|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 09/09/2008 : 08:13:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Originally posted by filthy
[Grammer Nazi] Am I the only one who caught the misspelling in this picture?
[/Grammer Nazi]
|
Can't...help...it(grunts)
[Spelling Nazi]
Grammer = Grammar
[/spelling Nazi]
[Grammar Nazi]
Bad spelling is not technically bad grammar
[/Grammar Nazi]
|
I'm painting with a broad brush. Poor speling leads to bad grammer by it's very nature, does it not? It might be a few sentences down the paragraph, but, sooner or later, somewhere down the road, it will surely show.
Didn't think I remembered that one, did you? 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 09/09/2008 08:17:25 |
 |
|
|
Zeked
Skeptic Friend
USA
90 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2008 : 12:28:05 [Permalink]
|
Dude,
I have a different perspective, but that is far different than not understanding. In 1938 when FDR was creating the first F program, the term socialism was not as objectionable as it apparently is today. Anyway, socialism is a perspective I hold on F&F that maybe I need to explain.
F&F exist because government mandates, credit creation and guarantees; to me, this is clearly financial socialism. What F&F mutated into is fascist corporatism. The collapse of F&F was predicted and argued as far back as 2002 on the house floor, maybe further. Housing and banking lobbyists filled the coffers, the subsidies increased and lending policies were tweaked to make the collapse more inevitable.
Without the government in the picture, there is NO WAY that F&F could ever have grown so large. Their balance sheet assets and liabilities total about $1.6 trillion. They have off-balance liabilities of another ~$3.5 trillion.
No worries, the government was guaranteed to bail them out. That is not capitalism, and F&F is not a failure of capitalism. Public, privately traded – but not capitalism. Freddy and Fannie should not exist. No private companies should have lines of credit to the US Treasury, that is us, the US taxpayers. No private companies should be linked to a government mandate that they facilitate affordable housing by buying up mortgages. No private companies should issue debts that investors believe may have an implicit guarantee provided by taxpayers. These are opinions Dude, and I don't expect you to agree, but I feel I should elaborate so you know where I am coming from.
Dude, you likely already understand what a GSE is, you probably just disagree that it equates to financial socialism, as I do. Housing related Government Sponsored Enterprises received $13.6 billion worth of federal subsidies in fiscal year 2000 alone, Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), and the National Home Loan Bank Board.
One of the major government privileges granted to GSEs, is a line of credit with the United States Treasury. They have lower borrowing costs than any private sector equivalent. The connection between the GSEs and the government, detaches the GSE management from market discipline - THIS is the root cause of mismanagement that occurred at F&F. If Fannie and Freddie were not underwritten by the federal government, investors would have demanded F&F provide assurance that they follow accepted management and accounting practices.
Market interventionism with F&F didn't accomplish its stated ends. Instead it distorted the market. The effect of that distortion now howls for a fix. The repair could consist of pulling back and freeing the market or taking further steps toward intervention. The current path for F&F is now the ultimate intervention, nationalization.
Our omnipotent gov is going to guarantee the $5 trillion in debt owned by these companies at rates below inflation. Great! Free money! I understand why, I just happen to disagree that we should. All those securities held by Japan, China and the UK, all the pensions stacked with MSBs, peoples fear of those dreaded "free markets" and how they can't possibly provide the quality and quantity of desired loans. Bailout! Adds a nice illusion of wealth, and an illusion of government taking care of the economy – and illusion is, (to many), more important than reality.
I can give a running tab showing how these subsidies have increased year on year if you want to pursue more of my thoughts. I can also drege up the legislation that encouraged F&F to act recklessly - but for now, materials have just arrived and I'm needing to get some spinners built. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 09/09/2008 : 14:05:55 [Permalink]
|
Zeked said:
| F&F exist because government mandates, credit creation and guarantees; to me, this is clearly financial socialism. What F&F mutated into is fascist corporatism. |
Fascism, being the opposite of socialism.... Make up your mind! Are they fascist or socialist? Obviously they can't be both.
Dude, you likely already understand what a GSE is, you probably just disagree that it equates to financial socialism, as I do. Housing related Government Sponsored Enterprises received $13.6 billion worth of federal subsidies in fiscal year 2000 alone, Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), and the National Home Loan Bank Board.
|
Then you aslo agree that the annual 60-100billion in subsidies we extend to the oil industry are a bad thing? Take 60billion out of that boat and it sinks like a rock, right to the "extremely unprofitable" zone of corporate banruptcy. Say nothing of how closely tied our entire economy, national defense, and transportation are tied to those companies.
If Fannie and Freddie were not underwritten by the federal government, investors would have demanded F&F provide assurance that they follow accepted management and accounting practices.
|
I think you are dreaming. Hello ENRON, Worldcom? With deregulation comes opportunity for corruption. No oversight means people will not comply with fair trade practices.
| I can give a running tab showing how these subsidies have increased year on year if you want to pursue more of my thoughts. I can also drege up the legislation that encouraged F&F to act recklessly - but for now, materials have just arrived and I'm needing to get some spinners built. |
The legislation you are talking about is one that REMOVED government regulation and oversight from the mortgage industry.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Zeked
Skeptic Friend
USA
90 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2008 : 21:45:48 [Permalink]
|
Dude
When I say F&F have mutated - I mean changed, metamorphosed, transformed - into fascist corporatism. Now it is clear there is even more change. Gov is not only mandating, sustaining and feeding F&F, now they are taking over the management. Of course they will punish everybody with onerous legislation due out shortly.
Enron and Worldcom were not GSEs. Yeah, they were bad actors, they were caught and they were punished. Our collective punishment was Sarbanes Oxley.
The 60B sinking ship. OK, the record breaking profits somehow dissolve and the oil industry sinks, (it is not a GSE either). The economy, national defense, and transportation all shrink. Let it happen. Better yet, shrink the government and maintain the essentials by being just a bit more frugal. Ah yes, precedent indicates government has no self control; give them an inch in good faith and we have conceded 100% of the principle, which is then used to turn out monstrosities.
This brings us to the Constitution, the supreme law. Seems a great place to set limits on what is actionable by the government. A home for everybody aint in there. Maybe, just maybe, that is a clue.
And finally, no I was not refering to the F&F deregulation legislation. I was refering to the many other forms of legislation that enabled F&F and the markets to behave badly, and here are a couple examples. Legislation such as the Zero Downpayment Act and the misnamed American Dream Downpayment Act made it possible for people who could not afford down payments on houses to receive assistance from the federal government, or even to pay no down payment at all, courtesy of the taxpayers. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2008 : 23:17:03 [Permalink]
|
Zeked said:
| And finally, no I was not refering to the F&F deregulation legislation. I was refering to the many other forms of legislation that enabled F&F and the markets to behave badly, and here are a couple examples. Legislation such as the Zero Downpayment Act and the misnamed American Dream Downpayment Act made it possible for people who could not afford down payments on houses to receive assistance from the federal government, or even to pay no down payment at all, courtesy of the taxpayers. |
Those bills ARE the deregulating bills. They are what removed government imposed standards on who qualifies for a loan. I guess you could say they changed the standards, but same thing.
The 60B sinking ship. OK, the record breaking profits somehow dissolve and the oil industry sinks, (it is not a GSE either). The economy, national defense, and transportation all shrink. Let it happen. Better yet, shrink the government and maintain the essentials by being just a bit more frugal. Ah yes, precedent indicates government has no self control; give them an inch in good faith and we have conceded 100% of the principle, which is then used to turn out monstrosities.
|
Never said the oil companies were a GSE.... but I bet you my left shoe that they will get bailed out if they were in trouble.
Also, if you remove that subsidy, you eliminate all their profit. We are talking about corporate entities that have an annual budget greater than most nations. Exxon/Mobil (the biggest) would be the 32nd wealthiest nation on earth, if it were a nation.
We keep them afloat, and profitable, because everything collapses if they fall. Transportation is 100% required for our economy to function. Remove the fuel, and everything goes in the shitter. As much as the idea of 60billion in subsidy to these massively profitable corporations disgusts me... there is no other acceptable alternative at the moment. (not unless the wiffle-ball fusion reactor becomes a reality next week and we can all have one for our car and one for our home...) We need these leeches for the time being. Unfortunately.
| The economy, national defense, and transportation all shrink. Let it happen. |
To more specifically address this, I disagree with you. "Shrink" isn't what will happen, unless by "shrink" you mean "violently implode with devastating consequences for the planet".
Until we have a replacement for oil (has to happen within the next 50 years or less), we are stuck with them.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Zeked
Skeptic Friend
USA
90 Posts |
Posted - 09/10/2008 : 22:02:37 [Permalink]
|
Dude
I have never really researched the oil industry too closely.
I need more depth to my understanding before I can wholeheartedly accept the idealist position - "There should be no taxpayer bailouts of corporations and no corporate subsidies".
While this position does resonate with me, it might indeed backfire if liberally applied in a system unaccustomed to such treatment. I'm still of the mind that as far as housing, it absolutely applies. F&F should be liquidated, ASAP.
I'm not as certain about removing subsidies in our energy policy, but I do feel it is time to sour the milk and wean the tit suckers so we can move to alternative, less entangling energies.
I found this official energy stats site while poking around and think it is worth sharing.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/foreign_oil_dependence.cfm
Some great reading. What is money by Bastiat.
http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae5_3_7.pdf
"I've got nothing. Enjoy the balloons!" |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/11/2008 : 07:20:17 [Permalink]
|
Zeked said:
I'm not as certain about removing subsidies in our energy policy, but I do feel it is time to sour the milk and wean the tit suckers so we can move to alternative, less entangling energies.
|
We need oil, and oil companies. They need to be profitable to stay in operation.
A good solution, IMO, would require these titans to create substantial research divisions into new, alternate, renewable, sustainable energy sources. Exxon/Mobil makes 10-15 billion in profit per quarter. We, the taxpayers, should set a condition on their subsidy: You MUST invest 20% of that profit in renewable energy research, or your subsidy goes away.
Never gonna happen as long as oil lobbyists own congress...
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The RNC Convention: a photo essay.
