southsider2k5

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 16, 2008 -> 01:22 PM) Uh, how about that editorial you posted? The headline: Chuck Schumer Causes $1.3 Billion Run on IndyMac: Bank Failure Results From the article: So I'd say that the poorly-written op-ed you posted, the article that started this whole debate, said exactly that. The editorial did, not any person on here. My point was that members of Congress shouldn't be speaking ill of individual businesses and industries for political gain.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 16, 2008 -> 12:17 PM) You know, this is kind of a remarkable window in to how badly weakened the regulatory environment in this country got over the last few years. The Fed is, starting October 1, going to slap some new "Regulations" on the mortgage market. The amazing thing to me is...how in the world were these things not already required? So, we're operating in an environment where the Fed rules say that mortgage lenders can compare different loans without actually comparing them, where they could get around disclosure rules by running ads in Spanish, and where there were no rules requiring any verification of income for a sub-prime loan...and we wonder how in the world people were able to take advantage of this system? Hence the failure of the regulatory system we have in place now. People who are directly benefiting from the way these regulations are written are making a direct cash influence on the people making the laws. It needs to be done completely separate from the Congress, which is why this umbrella should fall to the independant Federal Reserve Banking system. All of the individual government entities that exist need to be rolled into one group that oversees our entire financial system so that regulations can be clearn and cohesive as you move from one sector to another. So that they can be complimentary instead of contradictary.

QUOTE (Middle Buffalo @ Jul 16, 2008 -> 12:04 PM) This is exactly how I feel. When my wife made the arrangements, she apparantly forgot that we have three kids under 10. Now that the trip is inevitable, I'm looking for things to do in the immediate area to make it fun. We're driving from Mesa, AZ, so I think we'll stop at the Hoover Dam on the way there or back. We may take a less direct route back and hit Lake Havasu (for London Bridge - though hopefully I'll see a few "Girls Gone Wild"). We'll walk the strip a little at night, but kids can only walk so far before they start moaning. We'll hang out at the pool some, and my wife and I will probably take turns going to the casinos - unless we can get one of those girls from the cards that the illegals hand out to baby-sit. What I'm looking for here is things to do that don't include the casinos. I'd be willing to drive an hour and a half or so off the strip if there's anything worth doing. I don't expect this to be the typical Vegas roadtrip. Even when we get back, when asked, I'm pretty sure I won't be able to claim that I've ever been to Vegas. Red Rock Canyon has great hiking, climbing, and camping. Plus is has a great driving trail. http://www.redrockcanyonlv.org/ Its was my favorite part of my second trip. Plus it's only about a half hour outside of Vegas.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 16, 2008 -> 11:55 AM) and so also chuck schumer is the only one to blame for our banking collapse, now, right? Before in here it was the consumers fault for taking on loans they'd never be able to pay back, but now, that a democratic senator can be blamed, it is his fault then, oi? Again, no one said this was all Schumers fault. I'd love to see the person that did.

QUOTE (jackie hayes @ Jul 16, 2008 -> 11:04 AM) I'd be interested in the data, if you have them. IMB reported that in the two days following the comments, $100 mil was withdrawn, and then said that on Monday, withdrawals were "substantially lower" (or something like that, I don't have the exact quote in front of me). Shortly before Schumer's comments, the ratings on IMB's bonds were lowered, and on Tuesday a policy group report was issued that blasted IMB's mo. A little later, IMB laid off half its employees. The bank was losing money and its mortgage default rate had exploded, and all this was public knowledge. It was already little better than a penny stock. Yet you think IMB's only problem was Schumer's comments? Quit putting words into people's mouths.. Where did he say that their ONLY problem was Schumer?

not to mention a joke from 20 years ago... Ah, yes, these are the winds of "change".

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jul 16, 2008 -> 10:01 AM) Oil is now down 15 dollars from its high. Did we see the top, or is this just momentary correction? All of today's numbers were bearish (increased supply, refining, coupled with decrease in demand). From a techincal trading standpoint, a close under 135 and change is a very good sign for consumers.

FYI WSI is getting to the fields at 1 PM to warm up and practice. If people want to get up there that early, feel free.

QUOTE (SoxFanForever @ Jul 16, 2008 -> 07:48 AM) Traded for the right to switch draft picks? Seriously? We could have beaten that if we really wanted him. C'mon now. They aren't under the salary cap and couldn't have done that type of a deal.

QUOTE (jackie hayes @ Jul 16, 2008 -> 08:54 AM) The cost of the loans certainly was accounted for. I said the government would absorb bank losses. I wasn't assuming any particular interest rate on the loan; everything I said holds for an interest rate of zero, even. And the opportunity cost is the interest expense, which I pointed out -- any "something else" that the government wants to do can be done with borrowed money, so the cost is the interest on that loan. You seem unable to understand the notion that the government can borrow money ("the banking money which is truely disappearing until the banks maybe repay most of it"), but, no, really, it can. We are talking about the cost to the federal govt. A loan (albeit on unfavorable terms) to Fannie and Freddie leaves the government with an asset, an outstanding loan. Iraq war spending on services leaves the government with no assets, obviously. The same is true on spending on goods, although you have to be careful with the numbers (goods that are unused should not be accounted for as Iraq war spending). From an accounting perspective, that money is GONE. Your economics is wrong too (but the part on the troops), but that's neither here nor there. The fact is, the cost of the bailout isn't going to even approach $1 trillion, nor the cost of the Iraq war, and nothing you've said has refuted that. Expected tax receipts aren't an asset? Geesh, there is really no point. You are going to believe whatever you want to believe, and really aren't going to listen to anything else, and just make up the rest.

QUOTE (jackie hayes @ Jul 16, 2008 -> 08:57 AM) Because you don't plan on listening to anything that doesn't agree with what you already believe. But I'm glad you finally gave that speech about how regulation is bad. Awesome. I'm glad your reading skills are as good as your economic skills. I never said regulation was bad, I said the way we regulate wasn't working. I would love to see where I said regulation itself was bad. When an institution has a self-interest in how something is run, and lots of time their re-elections depend on whose skids they are greasing, the system doesn't work. I would love to hear your case for how we are doing things now is working. I have said forever that the system where we have a regulating body for each piece of the financial sector which is completely disconnected from the others doesn't work. It has led to a needlessly complex and overburdening system complete with contradictatry rules as you move from sector to sector. Those posts you can find all over the buster.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 11:34 PM) Get drunk and start a fight club at union station. Thats what I normally do. Watch out for the sleeping homeless chicks...

QUOTE (mreye @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 08:57 PM) Please tell me you're not comparing New York pizza to Chicago pizza. Bite your tongue, mister! ^^ Even the resident Hoosiers know better than that... Now catstup on a hotdog is a different story...

Vegas is somewhere to go once, but I didnt' really feel the need to go again after that. The second time we went was paid for, and I had more fun in places like Red Rock Canyon than any of the strip stuff. I definately wouldn't take any kid under 18 there.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 04:21 PM) Another question, where was Schumer and the Senate banking committee when this problem was developing? Asleep at the wheel, as usual. And this is the government we are going to trust with covering all these companies? greeaaat The simple answer is exactly where they should be... clueless. The Congress has no business worrying about banking, finance, trading, or any of the other things like this that they oversee. Our financial system is way to complex for these politicians to understand. It really needs to be under the arm of the federal reserve bank to regulate these sectors, not Congress. We don't need a committee for each of these and a regulating body to match. It is a waste of manpower, and all you have to do is look at recent history showing this regulating bodies asleep on the job to understand this. There is way too much partisian interest here for these groups to be managed correctly. Look no further than an idiot like Chuck Schumer not understanding that it isn't a good idea to talk about a specific bank failling. In the 11 days after he opened his yap, depositors took $1.3 billion out of IndyMac. Don't tell me he didn't have an effect on them going under. That is the reason guys like Greenspan, Paulsen, Bernanke and company measure their words and talk in general terms! They know that their words move markets. Congressmen are too busy worrying about the 30 second soundbyte to care about the effects of what they say. Congress needs to be stripped of all of their responsibility and oversight for our entire financial sector, as they just can't handle it.

QUOTE (jackie hayes @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 03:30 PM) The point I was making was about the final cost of the bailout. When the money will be recouped (in this case, only partially), the cost is less than the financing. We are not saying, Here's a trillion dollars, Fannie and Freddie, have fun! We're saying, here's a trillion dollars (say) cash. We expect it back, except for the amount that you lose on the mortgage. So if we loan $1 trillion to the pair, and the default rate is 10% (phenomenally high for prime mortgages) and the rate of recouping defaulted mortgages is 30% (phenomenally low), then the cost will be $1 trillion * .1 * .7 = $70 bil. This is just the fundamental notion that an outstanding loan is an asset. Which you certainly understand, but you're trying to obfuscate the real question. As for not having the money to spend once it's out, first, that has nothing to do with what I was saying about the actual cost of the bailout. And second, of course you can. The government is certainly capable of borrowing money now, and a $70 bil change in its net position, while it's certainly a lot of money, is not going to change that. Additional interest costs should be considered, then, but you're still nowhere even remotely close to a $1 trillion cost. The Iraq war, on the other hand, will cost in the trillions. And that's money that's not coming back. If you want to go into second and third levels of costs, that isn't right on either account. First of all you know there is more to cost than just getting the money paid back. There are all of the set costs of what the banks are going to lose that we are going to absorb. There is also the opportunity cost of not being able to use that trillion dollars for something else, just like the Iraq War. We are most likely also losing money on the loans themselves because I doubt we are taking the money from somewhere else. We are borrowing the trillion from someone, and loaning back to the banks for a smaller interest rate with almost certianty. Then we are hoping they pay it back eventually. Until then that trillion dollars is gone. It is a cost until that loan is repayed. Remember mortgages are a 30 year commodity. Secondly when you can't make a narrow assumption of the banking money showing up eventually so that is OK, but the Iraq War money just disappearing, which is pretty much economically impossible. In fact a case could easily be mad that the war spending is good for the economy as well. That money isn't just going into a void. It is being spent mainly on defense contract, which provides some of the highest paying jobs in the country. People need to build all of those tanks, bullets, etc. All of the troops over there are getting paid. All of the jobs they left at home are getting filled by people who might not have them in the first place. You can go into the multiplier effect there as far as you want. The idea that they money isn't "coming back" is laughable. That money is a lot more relevant in the current economy than the banking money which is truely disappearing until the banks maybe repay most of it. The multiplier effect is lost here because this is money just to cover the money that has already been lent out.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 03:32 PM) I still strongly believe that the primary reason that violence has decreased is because moqtada al sadr has called for a cease fire. My personal belief that it is political. He's waiting until the US elections are over. Once the US starts to pull out, he'll open the war again. If we stay, he'll start the war again in retaliation for us staying. I strongly believe the "surge" is a minor and coincidental event. The real story is moqtada al sadr. Whatever it is, Obama will now be able to say he was for it before he was against it...

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 04:35 PM) Considering that the government keeps refusing to let them fail...that's probably true. I could still see them heading in a downwards direction for at least another year or more though, because I still think we're still only in the opening act of the housing bust. Look at the stock prices. The only place down they can go is bankrupt.

So of course this is the next natural move... http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/pos...jk1ZWE3NmM3YTI=

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/pos...GIzNDExM2Y3ZWI=

QUOTE (jackie hayes @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 02:54 PM) Yes, it comes from somewhere. But you are saying that once it's spent, it vanishes. Which is wrong. No money vanishes once it has been spent, unless someone is leaving it in a matress somewhere. But once we lend it out, we can't spend it or lend it out again.

Great article! Thanks for sharing.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 02:18 PM) He was actually a Frick award finalist like a year or two ago and I think he'll get that eventually. Like him or not, he's been an institution on the south side for decades now. Really. No green needed for the first post. I really believe Hawk will be an MLB Hall of Famer for his broadcasting career.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11750.html

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 15, 2008 -> 01:28 PM) ??? Cuz I'm not losing my house? I was following up until that point. I'm fine on my mortgage payments so I'm not affected by it, but I still have to pay for $4 gas regardless. You'll feel better to know that you and I will be paying for the people who weren't quite so judicious in their homebuying skills.