Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bentway who wrote (108485)	3/8/2008 12:19:55 PM
From: Riskmgmt	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 306849

>> We, the people, elected George W. Bush. Twice.<< Did they really or did the people that bothered to vote, pick the lesser of two evils? In a 2 horse race where they are both nags, one will be perceived to be "better" than the other but they are both nags in reality.

To: bentway who wrote (108485)	3/8/2008 12:22:05 PM
From: The Wharf	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 306849

George Bush does not control the FED the FED lack of control has caused the problem we have. We vote in politicians right? We do not vote in the FED.

To: bentway who wrote (108485)	3/8/2008 1:55:34 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

We, the people, elected George W. Bush. Twice. The legislation that enabled sub-prime lending was backed by both party's leadership. There was no major political resistance to creating "stakeholdership" amongst the less credit-worthy. I hardly think that anything would be different under a Kerry presidency. Not so long as there was more than adequate capital demand, both domestically and international, driving the issuance of such financial products (which there was up until last summer). The belief that the global derivatives market would "self-regulate" the risks of such lending seems to be a fallacy without the regulation required to force banks to adjust their risk equations. In such panics as we've experienced over the past 1/2 year, Keynes' "animal spirits" can run amuck, since there exist no realistic "buyer of last resort" to quash such irrational liquidations of assets which, only a few short years before, were deemed properly priced (according to the pernicious conflicts of interests involving the ratings agencies). Maybe I'm wrong, but if we're required to find a true scapegoat for this mess, I'd put the rating agencies who assigned subjective quality valuations for these assets, at the top of my list. And now, in an attempt to correct their previous errors, they are suddenly "finding Jesus" and trying to err on the side of "worst scenario".. Take ABK.. Their CEO says they now have $16 1/2 billion in resources to cover $12 Billion in liabilities.. Yet, the ratings agencies were trying to cover their @sses to the extent of assuming an "armegeddon" scenario.. Yet, less than a year ago, ABK was "golden" in the eyes of the ratings agencies... Is it any wonder that the ratings agencies are trying to cover their @sses? Hawk