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: neolib who wrote (229774)	11/22/2009 8:32:36 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

>>Some did, not all. The fact that some in the organizations which went down did keep $100's M is in fact my point against you guys claiming we should have less government intervention.<< where did i claim that? i want moral government. if we had that, they could use current tax revenues to do amazingly good things. you are definitely a victim of their two party propaganda. you think that if someone argues government is corrupt that they automatically argue we need less government. corporations are corrupt, too. in fact, government is corrupt because they act at the behest of people running corporations - the private freaking sector!!! >>Your (excuse me if you don't argue this way) claims that letting the market fail rather than bailing them will reform the system fails to account for the fact that many of the crooks who caused the problem made out very well, and will in fact be happy to cause similar problems in the future.<< no, my argument is they should not have built the bubble in the first place. check my 1999 posts on SI - in many of them i bed about the blowing of the bubble PRECISELY b/c this is the ultimate outcome. not bubble, no bust. that's my* argument. given the bust, though, why is back stopping criminals (they committed criminal fraud at insane levels!) to the tune of $24 trillion (and likely to go higher) better than... 1. paying off every mortgage in the united states (saving $12 trillion). 2. giving every household in america $80k (saving $12 trillion) 3. setting up a government bank funded with $2 trillion in assets and being able to loan out $18 trillion at low interest rates? (saving $15 trillion plus) well, besides helping out americans instead of our feudal lords. >>The problem you guys ignore is that there is a very great asymmetry in the financial intelligence of the parties between which funds flow in these "free market" boondoggles. GS & Co have tons of very bright but rather unethical employees,<< it pays to be unethical under your system, does it not? if it pays to be unethical (criminal, actually), wouldn't you expect more criminal behavior? >>who scheme all these market innovations up.<< only because the control the government and the money supply. we don't have to be set up this way. >>J6P, or the Norwegian villagers, whose money is "invested" by fund managers are not too bright about financial matters. This cycle can repeat quite a few times, sans some reasonable regulation.<< like dodd's 50-1 levers "reform?" no thanks. we will continue to bail the banks out - we've only just started. >>Its not a new problem, and it is not restricted to large players like GS. The American short story writer O'Henry used this as a favorite theme. Oddly enough, he wrote many of his stories about these small time grifters while serving time in prison for his own small misdeeds.<< the scale is new. in less than a year, we blew more money on the banks than this nation had run up in debt in the last 200 years +/- a few years. about twice as much. obama supports the criminal syndicate and so do you. i don't. in the long run, things will be better. as it stands, the people who say we've avoided disaster will not be around when the disaster gets even worse.