Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
I never give money to homeless people. I can’t reward failure in good conscience.
and gain some money this way, then we should not have sympathy for utterer as he would have 'failed' to keep his money
It's like a script brainstorm for wall street 2.
since they are the most responsible for the global economic crisis.
I didn't ask for a $multi-trillion bailout and none of the people I know have.
since things in my country have not been 'going well' for 20 years now.
The average person looks after their own, and we're entirely ignorant-- in the innocent sense-- of the complex financial systems which caused the crash.
To turn round to someone when the shit hits the fan and say: oh, you shouldn't have bought that house, big telly and car, you've contributed to ruining the financial system, is an absurd proposition.
People can only be blamed for their personal debt (i.e. credit cards, loans, etc.), not for the sprawling and whimsical financial system which bankers (and not just bankers) have driven to bust, thus causing the general public a massive ballache (to put it mildly).
We took out the loans and the mortgages in the end.
It is not the customers fault for being granted such a loan. The bank must reject if it knows the applicant will not be able to pay it back, yet they have chosen otherwise. And instead of suffering the consequences of their bad business decisions (going bankrupt) they got bailed out, which created a massive moral hazard situation, where banks can do whatever they want and never fail because they will get a tax payer funded bailout.
But in the end it does come down to individuals WANTING things.
then the gov and its institutions would attempt to stop me from getting it too easily.
If I wanted to punch someone who deserved it, the government and its institutions would attempt to stop me from that, or would attempt to deter me
If I wanted to persuade an old deaf senile lady to give me all her goods for nothing or little in return then one would hope that the government and its institutions would try to stop me.
If I wanted to drive my car at 150 mph on an open motorway then the government and its institutions would try to stop me (although bizarrely they would do nothing to discourage me from buying a car that could do so)
'Want' is not the same as need, and the government does and perhaps should regulate whether wants are encouraged or discouraged
Because Wall St could package it up into CDOs and make it a triple A rated, high yield security. All of the bang you get with a high risk bond, but apparently, none of the risk.
NINJAs. No Income No Job No Asset loans. I'm serious. Wall St wanted more and more and more of these securities and that means more loans. Whilst Wall St didn't tell them to issue crappy loans, they kept demanding more and more product and offering more and more money ('warehouse lines' is the technical term) by way of credit to mortgage issuers. The US financial regulation system was and is an absolute clusterfuck and if Obama doesn't sort it out and clean house a little he deserves to lose the election.
and watch this.
Of course an unscrupulous banker is gonna take advantage of a lax financial system if it means they get a bigger paycheck, but the point is that a) they didn't have the scruples to say no to giving out loans/morgtages when they knew it would be damaging, and b) they and others conspired to prevent the kind of regulation which would've made those types of high-risk deals illegal (the government is not blameless here also). In fact, they're still conspiring to do so!
If people take out mortages that they could never feasibly afford, it's generally because they've been fooled into believing they can, not because they desire to eventually go bankrupt.
had savings in banks, they would have still needed to be bailed out, because they would have use all that money, like they did with the bailout money, to waste it away on the market by engaging in derivatives, CDS (Credit Default Swaps) and other shit that even most of them don't understand.
If the banks hadn't got caught up in the CDO bubble they wouldn't need bailing out. But the CDO bubble was created (mostly) by loans and mortgages made in the US. The problem was that risk evaluation went out of the window - junk was getting packaged up into triple a which was then spliced again and re-rated triple a.
But it is not possible to categorically say 'this was all the bank's faults' because in the end the banks were to some extent providing what people and governments (who were elected by people) wanted.
for the isightful economic analysis, Alan Hutton.
A lot of it was refinancing, which was yes, mis-sold to people by unscrupulous types. But there were plenty of people who thought they were cleverer than the system and remortgaged counting on continually higher house prices in order to flip their homes.
I am not saying the banks are innocent. Far from it. They weren't and they deserve the bulk of the blame. But so many criticisms of this forget that people want to be homeowners, they want to have new cars and they elect governments that promise to help them do so. That's a pretty big root cause to ignore.
We all wanted stuff and we wanted it NOW and for free.
Governments turned a blind eye and the banks tried to cash in.
Blame the bankers alone if you want, but the whole world went along for the ride
I've never even had a credit card, let alone a loan from a bank of any description, even overdraft. So please could you change your post to say 'everyone but we_blew_it wanted stuff now and for free'. That's slander, that is.
being older I could see this, because I did apply for a mortgage on a property when I was very young, and worked with many builder tradesmen, the land itself was worth the asking price and the house was just tired and was screaming to be turned into flats, I wanted to live in one and rent the others (at a cheap rate to people of my choosing, I had a bricky, chippy and sparky willing to help, I had worked with them on other peoples houses and helped on their own projects (I did painting/decorating and replaced tiles and also replaced/fixed any high up woodwork or pointing or cornacing. I was the young lightweight monkey, we sort of sub worked out of a brick/tile transport yard in a village and thus I also had access to cost only materials, and transport. Did the lend me any money (secured against the property where the land alone was verified as being worth the asking price and the house was structurally sound? No, they didnt, even though they had assurances from the supplier of materials that they would front the cost of those and the electrician/plumber, brickie and chippie all were in at cost only and were willing to defer till rent came in.
THAT brought home HOW sober the banks were in late 70's
and everyone KNEW and EXPECTED not to get credit.
THEN THINGS changed and ther gov was one of the influencers that emphasised that they thought things should change...the conditions that gave birth to the yuppie were fostered and encouraged and eulagised by many politicians.
Estate agents and mortgage providers were happy to create a housing bubble between them (Yes it was them not individuals....individuals (even thiose wanting to be property speculators) still tended to deal in small numbers, estate agents and mortgage providers therefore had a larger influence and ability to either hold back or encourage the housing bubble......individuals did not have that ability because they do not work in unison, they are by definition INDIVIDUALS.
Estate agents and mortgage and loan providers on the other hand belong to associations and groups, and are both ultimately controlled by and their activities can be governed by their bodies and by government.
So please people can we stop saying that individuals are as much to blame.....how can they be, they do not act in unison, they are subjectto the tides of reality that are out there.....banks and property agents are in associateion and can be regulated by gov so that the conditions and factors influencing peoples choices can be controlled by what is on offer.......individuals cannot control this, is this really so difficult to understand?
Governments and chartered associations are paid to administer and steer stuff so that things do not get out of hand....thats meant to be their f***ing job, thats what they are paid for......not to allow shit to happen then throw their hands up in the air and say 'well its nothing to do with us, thats what people wanted' .....government prevents many of us from doing 'what we want' for the good of the whole (in theory) so why on earth do some people here try to level the same degree of culpability on poorer people who have (on average) got an iq of 100, when the people in banks and gov and financial admin will have considerably higher iqs and are meant to be responsible for thwe strategic economic health of their companies ansd members and their people/country
jeezlouize.....and the whole world did not go along for the ride, some were enthusiastic, others got cajouled into it, others were frightened into it ("get your foot on the rung of the property ladder, there wont be any council housing in the future you know, its all being sold off").
Which does bring us to the last culprit in all of this
The media.......now the last time i looked, people have to be 'fit to be a newspaper propriator' and you certainly have to be 'fit' to be entitled to radio or tv broadcast.
were all regarded as 'expert' in a way that the ordinary person did not believe themselves to be.....and being as most people did not have thjeir own 'financial adviser' or 'legal adviser'
they relied on these supposed knowledgable institutions for advice or guidance.
Media/gov/finance can all command very large salaries and the people DO have power and respect (or did) (still do...just cos you might not doesnt mean othjers dont)
this unholy triumverate also has access to the relevant bigger pictures on all matters in a way that individuals cannot cos trhey onlyu have their own pov.......therefore the individual does not see the ultiomate destination of doom......it might not make sense to them, but everyone else is doing it and the gov/media/finance hasnt given any contra indications, they all give the nod of approval, where previously they might have erred on the side of caution......so although they dont understand it people take on credit, cos it now seems tht we have entered into a new world, a new world where people could not hark back to the good old days and just manage to afford a normal modest house on 3 times their annual salary in their job for life......things change, people reluctantly accept that they do, and because they dont understand where it is going they should get pointers from the media/finance institutions/ the gov
anyway thats enough ranting again, but seriously why is everyone so keen to criticise the individual? I actually did try to P*** all over peoples ridiculous expectations during the false optimism and hope of the bubble hyper inflation years, but i had to accept that those that did not listen were not evil, they were not totally culpable (although it woould have done my anarcho squatter cred no end of good if i took this approach)....no I had to accept that they were having their expectations/aspirations manipulated/controlled/influenced by circumstances (and in turn others who werent as influenced initially were then turned by the herd) .....circumstances that were controllable by the media/gov/financeinstitutions.
Humans are not 'guilty' for having generalisations to their human character, and govs should seek to help human populations to not sucumb to what are ultimately harmful practices to the population in the long run.
Unless I have got the wrong idea about responsible leadership/governance?
(and the longest I have ever seen!)
for the typos, but i feel a bit spent after doing really big posts
I had to try to say it all in one post because this whole 'well everyone else is as much to blame as well' schtick seems to have gained a momentum and ordinary people are not touting the line, I bet the actual players (from media/finance/gov) are pi**ing themselves laughing, that the ordinary people themselves are blaming the ordinary people as much as the bankers/experts/gurus/govs, it must add an extra frisson to the truly amoral scum at the top who despise those who do not seek the success that they aim for.
(see what I mean about my typos?)
there's been a lot of very unpleasant stuff doing the rounds lately, particularly on facebook, that we should somehow feel automatically grateful to those who decide upon success, same old same old I suppose.
* people are NOW touting the line ....is what it should have said
Utterly not buying the 'it was our fault for wanting things' line, and having people posting as apologists for banks/lender/gov't etc is pretty saddening.
My original sentiment stands: http://drownedinsound.com/community/boards/social/4317566#r6497173
change LordLuciousBanter or Lemonbrickcombo or Raanraals (or others) minds a bit, though........
and people in positions of power can influence the conditions that can encourage or discourage this facet of human nature (did you not get that from my post?)
ordinary people are not (on average) nearly as knowledgable/educated in these matters as those in financial institutions/gov/media (did you also not pick up on this in my post?) and many people in financial institutions were rewarded more when more people did more high risk stuff, the people who work in financial institutions therefore (overall) emphasised the benefits and ignored or played down the risks with regard to the public (overall effect) thus some of those in he financial institutions were rewarded as a result of encouraging less knowledgable people to ake riskier options, they did this by misrepresenting the risks and consequences, they managed to convince the majority of people (whose average iq is 100 ...you surely do not dispute this?) by means of the fact that the public think those in financial institutions and media and gov are more expert in financial matters and advice.........what is it that stops you from accepting this?
If the greed of individuals is responsible for the global economic crash then how do you explain economic booms? Are people not greedy during these periods? Or is there another mechanism at work?
I do and always have blamed the deregulation and greenspan as well.
I do mention 'gov' quite frequently in the above big post.
You seem quite evangelical in your wish to blame human populatuions for having an aspect which is called greed.....yet i think that we all know this can exist.....do you believe that govs/institutions should not try to protect people from this aspect? or do you believe that it is right that the banks and gov act like the serpant offering eve the apple of credit.....to test human kind, tio see if they are worthy, so that if they fail you can smirlily say that they deserved it?
I really cant see what your crowing about people being greedy they deserve it schtick comes from, why do you want to see people hurt or miserable? why wouldnt you want the gov/banks/media to protect people from their own excesses?
why are you tolerant of people who should know better (gov.finance/media) offering temptation after temptation and encouragment of people to be greedier? how can you not be angrier at the gov/media/finance (the experts) than the people (the herd, if you like) If people do have herd like instincts then do you despise herds so much that you think they have some original sin?
Are you, or were you a christian?
I think that your mistake is that you are applying the criticism that you would like to level at an individual, and ignoring the fact that so many individuals did it, that it is probably part of human make up, and thererfore criticism at the individual level is not as applicable as understanding the reasons for the herd behaviour and then (as gov) making sure that the herd doesnt stampede off a cliff.
Do you not think that the gov/finance/media should protect the herd from running over the edge of the cliff?
Banks and financial institutions DO have input to the govs direction though, its not conspiracy, it is understandable, just like it is understandable that ex chancellors and finance ministers go on to work at banks/financial institutions
aha so the gov and finance experts and media have managed to misrepresent the situation to you as well?
You see, it is easy to be as deluded as the herd, because you also trust their opinion, yet you blame the people for trusting the steers that the gov/media/finance gave to people over credit.....why? why is it ok for you to be convinced by the media/gov/fianance but not those who took out credit?
How have you come to the conclusion that 'the crisis will be over' in your lifetime? Have you calculated this? or have you looked at the faces and demaenor and words of gov/finance/media experts and found that you can find a group of them to believe in, where the nice pretty scenario you mentioned (crisis over) is portrayed/espoused.
suggest, to the level where culpability for them would be full, because although they are taught the same things as everyone else is taught in the state, they are not encouraged to develop independant thought, or thought that can think outside of the system that they have been taught, therefore they cannot trust themselves to think for themselves without defering to experts if the experts seem to be offering opinions and advice.
Because... IT'S MOO-TUAL!!!!
how the risks and consequences were "misrepresented". And that's a pretty key part of your argument.
that the risks and consequences were misrepresented ?
CDO's, CDS, derivatives, etc. are not harmful in any way to the economy, yet now we know that in fact they are.
They said that the bets they placed on Wall St. were not risky, yet they almost collapsed because of those bets and had to be bailed out with $trillions.
creaky is talking about and absconding from any and all responsibility for contributing to the credit bubble.
I was railing against the usage of the mentioning of individuals being partly responsible for the economic catastrophe.....well they are not....they may be partly responsible individually for their own circumstances, but they are not responsible for the mass trends that caused the collapse.
People have been mentioning personal greed in the same sentence as bankings responsibility and gov responsibility, and this is not a fair or accurate representation as the proportion of blame is vastly different.
It is also pointless for even trying to say that it is down to people being personally individually greedy....UNLESS You want to regulate to mitigate against that, in which case fine go ahead......but then one must ask, why were there not regulations to prevent this? well because they were deregulated...by whom? the people? no.
so unless you are happy with just saying yeah humans are s*** then it is pointless to blame individuals.
On the other hand we can blame things that we should be able to influence, i.e. govs and banks and media, because in a democracy that is what you are meant to be able to do, and that is why we have political discourse.....if you just want to say 'yeah people are greedy and s***, human nature sucks' then fine go ahead and do it, but unless you then go ahead to examine what regulation might help then it is not a political argument, it is just vitriol.
Why was the regulations and guidelines that were abided by the mortgage lenders removed? why did they allow people to behave irresponsibly (where before the mortgage lenders had always put the brakes on risky lending? ...why? did the people do it? did they? what individuals did this? huh? go on answer that? I dare you
There's not enough specificity in your root-cause identification and you're talking as if the "financial deregulation" that occurred was absolute, which is clearly utter nonsense. What "misrepresentation" are you talking about?
a) are individuals responsible for the MASS trend of unsustainable credit bubble?
b) are the conditions that create a majority proportion of human population moving towards mass unsustainable debt, controllable by individuals outside of banking/finance/gov/media?
c) where does the capability to control the factors that lead large numbers of people into mass unsustainable debt, lie if not in gov/banking/finance/media?
Or to put it as Baldrick would say, how did we go from a position where it was difficult to borrow money to do things and you could only borrow a small amount against property which had maintained a stable price which was therefore sustainable and realistic and where what you had borrowed was sobermeasured against what income you had, to a position where people could get credit where even rudimentary checks would have shown that it was unsustainable?
also on this matter, although you might maintain that it is the buyers responsibility not the loaners responsibility (I only have anecdotes of the misrepresentation and bad sales patter) surely it is the loaners responsibility when they shove these into buckets and then start trading in them without doing proper reconcilliation against what is coming in and going out (like you sell some duff stuff to bank x, then you know that bank x has toxic stuff, but your bank y, does not take that into account when you then do other trading with bank x.....surely reporting the security of your debts and credits should be honest and to the best of your knowledge (which should seek to not be ignorant and you should seek to not make it so complex that it is opaque to you)
that last one was question d by the way, and i have written it in a very very small window display so i apologise if it doesnt scan
Successfully ignoring this post...
but I just couldn't resist.
that Cameron should be put to death, or words to that effect. This is comparatively minor really.
where would you *very broadly* put yourself on the political spectrum? (Aware this is a silly question). I've always kind of wondered.
cause I don't want to fund a three week vacation in Hawaii for a major label scumbag suit on his $million yacht.
Gotta problem with that?
not gonna get massively drawn in, but I would rather bands and musicians got the money they deserve for my enjoyment of their record. The cut they get may not be big enough but you don't solve that problem by illegally downloading. Don't shag for chastity.
As Pete Townshend said- 'Musicians deserve to be heard, judged and paid'.
I live in Serbia, where the average salary is 300 euros and a average CD is 20 euros. I don't have another choice than to DL. I do feel bad when I DL independent label albums that for the most part are not available in my country, but when it comes to major labels, I view then in the same way as I do big banks, as greedy scumbags.
Being poor ain't a valid excuse to steal.
They're greedy, so that excuses your greed in stealing something you can't have now.
And you said the crisis was only the banks' fault too. Figures. Just another product of our globalised NOWNOWNOW not my fault culture
No, Lloyd Blankfein (CEO of GS) needs a good beheading for what he and his cronies did to Greece.
#1: The white board in the conference room looks likes Fermat's Last Theorem. #2: Erase it just in case it was the janitor.
#1: Whenever I see a black guy with my last name, I can't help but wonder if my family used to own his.
And they wonder why the whole world hates them.
but it wouldn't surprise me if it was true, since we are talking about people who think that they are ''doing God's work''.
Yep. That's all I've got for this thread.
Are those actual submissions from Goldman Sachs workers sent to that email address listed in the account description, or is it someone making it up? I'm more inclined to believe the latter but it isn't clear.
Answered my own question: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/08/12/meet-the-goldman-sachs-employee-behind-gselevator/ They are submissions.
As horrible as it is hilarious.
Can we please stop calling them 'hipsters' and go back to calling them 'pussies?'
so many terrible human beings