Buffett warns on investment 'time bomb'

[Edstock]

From the BBC:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2817995.stm

 

The rapidly growing trade in derivatives poses a "mega-catastrophic risk" for the economy and most shares are still "too expensive", legendary investor Warren Buffett has warned.

 

The world's second-richest man made the comments in his famous and plain-spoken "annual letter to shareholders", excerpts of which have been published by Fortune magazine.

 

The derivatives market has exploded in recent years, with investment banks selling billions of dollars worth of these investments to clients as a way to off-load or manage market risk.

 

But Mr Buffett argues that such highly complex financial instruments are time bombs and "financial weapons of mass destruction" that could harm not only their buyers and sellers, but the whole economic system.

 

Interesting read.

[BlackHorse]

Yeah, no s***. Plenty of people knew years back that if something wasn't done that it was going to spell disaster for the economy. Even Bill Clinton admits that when the Republicans tried to put some "regulation" in place it was in fact the Democrats who stopped it despite the claims of lying ass Barack Obama who runs around telling everyone the republicans were all about no regulation.

 

I think the responsibility the Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

 

Bill Clinton

 

This whole thing has been brought to us courtesy of liberal social agendas. In short, the democrat party. Barack Obama is deep off in it too, the second highest recipient of donations from Fannie Mae. He knows it and that's why he and his party are running to every news camera in sight screaming "George Bush did it!" About the only thing Bush could have done about it was take his case to the people and say "Look, if we don't do something about this it's going to cause a major collapse in our economy. I need the democrats to stop obstructing efforts to put some regulation in place and work with us on this."

 

But gee, Bush already tried that approach with Social Security and look what happened there. The democrats harped all over him, told him he was a fool who didn't know what he was talking about and had a bad plan and so nothing was done about Social Security. The irony is, when Social Security finally blows up in our face as Fannie and Freddie have, it will be ten times worse than this. Thanks once again to our liberal friends in the democrat party.

 

The truly sad thing is, there are just enough dumb a***s out there that will vote Barack into office in all likelyhood. He's going to make Jimmy Carter look like a stellar genius by comparison. He will damage and destroy this country in ways we may never recover from with his ridiculous socialist / communist policies.

[Edstock]

This whole thing has been brought to us courtesy of liberal social agendas.

No, this whole thing has been brought to us courtesy of Wall Street's wizards, who thought up derivatives in the first place, then siezed by Wall Street's money managers and taken to heights never dreamed of by the original creators.

 

So trillions of dollars are involved.

 

Perhaps a little less conservative knee-jerk, and a little more thought about how to keep this problem from blowing up would be a good idea. Fault? Maybe it's the Democrats, maybe it's Greenspan, maybe it's Wall Street maybe it's Reagan, who knows who cares?

 

The financial problems seem to require a government intervention, regardless of whether there's a conservative you like in the White House, or one of theose liberals you hate.

 

So, stop fixating on the past, and fixate on the future, and what you and every American are going to do about it. Anti-liberal epithets are not part of that solution, however comforting they are for you to use.

[RaZor]

BH, as per usual, you spew the normal fear-mongering statements that you hear from the RW pundits that are based on just that, fear, and not on facts.

 

For instance, the whole social security issue "blowing up in our face" is misplaced. One of those misconceptions is that saving  the budget will require either major reductions in the old-age entitlement programs or major tax increases - or both.

In actuality, neither, most likely is true. Unless there are major changes in benefit rules or in the population, spending on Social Security and Medicare will grow dramatically over the next few decades. But many economic changes are likely to mitigate the effects on the budget.

For example, as the workforce shrinks, the demand for labor will grow, pushing up wages and thus increasing payroll taxes, giving the government more income. Higher wages mean that more people are likely to choose to work, and to work longer before retiring. These changes, and many others like them, are likely to offset most of the increases in Social Security costs even without changes in tax rates.

That will still leave a bill to be paid, but a manageable one. Medicare benefits are a much more complicated matter, but society is going to provide health care to the elderly one way or another. The issues there have more to do with how to provide that care and how expensive it will be than with who writes the checks.

 

The second misconception is that as Boomers quit working and ease into their golden years, they could break the backs of the younger workers who will have to support them. Not so. Even at the peak of Boomer retirement, around 2030, most of the population will still be of prime working age, between 20 and 64. The percentage - about 55, according to the Social Security Administration - will be lower than it is today (59), but above the levels of the 1960s and '70s, when it ranged between 51 percent and 54 percent.

 

Not only will a larger portion of the population be of working age than in the past, but a much higher percentage of that group will be available to provide goods and services. Forty years ago, most women didn't work outside the home; these days, about 60 percent do - and the number keeps going up. In addition, national defense employed more than 10 percent of the workforce in 1968. Today, it uses less than 5 percent, freeing more workers for the general labor force. Future labor markets are likely to be tighter than they are today, but there's no danger of running out of workers.

 

We're running out of time to fix senior-citizen entitlement programs before a crisis strikes. Actually, we're out of time. If it was politically impossible to solve this problem when the number of retirees was comparatively small, there's no chance for a major fix as the ranks of the elderly - and their political clout - grow. McCain all but killed off his chance to win Florida when he said Sunday that he would cut Medicare & Medicaid by $1.3 trillion. According to the Electoral watch (based on a summary of all major polls) McNasty MUST win all seven of the remaining battleground states to even have a chance of winning and his chance of winning Florida just dropped significantly. And this from a guy that has had tax-payer paid health care for his entire adult life and collects $58,000 a year in full disability income from the government (for the last 3-1/2 decades) even though one could question a "full disability" as his medical problems arising from his service certainly has not kept him from pursuing his desired career all these years (one of the provisions of disability entitlement).

 

There may be some minor changes in the way benefits are taxed or adjusted for inflation, but it's already too late for any big fix. Some older Baby Boomers are already retired, and many more are getting close. Social Security and Medicare benefits are part of their financial planning, and we can't reduce them significantly now without a major breach of faith. If you think cuts in benefits are inevitable, remember that the only significant recent change to old-age entitlement programs was adding a prescription-drug benefit (Bush)- which rang in a dramatic increase in government costs and that alone has greatly increased the problem and when added to the no-negotiating of Rx pricing for Medicare (the by far biggest single customer of Rx) only preserved Big Pharma's profits and greatly added to the costs of Medicare. Another example of corporate welfare and 'take care of the corporations and screw the taxpayer mindset'.

 

Boomers' retirement will be bad for the economy. Not really. It'll be bad for the federal budget, sure, but it will actually be good for the economy as a whole and with means-testing, or other tweaking measures (Reps will fight this as although they want to cut entitlements - they are totally against cutting their entitlements - remember Ronald Reagan? - he was a quadruple dipper of entitlements himself from the taxpayer), the impact on the budget can be reduced significantly.

 

As retirees, the Boomers will continue to buy goods and services, but they won't be competing for jobs. This will tend to push wages up, keep unemployment low and boost demand across the board. That's good news for an economy generally characterized by excess capacity in retailing and manufacturing and persistent unemployment - but ONLY if they have the ability to contribute to the economy by spending money and purchasing goods and services.

 

Remember that we need every segment of our society to contribute to the economy - as this year has provided further proof that the top 5% income earners CANNOT keep our economy going.

 

The biggest impact will probably be felt in the personal services sector, on which retirees spend a disproportionate amount. Many service jobs require little formal training, and most can't be moved offshore. The demand for drivers, cooks, gardeners and others will increase as the Baby Boomers age.

 

So don't be too scared. Yes, the Baby Boom's retirement will strain the budget. But natural economic forces will take over, and combined with modest revisions in benefits (means testing) and taxes (raise the cap), they should make it possible to keep those Baby Boomers grazing and the rest of you going in relative comfort and peace of mind.

 

Now the portion of credit derivatives that is in our investment portfolio of our economy is another thing altogether and actually is a much greater time-bomb to our economy. Most would agree that it has already exploded (and hopefully there will not be an after-shock - or at least, not too many).

[fmccap]

No, this whole thing has been brought to us courtesy of Wall Street's wizards, who thought up derivatives in the first place, then siezed by Wall Street's money managers and taken to heights never dreamed of by the original creators.

 

So trillions of dollars are involved.

 

Perhaps a little less conservative knee-jerk, and a little more thought about how to keep this problem from blowing up would be a good idea. Fault? Maybe it's the Democrats, maybe it's Greenspan, maybe it's Wall Street maybe it's Reagan, who knows who cares?

 

The financial problems seem to require a government intervention, regardless of whether there's a conservative you like in the White House, or one of theose liberals you hate.

 

So, stop fixating on the past, and fixate on the future, and what you and every American are going to do about it. Anti-liberal epithets are not part of that solution, however comforting they are for you to use.

I keep hearing 45 to 65 Trillion, problem is nobody really knows.

 

That's funny,

The financial problems seem to require a government intervention

. Are we talking like this????

The SEC about-face on Mark to Market…the lunacy continues. This means it's time to run away.

Markets don't matter in totalitarian states, instead the State decides prices and value. Is that where US is heading?

 

The vague language about whether or not "relevant market evidence exists" is the final nail in the coffin of any credibility in an audit does according to SEC and FASB rules.

 

If that's the way they want to play it then my advice is to get the hell out of US stocks, bonds, anything, run and hide. All semblance of protecting the rights of shareholders, investors and counter-parties has been officially tossed out of the window.

[BlackHorse]

No, this whole thing has been brought to us courtesy of Wall Street's wizards, who thought up derivatives in the first place, then siezed by Wall Street's money managers and taken to heights never dreamed of by the original creators.

 

So trillions of dollars are involved.

 

Perhaps a little less conservative knee-jerk, and a little more thought about how to keep this problem from blowing up would be a good idea. Fault? Maybe it's the Democrats, maybe it's Greenspan, maybe it's Wall Street maybe it's Reagan, who knows who cares?

 

The financial problems seem to require a government intervention, regardless of whether there's a conservative you like in the White House, or one of theose liberals you hate.

 

So, stop fixating on the past, and fixate on the future, and what you and every American are going to do about it. Anti-liberal epithets are not part of that solution, however comforting they are for you to use.

 

That's exactly the kind of junk someone says when they know that what has happened is their fault and they don't have the stones to own up to it.

 

You can't fix this problem without understanding how we got here so this notion that I'm fixatng on the past or harping on liberals is all smoke and mirrors by democrats to avoid having to take responsibility for causing the biggest financial disaster in the last eighty years. Besides, Barack Obama has spent the last two years running against George Bush who isn't even on the ticket. I'd say that's fixating on the past but I guess when Barack does it it's ok with you.

 

This was caused by legislation like the CRA among other ideas to force lending institutions to extend credit to high risk individuals on ARM's. It is absolutely true that some of these lending agencies mislead the persons they were lending to by not fully explaining the way these mortgages worked. It is also ture that we live in a buyer beware market. Most importantly what is true is that the government told these lending agencies that they would be fined and penalized if they didn't find ways to extend credit to these high risk persons. It may have been a good idea with the best intentions at heart, that being "everyone should own a home in America regardless of financial status". But as the old saying goes, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

 

So yes it is very important to understand where this problem came from and who is responsible because now some of the same people that caused this problem (democrats) are running around telling everyone that it's George Bush's fault and they know how to fix it. They didn't even have the stones to pass the bailout bill by themselves when we all know that the democrats have enough votes in both house and senate to have passed that bill without having to get a single repubican to vote for it. But they insisted that the republicans had to get on board. Why? Because that way if the plan fails they can start finger pointing again.

 

Now we face the worst economic downturn since the great depression and what is Barack's plan? Raise taxes. Genius. To borrow a phrase from you libs, "We can't tax our way out of this."

 

Not that McCain is any better really. Heck he wants 350 billion in addition the money in the bailout package to buy up bad mortgages and let the people in those homes buy them back at the new market value. Question John? When those homes that the government buys up with taxpayer money increase in value and the owner who defaulted on that mortgage decides to sell, who gets the net profit?

Edited October 9, 2008 by BlackHorse

[suv_guy_19]

Financial Post

 

Perhaps the US could learn from the countries at the top....and no, I'm not just posting this because Canada is number one.

Edited October 9, 2008 by suv_guy_19

[AAISkinsFan]

No, this whole thing has been brought to us courtesy of Wall Street's wizards, who thought up derivatives in the first place, then siezed by Wall Street's money managers and taken to heights never dreamed of by the original creators.

 

So trillions of dollars are involved.

 

Perhaps a little less conservative knee-jerk, and a little more thought about how to keep this problem from blowing up would be a good idea. Fault? Maybe it's the Democrats, maybe it's Greenspan, maybe it's Wall Street maybe it's Reagan, who knows who cares?

 

The financial problems seem to require a government intervention, regardless of whether there's a conservative you like in the White House, or one of theose liberals you hate.

 

So, stop fixating on the past, and fixate on the future, and what you and every American are going to do about it. Anti-liberal epithets are not part of that solution, however comforting they are for you to use.

 

Good point es...the damage is done and it was done with both sides of the aisle shunning responsibility and enabling Wall Street greed to metastasize. Our total public and private debt has increased from 11 trillion in the late 80's to over 44 trillion today. It didn't happen overnight...

 

Barney Frank said nine months ago that Fannie Mae was financially sound...heck our incumbent president played a huge role in this as well with his Ownership Society bs...

 

"...if you own something, you have a vital stake in the future of our country. The more ownership there is in America, the more vitality there is in America, and the more people have a vital stake in the future of this country."

 

-President George W. Bush, June 17, 2004

 

 

Expanding Homeownership. The President believes that homeownership is the cornerstone of America's vibrant communities and benefits individual families by building stability and long-term financial security. In June 2002, President Bush issued America's Homeownership Challenge to the real estate and mortgage finance industries to encourage them to join the effort to close the gap that exists between the homeownership rates of minorities and non-minorities. The President also announced the goal of increasing the number of minority homeowners by at least 5.5 million families before the end of the decade. Under his leadership, the overall U.S. homeownership rate in the second quarter of 2004 was at an all time high of 69.2 percent. Minority homeownership set a new record of 51 percent in the second quarter, up 0.2 percentage point from the first quarter and up 2.1 percentage points from a year ago. President Bush's initiative to dismantle the barriers to homeownership includes:

 

American Dream Downpayment Initiative, which provides down payment assistance to approximately 40,000 low-income families;

 

Affordable Housing. The President has proposed the Single-Family Affordable Housing Tax Credit, which would increase the supply of affordable homes;

 

Source

[BlackHorse]

Good point es...the damage is done and it was done with both sides of the aisle shunning responsibility and enabling Wall Street greed to metastasize.

 

Republican lawmakers have tried no less than 12 times since 2002 to put in place some kind of regulation with respect to the lending practices that were going on because they could read the writting on the wall just as Warren did. Twelve times. Every time they were blocked by democrats (to include Barack) who insisted that everything was fine and nothing needed to be changed. This is what happens when socialist liberals start forcing businesses to carry out their social agendas.

 

I like that Bush quote AAISkins. Here's another one.

 

A September 11, 2003 New York Times article shows that President Bush proposed “the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.” His proposal: An agency within the Treasury Department to supervise mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

 

Fearing that mortgages would no longer be available to people who were unable to pay them back, Democrats eventually killed the proposal.

 

That's five years ago.

 

http://www.bucksright.com/bush-proposed-fa...on-in-2003-1141

Edited October 9, 2008 by BlackHorse

[AAISkinsFan]

Republican lawmakers have tried no less than 12 times since 2002 to put in place some kind of regulation with respect to the lending practices that were going on because they could read the writting on the wall just as Warren did. Twelve times. Every time they were blocked by democrats (to include Barack) who insisted that everything was fine and nothing needed to be changed. This is what happens when socialist liberals start forcing businesses to carry out their social agendas.

 

I like that Bush quote AAISkins. Here's another one.

 

 

 

That's five years ago.

 

http://www.bucksright.com/bush-proposed-fa...on-in-2003-1141

That's nice BH but the press release i cited was from 2004...or did you not read that. Take those republican blinders off for a minute and look at the big picture. Both parties are responsible! I guess my Barney Frank citation didn't suffice...you are defensive man...relax...breath in...breath out...

[BlackHorse]

That's nice BH but the press release i cited was from 2004...or did you not read that. Take those republican blinders off for a minute and look at the big picture. Both parties are responsible! I guess my Barney Frank citation didn't suffice...you are defensive man...relax...breath in...breath out...

 

I see, so when Bush and other republicans are going to Congress and proposing legislation and new agencies in the treasury to reign in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the past several years how exactly are they responsible?

 

You know as well as I if there was a republican they could hang this on that Pelosi and the gang would already be screaming about having hearings and seeking jail time for said republicans. So far zippo.

 

I saw your comment on Barney Frank, and then I saw you do the typical lib thing an turn right around and try to lay it on Bush too when the truth is Bush tried to get congress to implement something to prevent this from happening. That's how liberals work, when republicans do something wrong, it's all the republicans fault. But when liberals do something wrong suddenly it doesn't matter how we got here or it's both parties fault and we need to quit focusing on it. Not this time guys. The democrat party has just smashed the world economy with their stupid policies and I for one will make sure it gets shouted from the roof tops so there is no mistaking who brought us this disaster. Don't follow them Skins. Don't support a presidential candidate who is deeply invovled in this mess and now is telling you it's not his fault and he is going to fix it. Even if you just go indpenedent, that's much better than supporting the democrats who are responsible for this.

Edited October 9, 2008 by BlackHorse

[retro-man]

I see, so when Bush and other republicans are going to Congress and proposing legislation and new agencies in the treasury to reign in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the past several years how exactly are they responsible?

 

You know as well as I if there was a republican they could hang this on that Pelosi and the gang would already be screaming about having hearings and seeking jail time for said republicans. So far zippo.

 

I saw your comment on Barney Frank, and then I saw you do the typical lib thing an turn right around and try to lay it on Bush too when the truth is Bush tried to get congress to implement something to prevent this from happening. That's how liberals work, when republicans do something wrong, it's all the republicans fault. But when liberals do something wrong suddenly it doesn't matter how we got here or it's both parties fault and we need to quit focusing on it. Not this time guys. The democrat party has just smashed the world economy with their stupid policies and I for one will make sure it gets shouted from the roof tops so there is no mistaking who brought us this disaster. Don't follow them Skins. Don't support a presidential candidate who is deeply invovled in this mess and now is telling you it's not his fault and he is going to fix it. Even if you just go indpenedent, that's much better than supporting the democrats who are responsible for this.

link

- Democrats tried to get more people into their own homes (a laudable goal, but which resulted in loans to people who shouldn't have gotten them). Bush was more than happy to take credit for this "ownership society" and rising rates of home ownership when everything was going well.

- Republicans are responsible for creating a social ethic of personal responsibility (a laudable goal, but which soon enough devolved into a winner take all economic darwinism - a culture of unbridled greed where as long as something wasn't illegal, it was regarded as - ipso facto - ethically ok: in fact a serious erosion of traditional values.)

- Republicans drummed over and over into the heads of their constituents (to the point where some, like yourself, are indelibly imprinted) the idea that government regulation and oversight are inherently and always bad, which paved the way for the entire unregulated "shadow economy" to develop.

 

The trouble may have started with sub-prime mortgages link, but the financial markets - completely unsupervised and unexamined by the SEC who were supposed to be doing so - amplified its effects to the point where it may bring the whole works to a grinding halt.

 

"The democrat party has just smashed the world economy with their stupid policies". The Democrats did it huh? Where was the leadership?!?? You're the perfect shill for the zero-accountability presidency. You're doin' a heck of a job Brownie. Mission Accomplished. You're an ideologue and you're delusional. The Conservative revolution is dead. McCain and Obama's poll numbers show it. Bush killed it. Too bad he left such a wreck behind. Oh, I knew he would leave the U.S. in the same shape he left the State of Texas and Arbusto. But even I, in my wildest imagination, never imagined a second great depression.

Edited October 10, 2008 by retro-man

[AAISkinsFan]

I see, so when Bush and other republicans are going to Congress and proposing legislation and new agencies in the treasury to reign in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the past several years how exactly are they responsible?

 

You know as well as I if there was a republican they could hang this on that Pelosi and the gang would already be screaming about having hearings and seeking jail time for said republicans. So far zippo.

 

I saw your comment on Barney Frank, and then I saw you do the typical lib thing an turn right around and try to lay it on Bush too when the truth is Bush tried to get congress to implement something to prevent this from happening. That's how liberals work, when republicans do something wrong, it's all the republicans fault. But when liberals do something wrong suddenly it doesn't matter how we got here or it's both parties fault and we need to quit focusing on it. Not this time guys. The democrat party has just smashed the world economy with their stupid policies and I for one will make sure it gets shouted from the roof tops so there is no mistaking who brought us this disaster. Don't follow them Skins. Don't support a presidential candidate who is deeply invovled in this mess and now is telling you it's not his fault and he is going to fix it. Even if you just go indpenedent, that's much better than supporting the democrats who are responsible for this.

 

No...you don't see...Bush proposed this new agency (I find two ironies btw...1- you are actually defending the creation of more government & 2 - you cited that Liberal rag the New York Times.) and didn't follow through with it. Heck if he wanted to all he had to do was abuse his executive priveledge like he has done all along and issue a signing statement and legislate the changes from his throne. He's already surpassed all 42 presidents combined in that area anyway!

 

All the signs were there. So one year after the article you cited Bush issued a press release tooting his horn and taking credit for minority home ownership? Are you too blind to see the hipocracy there BH? Apparently so...

 

You must be Nucking Futs to think that Bush could have done anything but destroy Social Security if he would have gotten his D**k beaters on those funds! Here we are in the midst of a global market meltdown and you actually think privatising it would have been the right thing to do? How much worse would our market be faring if everyone who managed their own Social Security acct was pulling their cash out due to the panic we are seeing now? We've got too many dragons to slay without opening up that can of worms.

 

Now if it makes you feel better at night when you go to bed by blaming all the ills of our Government on the dems then go ahead...denial is a wonderful place. Just be prepared to grab your ankles after the election cause no matter who is elected you are gonna take it up the ass. Count on it.

[RangerM]

You must be Nucking Futs to think that Bush could have done anything but destroy Social Security if he would have gotten his D**k beaters on those funds! Here we are in the midst of a global market meltdown and you actually think privatising it would have been the right thing to do? How much worse would our market be faring if everyone who managed their own Social Security acct was pulling their cash out due to the panic we are seeing now? We've got too many dragons to slay without opening up that can of worms.

 

Now if it makes you feel better at night when you go to bed by blaming all the ills of our Government on the dems then go ahead...denial is a wonderful place. Just be prepared to grab your ankles after the election cause no matter who is elected you are gonna take it up the ass. Count on it.

 

Must inject a point here.

 

Bush's attempt at "partial-" privatization of the Social Security system had two underlying goals.

 

First, we all know that given the number of workers, the likelihood that the government will be able to meet its "obligation" in the future is dwindling, so it is an effort to increase returns, and only for certain (younger) workers to take advantage of the time value of money.

 

 

Second, and this one will be harder to swallow........

 

Nobody is guaranteed SS benefits.........ever. Bush was attempting to allow a part of our SS "contributions" to be put into a private account that allows personal ownership of the funds. Right now the "contributions" you make are not yours, and will never be. If they were yours they would be called a "deposit", not a contribution. The benefits can be altered or eliminated at any time.

 

If you think I am just parsing words you need to consider that in the 1960 Supreme Court case of Flemming v. Nestor, Americans have no property right to their Social Security benefits.

 

{excerpt from this article}

In his dissent, Justice Hugo Black observed that this decision "simply tell the contributors to this insurance fund that despite their own and their employers' payments the Government, in paying the beneficiaries out of the fund, is merely giving them something for nothing, and can stop doing so when it pleases."

 

In Helvering v. Davis, Social Security is effectively defined as a welfare program.

 

Democrats would have you believe that the evil Republicans want to steal your SS, but all Republicans want is to guarantee it. (Social Security Benefits Guarantee Act (S. 1102) is a Republican bill)

Edited October 10, 2008 by RangerM

[AAISkinsFan]

Must inject a point here.

 

Thanks for the injection Ranger but the point of this thread was about derivatives and the effect they are having on the market. This article was from 2003 and the warning from Mr Buffet was quite prophetic as to what we are witnessing now. Of course the self appointed defender of all things Republican - Blackhorse - took it upon himself to mask it as some sort Liberal conspiracy theory to destroy our free markets and turn the US into a Socialist regime.

[Edstock]

enabling Wall Street greed to metastasize.

That is excellent! Wonderful description.

 

"enabling Wall Street greed to metastasize. "

[BlackHorse]

Thanks for the injection Ranger but the point of this thread was about derivatives and the effect they are having on the market. This article was from 2003 and the warning from Mr Buffet was quite prophetic as to what we are witnessing now. Of course the self appointed defender of all things Republican - Blackhorse - took it upon himself to mask it as some sort Liberal conspiracy theory to destroy our free markets and turn the US into a Socialist regime.

 

 

It's not a conspiracy, it's just yet another example of failed liberal policy, failed liberal ideolgoy, failed socialist agenda. Only this time the democarts managed to screw up the entire global economy in the process. Way to go Barney! Good job Jimmy! Well done Barack! You clowns couldn't lead a line of fourth graders down a hallway without screwing it up. It's laughable to me. Really, truly laughtable. Because you libs try to come off to the whole world with this facade about how smart you are and anyone who dares question moronic libearal ideas must be unintelligent and beneath you. Well thanks to your lofty liberal policies the Dow Jones closed at 8451 today. This time last year it was bumping the 14 thousand mark. Maybe next time the republicans say "hey we need to do something about this before it blows up in our face" you'll actually try to do somethnig other than block the effort.

[Deanh]

It's not a conspiracy, it's just yet another example of failed liberal policy, failed liberal ideolgoy, failed socialist agenda. Only this time the democarts managed to screw up the entire global economy in the process. Way to go Barney! Good job Jimmy! Well done Barack! You clowns couldn't lead a line of fourth graders down a hallway without screwing it up. It's laughable to me. Really, truly laughtable. Because you libs try to come off to the whole world with this facade about how smart you are and anyone who dares question moronic libearal ideas must be unintelligent and beneath you. Well thanks to your lofty liberal policies the Dow Jones closed at 8451 today. This time last year it was bumping the 14 thousand mark. Maybe next time the republicans say "hey we need to do something about this before it blows up in our face" you'll actually try to do somethnig other than block the effort.

and maybe someone, someone, would admit and partially hold the Republicans partly responsible...oh...too much to ask.....and pardon my ignorance but it is only recently that the Dems won power in the house no?....flame me Blackie...I'm ready.....PS...what is "ideolgoy" and "laughtable", "libearal" my fourth graders want to know........

[BlackHorse]

and maybe someone, someone, would admit and partially hold the Republicans partly responsible...oh...too much to ask.....and pardon my ignorance but it is only recently that the Dems won power in the house no?....flame me Blackie...I'm ready.....PS...what is "ideolgoy" and "laughtable", "libearal" my fourth graders want to know........

 

I'm sorry about the spelling errors Dean. I was typing quickly because I had to run an errand real quick so I'm flying over the keyboard to get it done and not proofing. You get the idea. But don't listen to me. Watch and see for yourself.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsynspIqAoE...feature=related

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs...feature=related

 

Now I understand there were also some things going on over at Wall Street as Bill Clinton correctly points out in that second video. Yes there are smart guys over there that figured out how to short sell and maniuplate the system to make money and the Bush Administration should have "also" been trying to do something about that. I agree with that 100%. At the core of this collapse though is the meltdown and Fannie and Freddie that has spread throughout the system. At the core of Fannie and Freddie is a democrat party that refused to do anything about the problem despite repeated warnings.

 

Now, if you can find for me evidence that shows the Republicans really didn't try to do something about this I'd be absolutely eager to see it. If the republicans are equally as culpable in this mess than by all means let's hold their feet to the fire too. Let's discuss it not as a person who leans liberal and a person who leans conservative but as two Americans who just want the truth told. This is the truth as I know it. The democrats were warned this would happen and did nothing. Worse than doing nothing they obstructed efforts to do something. Where is the fault of the republican party in this? Seriously, I want to know. I'm totally open minded here man. Let me see it and let's discuss it.

[Deanh]

I'm sorry about the spelling errors Dean. I was typing quickly because I had to run an errand real quick so I'm flying over the keyboard to get it done and not proofing. You get the idea. But don't listen to me. Watch and see for yourself.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsynspIqAoE...feature=related

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs...feature=related

 

Now I understand there were also some things going on over at Wall Street as Bill Clinton correctly points out in that second video. Yes there are smart guys over there that figured out how to short sell and maniuplate the system to make money and the Bush Administration should have "also" been trying to do something about that. I agree with that 100%. At the core of this collapse though is the meltdown and Fannie and Freddie that has spread throughout the system. At the core of Fannie and Freddie is a democrat party that refused to do anything about the problem despite repeated warnings.

 

Now, if you can find for me evidence that shows the Republicans really didn't try to do something about this I'd be absolutely eager to see it. If the republicans are equally as culpable in this mess than by all means let's hold their feet to the fire too. Let's discuss it not as a person who leans liberal and a person who leans conservative but as two Americans who just want the truth told. This is the truth as I know it. The democrats were warned this would happen and did nothing. Worse than doing nothing they obstructed efforts to do something. Where is the fault of the republican party in this? Seriously, I want to know. I'm totally open minded here man. Let me see it and let's discuss it.

$hit happens Blackie...please remember that....I do question your propensity for the republicans innocence in all this mess though....didn't they rule the house? didn't they own the deciding votes? correct me if wrong, as I know you will....but to label them as innocent bystanders is ignoring the fact that in the last 8 years pretty much NOTHING has been improved ( well National Security that we all bleat about perhaps ) deficits have doubled, and the economy is in the dunny....so, who actually is running the country?....which party of sheep does he represent? WHO SHOULD BE PRIMARILY HELD ACCOUNTABLE? And please, don't get me wrong, Ii'm on the fence between the two candidates and cannot vote anyways, however the old guy that farts dust is focusing WAY too much on our troops and the Iraq blunder, and trying to berate his opponent with smear campaigns, something touched on by Obama occasionally but generally left to the elder chap. Personally I find neither a band-aid....but I would choose the lessor of the two evils, and sorry but Bush is going to be McCains anchor......a lot of people are suffering right now, and those voters may hold a grudge.

Edited October 10, 2008 by Deanh

[BlackHorse]

$hit happens Blackie...please remember that....I do question your propensity for the republicans innocence in all this mess though....didn't they rule the house? didn't they own the deciding votes? correct me if wrong, as I know you will....but to label them as innocent bystanders is ignoring the fact that in the last 8 years pretty much NOTHING has been improved ( well National Security that we all bleat about perhaps ) deficits have doubled, and the economy is in the dunny....so, who actually is running the country?....which party of sheep does he represent? WHO SHOULD BE PRIMARILY HELD ACCOUNTABLE? And please, don't get me wrong, Ii'm on the fence between the two candidates and cannot vote anyways, however the old guy that farts dust is focusing WAY too much on our troops and the Iraq blunder, and trying to berate his opponent with smear campaigns, something touched on by Obama occasionally but generally left to the elder chap. Personally I find neither a band-aid....but I would choose the lessor of the two evils, and sorry but Bush is going to be McCains anchor......a lot of people are suffering right now, and those voters may hold a grudge.

 

That's it? That's what you got for me Deanh? I'm over here watching a movie, having some dinner and then I remember "Oh yeah, surely by now Dean has got some pearl of wisdom for me. Some incontrovertible evidence that supports his claim that the republicans are just as much to blame for the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as the democrats. Because, you know, Dean is usually so well spoken and makes good points." What was your response?

 

Shit happens.

 

Shit happens and then I guess you decided to ramble on about old men that fart dust and focusing on Iraq and who controlled the house. Anything but actually answering the question I posed and backing up your claims. Did you watch those videos at all? Have you watched the news about this at all? I'm not being sarcastic I seriously would like to know because if you had then you would know that the efforts of republicans to include the adminstration to reign in and put some regulation on Fannie and Freddie were blocked by democrats. Let me say that again. They efforts were blocked by democrats in Congress. Blocked, as in obstructed, stopped, prevented from coming to fruition. It did not matter that the republicans controlled congress at the time. There are ways that those committees, sub-committees and all that House and Senate rules apply that enabled them to block the efforts despite the republican majority.

 

If you want to make that the issue, however, the democrats have controlled congress for the last two years. I know that the issue of Fannie and Freddie was once again brought up as an order of business within that time. I believe it was even pointed out in one of those videos. So why didn't the democrats who have controlled congress for the last two years do something about this?

 

I'm serious man, I really wanted to see some evidence from you that implicated some republicans in this because it wouldn't bother me one bit to harp all over them too. Instead? Shit happens. Pure genius.

 

Does anyone else have anything that could implicate the repubs in this because obvioulsy Dean is either not up to the task or he just couldn't find anything. Anyone, I would love to see it.

 

Who am I kidding? You guys are a waste of time. Maybe you Edstock? Got anything? How about you Razor? Can you quit running on about baby boomers and other unrelated issues and provide me with some solid evidence that shows the Demcorats tried to prevent this? Serioulsy, you guys are pretty smart, let's hear it.

Edited October 11, 2008 by BlackHorse

[RangerM]

Thanks for the injection Ranger but the point of this thread was about derivatives and the effect they are having on the market. This article was from 2003 and the warning from Mr Buffet was quite prophetic as to what we are witnessing now. Of course the self appointed defender of all things Republican - Blackhorse - took it upon himself to mask it as some sort Liberal conspiracy theory to destroy our free markets and turn the US into a Socialist regime.

 

My point was to address your comments regarding Social Security privatization (partial, anyway), and your blasting of the idea of the "ownership society".

 

The first idea is a good one, and the second is a good concept; the implementation of which could be handled better.

 

I acknowledge that Bush et. al. were quite happy to take credit in 2004 for home ownership stats and it isn't lost on me that irony. However, you appear (to me) to be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

 

You are correct to blast the republicans, and Dean's observation that the republicans were in charge at the time is also correct. But I believe their inaction is more from lack of spine.

 

Even now we are told that to blame the housing meltdown on subprime mortgages is racist. I hold the republicans at fault for not telling Dodd/Frank to shove their charges of racism up their @$$.

 

I believe it's republicans fear of being labeled racist that contributed to their inability to accomplish the regulation of Fannie/Freddie that they advocated, unfortunately.

Edited October 11, 2008 by RangerM

[retro-man]

Does anyone else have anything that could implicate the repubs in this because obvioulsy Dean is either not up to the task or he just couldn't find anything. Anyone, I would love to see it.

I posted it, you ignored it. link

 

Curiously enough, Spitzer's sex for hire scandal broke less than 30 days after this editorial appeared.

[RangerM]

I posted it, you ignored it. link

 

Curiously enough, Spitzer's sex for hire scandal broke less than 30 days after this editorial appeared.

 

Retro, (I feel dumb for asking but..) who is the picture of in your posts?

 

For some reason I keep thinking J. Edgar Hoover, but I'm sure that's wrong.

[retro-man]

Retro, (I feel dumb for asking but..) who is the picture of in your posts?

 

For some reason I keep thinking J. Edgar Hoover, but I'm sure that's wrong.

Mies Van Der Rohe. I should switch it out one of these days. It used to be Craig Ellwood.