge - the total house is like 2,780 square feet. The house we're living in now peaked at $450K - it's now down about $385K. - which is kind of bogus - the land is worth more than the house. :) Interesting times - interesting times. It is. I also agree, I think Zillow had everything overvalued for several years. No big deal. Eventually this whole mess will straighten itself out, along with inflation, consumer prices and income. The result will be an overall "correction" for the phony valuations over the last couple of years and the economy will stabilize. I hope. Eisboch |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:08 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com