Main > Everything Else

how is the economy effecting you?

<< < (22/24) > >>

pinballwizard79:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=dutch+tulip+collapse&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=d9804d37b84b33a1

Dutch tulip speculative bubble, simply some organic material selling for more than the salary of average working mans wages for an entire year. Then after the most expensive bulb failed to sell at an auction people's prized bulbs were worth the same as a common onion. History repeats itself: stock market crash 1929, savings & loans crisis of the 80's & now this government subsidized lending& stimilus garbage.

Dont buy gold, buy lead.....you cant reload with gold  :angel:

Blanka:
Having no money is always the best. And then I mean, no huge money, and no loans. Just hover around 0. That is always safe. Just a little cash to keep things going, but never serious savings nor serious debts. A good realationship, access to good food and some cabs, that's all we need.

ark_ader:

--- Quote from: danny_galaga on August 14, 2010, 09:37:04 pm ---
--- Quote from: ark_ader on August 14, 2010, 05:00:19 pm ---

Bring back debtors' work/poor houses.  It worked in the Victorian days, why not now?  So you would have to change some laws.  Big deal.  ;D

Time for America to dig deep and find itself again.  Oh and stop spending on pointless wars.  ::)

--- End quote ---

That is a very bad idea. Poor houses were exactly that. places where people who were flat broke (and in those times, born into it and destined to always be) could at least be some value to society. Misguided because a better value to society (which they started to realise around Victorian times in England, earlier in the US) is to raise the standards for people. Better education, opportunities etc.

I digress. If you are referring to people who have recently declared bankruptcy working in a 'poor house', then this is a step backwards for society. In Victorian times, a poorhouse worker had no skills. They were put to work making pins or bricks or what have you. Modern american bankrupts for the most part have many and varied skills. You really want mechanics, bakers, truck drivers, sales people, pilots etc making plastic bags instead? Is that how your economy will recover?

--- End quote ---

It is the way forward.  You need a deterrent against borderline fraudulent borrowing and the general stupid.  You need to teach the consumer right from wrong.  I'm not saying poor houses like in Dickens' time, but a community enterprise where skilled workers pay off their debt by working for the local government.  In turn they are rewarded with good food, adequate shelter and on schedule to rebuilding their lives and credit score.  Why does hard work always envision slave labor and pitiless environments?  Why not make the unemployed work for their handouts?  Would you not think that would be a good thing to teach the young?

If you are going to live by government handouts, why not get the jobless to repay the government back by giving services in return.  Throwing more money at the problem isn't going to teach anyone anything.  While I am on the same subject, why not bring back conscription?  Giving the 18-21 year old a trade, instead of putting through college.  Life college is more enduring.  That doesn't mean sending them to Iraq, but home defense, fixing roads and again helping the community.  Is the American Dream not a good ideal to fight for?

Let the weekend National Guard go to Iraq.  >:D

Endaar:

--- Quote ---The incentive was that a bank could repackage those risks as another form of investment and sell it on, and on, and on.
--- End quote ---
I agree, and I think I said as much. But that gets back to the government interfering with the free operation of the market. Without the ability to sell those loans to an entity that investors considered completely safe - Fannie and Freddie - the risk would have been excessive and wouldn't have been taken.


--- Quote ---The bank knew they'd be foreclosing on a ton of these properties, but they'd be able to recoup their losses at foreclosure.
--- End quote ---
I've never heard that theory before. Generally, lenders don't want to have to reposess and resell collateral, and even with the market increasing as it was I'm hard pressed to believe all of their costs would be recouped let alone a profit made. Point me in the right direction and I'll read up about this.


--- Quote ---It was a ---smurfing--- scam and people who want to let the banks off the hook are nuts.
--- End quote ---
I'm not letting them off the hook, but likewise I will not put 100% of the blame on them. The government and the borrowers are both culpable here, and honestly I don't think you need to be financially sophisticated to figure out if you can afford a monthly payment or not. Actually, those buyers who purchased thinking they could refinance after a few years or flip the house for an easy profit got themselves into trouble specifically because they were trying to be sophisticated; the average 'unsophisticated' buyer who just looked at the payment on a 30-year fixed mortgage and determined they could afford it isn't the one who got burned.

Unfortunately, like in many aspects of society lately, those of us who made responsible decisions are paying the price for those who didn't. And that goes back to the government, not the banks. Were it up to me I'd have let banks fail instead of bailing them out. That would have been the easiest way to reset everyone's tolerance for excessive risk.

Endaar

shmokes:

--- Quote from: pinballjim on August 15, 2010, 11:02:40 am ---
I know some of you have spent upwards of 10, maybe 15, minutes wikiing this topic, but I'd just like to lay out


--- End quote ---

Cos unlike the rest of us you're a professional.  None of us could be speaking from education or experience.  Seriously . . . sometimes . . . stfu

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version