The best threads rhyme, I’ve always believed that, nice job bondguy!

Gas prices keep dropping, thank god for Obama!

It’s time to end divisiveness and come together.

  No.  Why do I want to 'come together' with people who hold views that are 100% opposite to those that I believe in?  People whose prinicples and morals are abhorent to me and who I believe are about to destroy the economy and bring our society crashing down around us.    I think not.

“coming together” is why McCain lost the election. He was too much down the middle. We should have had a real conservative who stuck to his/her guns. That would have fired up the GOP and the independents. We may not have won, but at least we would have given it a real try.

  McCain was just too nice to Obama during the debate, and during the whole campaign.  Voters are like chicks, they say they want a nice guy, but they really want a tough guy.

 It’s interesting that those who don’t have wealth usually attribute it to “bad breaks” or the “odds being against them”.

  Those who have wealth attribute it all to their hard work, good morals, and astute intellectual capabilities.   The truth is that part of it is controllable and part of it isn't.  Soem people do have bad breaks.  Other people have good breaks.  We want to take credit when we have favorable outcomes and avert blame when things go wrong.  If you don't believe this read the statements of CEO's of some of the failed firms.   Wealth distribution is something to be feared.  So is cronyism and nepotism.    Cowboy capitalism is macho and fun but tends to break down over time.  Maybe some of the 20 year brokers have a hard time seeing this because they're so ingrained with the system.  There eyes are open but they don't really "see" any more.   Why should they see??  The super wealthy don't share the same risks.   Maybe they buy an Audi instead of the latest Mercedes.  Perhaps they can only vacation one week in Hawaii instead of two.  Truth is in the eye of the beholder.

[quote=glass man] It’s interesting that those who don’t have wealth usually attribute it to “bad breaks” or the “odds being against them”.

  Those who have wealth attribute it all to their hard work, good morals, and astute intellectual capabilities.   The truth is that part of it is controllable and part of it isn't.  Soem people do have bad breaks.  Other people have good breaks.  We want to take credit when we have favorable outcomes and avert blame when things go wrong.  If you don't believe this read the statements of CEO's of some of the failed firms.   Wealth distribution is something to be feared.  So is cronyism and nepotism.    Cowboy capitalism is macho and fun but tends to break down over time.  Maybe some of the 20 year brokers have a hard time seeing this because they're so ingrained with the system.  There eyes are open but they don't really "see" any more.   Why should they see??  The super wealthy don't share the same risks.   Maybe they buy an Audi instead of the latest Mercedes.  Perhaps they can only vacation one week in Hawaii instead of two.  Truth is in the eye of the beholder.[/quote]

[quote=Johnny Roast Beef][quote=glass man] It’s interesting that those who don’t have wealth usually attribute it to “bad breaks” or the “odds being against them”.

  Those who have wealth attribute it all to their hard work, good morals, and astute intellectual capabilities.   The truth is that part of it is controllable and part of it isn't.  Soem people do have bad breaks.  Other people have good breaks.  We want to take credit when we have favorable outcomes and avert blame when things go wrong.  If you don't believe this read the statements of CEO's of some of the failed firms.   Wealth distribution is something to be feared.  So is cronyism and nepotism.    Cowboy capitalism is macho and fun but tends to break down over time.  Maybe some of the 20 year brokers have a hard time seeing this because they're so ingrained with the system.  There eyes are open but they don't really "see" any more.   Why should they see??  The super wealthy don't share the same risks.   Maybe they buy an Audi instead of the latest Mercedes.  Perhaps they can only vacation one week in Hawaii instead of two.  Truth is in the eye of the beholder.[/quote] [/quote] There's your answer to the Warren Buffet thing in the other thread. 

Spaceman Spiff:

[quote=greyhairedbrker][quote=buyandhold]Greyhaired broker, I’m really not trying to flip or argumentative here. But these firms made ridiculously bad investments, got the mother of all margin calls and would have gone under if they hadn’t run to Washington for billions.
Maybe that was the best thing, maybe not, but at least the financial services industry ought to acknowledge that it screwed up big time and has no beef with wealth being passed around to other people in the wake of this disaster.

You grossly simplify the circumstances, then distort the solutions. This problem was in no small part the result of government intervention and as to the solution, you talk as those money was just given, no strings attached, no payments expected, as is the case with the wealth transfers our president elect has called for.[/quote]   Isn't this the chicken and the egg argument?  Jimmy Carter decides decades ago that he wants everyone to live the American dream and passes the Community Reinvestment Act which, for the first time in history, forces a bank to lend money to people who really aren't a good risk.   Non compliance with this act brought down the scorn of groups like ACORN and crippled some banks ability to function as they would like.  It would cost the banks money to comply and to be non compliant, so they were pretty much screwed.  But that was just the seed that was planted.  Fastforward 15-20 years and you have Clinton reviving the same concept and creating even more liberal loaning rules, thus pouring fertilizer on that little seed that Carter planted years ago.    Couple this with a booming housing market, artificially inflated because any Joe six pack could get a loan (especially if that six pack was a 40 oz Colt 45), and you have tons of people thinking they can flip houses, own several homes, etc because money was cheap and easy.  Why pay principle?  Interest only is the way to go.    Of course anytime Wall Street can make money, they can and will.  So, the creation of MBS and other similar investments became the way to go.  So, now you have Wall Street making money on an loans that banks were basically strong armed to make to people who really couldn't afford to own the things they do.    So, who's to blame?  Wall Street for making money?  Carter for wanting everyone to be able to own a home?  Clinton for picking up where Carter left off?  President Bush because he didn't put a stop to it?  Or is it Joe Six Pack who borrowed more than he could afford to  pay using a lending instrument he didn't really understand?    So why shouldn't Wall Street be bailed out by the Feds?  Aren't the Feds the ones who got them there to begin with?    [/quote]     Spaceman you are absolutely spot on, we are just now paying for what Carter and Clinton did.  You can almost pinpoint this entire subprime mess we are in to an exact date, when Clinton made a presidential address, stating that we are going to make housing affordable to all Americans.  10 years later we are now paying the price for irresponsible government.    Then Obama has the nerve to run a campaign on the Bush administration having lax regulation in the finance industry and pushing all of our current economic crisis off on the Bush administration, when in all reality it was the democrats and Clinton that put us in this mess.  The worst part about this entire situation is you have more than half a country that are not smart enough to figure this out on their own and listen to Obama.    For the life of me I don't know why McCain didn't bring this up during the debates, I would have loved to see Obama try to cooly talk his way out of that one.  McCain ran a terrible campaign and we are going to have to pay for his failure for decades to come.  What Obama will do to this country will take decades to fix.  I just hope that our country keeps voting records, and after his tenure is over ensures that anyone who so much as cast their ballot for Barrack Obama not be in any type of Political position ever again.  We shouldn't even let these people be on the PTA.    A vote for Obama is a vote against everything our founding  fathers sacrificed for.  Our founding fathers came to America to escape a socialist monarchy where everything down to their religion was dictated to them.  Now, we vote a President into office that wants to dictate; our Health Care, where we send our kids to school, the life of an unborn child, what cars we buy, our entire way of life. 

So it was the CRA and not the CDS or horrid lending standards that got us here.  OK!?

  http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/10/why-lending-sta.html

No, it was a combination of them all.  What the dems are doing though is trying to blame the Bush administration for the whole mess.  Nevermind that this has been brewing for 20+ years now.  It’s Bush’s fault.  Nevermind that people bought more house than they could afford using a mortgage instrument they didn’t understand.  It’s Bush’s fault.  Nevermind that we have a negative savings rate in this country.  It’s Bush’s fault.  Nevermind that Wall Street did what Wall Street does and takes risks to make some money.  It’s Bush’s fault. 

  That's what the general public has been hearing from publications like the NY Slimes, from people like Katie Couric, and from...Hail to the Chief playing in the background (with more of an R&B sound than before)...president elect Obama.    And they believed it.  But, don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.  Or a presidential election.   I was at a Jones function a few days ago sitting across the table from a guy who actually said that he believes Obama will have the most positive impact on this country than any president since JFK.  I almost puked. 

Yes, I will agree with that.  None of this is Bush’s fault. 

The fault ultimately rest with the individual who won't promptly pay the obligations that they agreed they would.  To me that is the bottom line.  If you pay your mortage, the banks get their capital back, and they don't have huge capital outlays for CDS.  Well capitalized banks mean business as usual.  Now, I also have to fault the institutions for not monitoring their underwriting.