Our government breaks it's own laws again.

[Mr. Happy]

Indeed, and that's my point. Everyone gets affected.

But in my example, it's not like this company is only selling to that town, they sell to distributers around the country and only pollute that town. The town can't do anything about it except fight them in court after everyone's dead.

This has happened.

It's a work of fiction, but if your interesting in the type of thing I'm talking about, which also ties into corruption in politics, read John Grisham's "The Appeal"


I completely understand about the contracts, and I do agree, but at the same time...I dunno. I don't think it always works out that way in the real world. I don't think we should set up systems where people can get screwed because they are stupid, because they can't afford a lawyer to read through it...people need homes too.

I'm not convinced F&F promoted bad loans. They certainly didn't actively. Sure they indured all loans of all types, but assumed they weren't bad loans. There's nothing wrong with loaning to people who normally couldn't afford a loan if it's a good loan and written well.

If what your saying iws true though, I don't think F&F is at fault per se, but maybe their existence reassured those who are. They simple gaurantee all loans they buy, and it would be IMPOSSIBLE for them to investiage each and everyone one of those. They rely on originating banks to make good decisions.

The whole idea of subprime was to create types of loans that loans that poorer people can afford could be crated, but the system was abused at the originating level. Subprime loans aren't inherently bad, but bad ones are.

It's complicated, and I don't think anyone thing or person it to blame. Not even republicans I don't blame them. I don't think anyone could have forseen this. I do blame the banks for giving people loans they couldn't afford, but not because of this crises, but because they actively tried to screw people over.

I think regulation could have prevented this, but now that things have settled down I'm not going to say that people are at fault for not passing any.

I think what we may need is standardized loan terms set by an oversight body, possible the government, I think we need to mandate lawyers adn accountants to do pro-bono contract and loan review work, and I think we need to get banks to look more closely at the people they loaned to. There ARE many irresponizble people that faked income streams and defrauded banks, but I think most people who got loans they couldn't afford were tricked by banks, not the other way around.

[Sacul15]

Indeed, and that's my point. Everyone gets affected.

But in my example, it's not like this company is only selling to that town, they sell to distributers around the country and only pollute that town. The town can't do anything about it except fight them in court after everyone's dead.

This has happened.

I agree. When there are harmful externalities that result from individual actions (when people other than the parties involved are negatively affected), and when free-market approaches can't solve the problem or aren't fast enough, then the government (usually the courts) should intervene. For this we have to define harm, though. In the example of the chemical factory, the harm is obvious (people are dying). In the financial crisis, however, people might lose their jobs because of a chain of events that has negative effects 5 or 6 steps down the line. However, there is no law or document that gives people the right to a job, but there is one (D.o.I) that guarantees that people won't cause us to die. I think, therefore that "harm" should mean physical harm, not economic or emotional, etc. If anything, the government should try to mediate the effects of economic recessions- not try to prevent them completely. If you put out all the forest fires, eventually you'll get one that is too powerful to control.

I completely understand about the contracts, and I do agree, but at the same time...I dunno. I don't think it always works out that way in the real world. I don't think we should set up systems where people can get screwed because they are stupid, because they can't afford a lawyer to read through it...people need homes too.

People need cars and people need computers. If we say everyone has the right to these things, then the people who sell them have no rights. If you can't pay for a house, then you shouldn't have one.

I'm not convinced F&F promoted bad loans. They certainly didn't actively. Sure they indured all loans of all types, but assumed they weren't bad loans. There's nothing wrong with loaning to people who normally couldn't afford a loan if it's a good loan and written well.

If what your saying iws true though, I don't think F&F is at fault per se, but maybe their existence reassured those who are. They simple gaurantee all loans they buy, and it would be IMPOSSIBLE for them to investiage each and everyone one of those. They rely on originating banks to make good decisions.

The whole idea of subprime was to create types of loans that loans that poorer people can afford could be crated, but the system was abused at the originating level. Subprime loans aren't inherently bad, but bad ones are.

No, Fannie and Freddie, didn't promote bad loans, but what people seem to look over is that the government created these institutions for the sole purpose of promoting home-ownership, not to practice sound economic policies. Those who could afford their homes didn't need such entities. The only people who did were those that the market (meaning banks acting in their own best interests) would not allow for. Sure, a lot of this is a result of banks not realizing what they were getting themselves into, but you cannot deny that this wouldn't be possible were it not the government's policy of promoting home-buying (including the creation of F & F).

I think regulation could have prevented this, but now that things have settled down I'm not going to say that people are at fault for not passing any.

It's easy to think that deregulation caused this. In fact, it did, but it was deregulation of factors that wouldn't exist without government intervention in the first place. The free market relies not only on government not restricting aspects of it, but also not promoting other aspects of it as well.

[Mango]

The problem is the monetization of debt.
What caused the problem?
Asset backed securities, and the securitization process
Banks previously had to be circumspect with the loans they offered. But they took the securities and packaged them up, converted them into government bonds, then floated them on the international market.
The government were the ones with their "American Dream", telling anyone they can get a mortgage. It was the GSEs (Government Sponsored Enterprises) who got the ball rolling, offering 0% and minus 0% mortgages. Yes, even PAYING people to get a mortgage. Forming community cooperatives that hook into government support funds allowing ANYONE to get one.

The banks, who no longer had to worry about toxic debt, became a securitization machine. Just BANG, BANG, BANG, get another mortgage out, securitize the debt, cream a little off, float the securities. More, more, more. Then have their ratings companies TRIPLE A RATE the shit debt. You know what? It even came out that the ratings companies AAA rated bad debt. Guess what they said? "it was a computer error".
Unacceptable.

The people who set this up are traitors to the USA. They wanted their bubble economy as big as it could get, and now everyone has to suffer.

[BillyDa59]

I thought of a strange form of 'perfect' government when I was in one of my contemplative moods once. In fact I've thought of a few forms. The thing is, the idea of perfect is subjective. To accept these political structures I made up, you'd have to have somewhat flexible morals. They all involved keeping the general public 'in-the-dark.' Much like the utopia in the book, The Giver. (terrible book)

[medestruit]

Mr. Happy, a true-to-life example of your statement is the movie "Erin Brockovich". It is a true story about a community receiving ill-effects from local pollutants(electrical power in this case) but the bureaucracies oversee the issue and pass it off until they are fought in supreme court over it and sued for compensation to each affected family.

[daymin123]

Ok friends, I live with my mom, who makes a very little amount of money. But my dad makes a ton. He would be considered extremely rich. My dad isn't going to help pay for my college. By the way, they are divorced. The college I'm applying to is private colleges, and they all look at my dad’s income. So I won’t be getting any aid from the college themselves. I know that the FAFSA and other federal aid programs only look at my mom’s finances. What is your opinion?

[wood250]

guys all u need do is step out of ur stupid lifes and take 3 steps back . look at the movie thts playing before your simple eyes.
everything you do in life is already dictated by you being born. where your born and who your born too.how different if your stupid lifes where born elsehwere.
500'000 innocent children have been murdered [YES MURDERED]by "allies" [do i dare call them this] in iraq due to the war---THEY HAVE NO SAY. THEY ARE NOT TERRORIST. THEY ARE NOT BOMBERS. THIS IS ALL in the name of terrorism.
did they have a choice-NO

for thos tht have kids.... look at them -


would you be mad if another country decided just "because" that your kids life would be taken.
no wonder Iraqies are pissed ........WE ALL WOULD FIGHT FOR OUR CHILDREN. SO WHY ARE WE SO BLIND TO SEE THATS ALL IRAQ ARE DOING/


your all just a big movie in the directors scope for world dictatorship. wake up. its scary shite.

one day it may all turn back on itself where your kids are being innocently slaughted for-in the name of terrorism.

wake up ...


.

[ghost12332]

Yeah. People die in war. Your point is? Yes they're civilians, they die to.... Glad you just figured it out m8.

Also, cite your statistic please. Its completely inaccurate I be thinking. 500K children? I think not. Perhaps more around 100-300K total civilian deaths. The majority of Iraqis are completely fine, and hold no grudge against the US. Besides... If were terrorists, then they're still terrorists to, because usually people to don't suicide bomb their own nation. So.... Its terrorism vs. terrorism?...

Go sit in the corner with the other conspiracy theorist, mhmk? And why do I get the feeling that this is mango, just with a different account...

[wood250]

100-300k civilains LOL all worth while then [are they innocent civilians or all suicide bombers] . nothing like freedom. and no im not a conspiracy theorist.


"and people die in war,Glad you just figured it out m8"

cant u see its nothing to do with war.
to have war you have to have 2 forces against each other----- wheres the enemy
a conspiracy isnt a conspiracy when its fact .

"What is the real death toll in Iraq?
The Americans learned one lesson from Vietnam: don't count the civilian dead. As a result, no one knows how many Iraqis have been killed in the five years since the invasion. Estimates put the toll at between 100,000 and one million, and now a bitter war of numbers is raging. Jonathan Steele and Suzanne Goldenberg report"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/19/iraq

as i say step back 3 steps and look at the bigger picture....

your 100k-300k is on the low side.... but hold on they are innocent cilivians.
saddam apparently murdered 100k innocent iraqs = Punishment hung.
bush murders 100k+ innocent iraqs = president U.S and a healthy retirement.

what does it matter as long as i have coke cola and mcdonalds down the Rd. god dam ur so up ur own A@@ u cant see the truth thro ur own turd.




lets reverse rolls- iraq kills 300k innocent U.S civialians - what would happen then?

let me guess barack obin laden lauches 1 of his nuclear toys . but he wouldnt , just incase he destroyed the real bin ladens secret bat cave tht he has been hiding in for years




p.s no idea who mango is---/check my other posts/.

[joe_dirt976]

zomg!!1!! its the reptillians, they're working with the alian masterminds from planet gorlox!!!?!!! seriously though, this type of frenzy can only be found on teh internets. Who cares about this stuff, go on with life.

[wood250]

its the very fact tht we do carry on with life and ignore.
just because we have wat we need tht these issues go unnoticed.

lets kill 100k Candians - tht way it might not go unnoticed.

.

as i say im not a conspiracy therorist or whatever u call them and have no relations tht are lizards.
the simple fact remains well over 100k+ of innocent civilains ave been murder due to no faULt of their own. simply because they were born in IRAQ.

thts some punishment--- i guess innocent until proven guilty goes out the window in Iraq.

i tell u wat - maybe in 50 years theyll target gamers for likin games. sounds stupid dont it. well just maybe.

we are all just a product of society.

.

.

[Sacul15]

100,000 deaths is a bit high, I think. The estimates I've seen say around 80,000, but that technicality really doesn't matter. Those deaths are deaths resulting from violence, not killed by American troops. In fact, most of those are from criminal acts or are killed by insurgents (roadside bombs, other acts of terrorism), and would still occur regardless if we were there or not. When American troops do kill civilians, many of them are in that situation because they were harboring insurgents. It sucks, but sorry- you picked the wrong side. And as for the civilians that die because of accidents or mistakes, the military usually tries to compensate their losses. Maybe it doesn't make up for it but at least they are showing sympathy and trying to minimize innocent casualties.

There are plenty of good reasons to oppose the war, but I don't consider deaths (and not even American deaths) to be one. This has probably been the least bloody prolonged war the US has ever fought.

[Mr-Jigsaw]

bush murders 100k+ innocent iraqs = president U.S and a healthy retirement.

I think it's rather evident that you know nothing of Iraq. Do you know who Muqtada is? Ever hear of the Shi'a Sunni civil war? Know what the Mehdi Army is? This situation is much more complex than many of us Westerners realize, but its damn ridiculous to say its all Bush's fault.

[ghost12332]

God damnt let this fucking thread die. Soon mango is going to come in again and spout his paramilitary omgwtfbbq crap.

[joe_dirt976]

i probably shouldn't bump the thread just for this, but it needs to be said.

now it can die.