Learnaseyego Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 I'm gonna have to agree with nullArray here. There is really no one factor to point the finger. It was individuals who got in over there heads with bad decisions, miss-spending by the government (of multiple nations as nullArray pointed out, not just the US) and idiot bankers. Nice link too... helps clear things up a bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zimmer Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 It's not 100% all for global warming. That's a side effect of getting off of foreign oil. Global warming also doesn't mean that everything gets warming, climate change is more appropriate. That picture is from oism, which is a shady source. They call themselves an institute, but don't teach courses, accept students, nor an edu domain. Sketchy business..., assuming the source is accurate and we are coming out of an ice age, the worry is that it's happening too fast, not that it's happening at all. Besides, setting up internal, renewable energy sources that create jobs and less pollution can't be a bad thing..., right? Oooh, you edited to add this. It wasn't just America that didn't live within their means, it was several countries. The blame is half banks, half people. You sorta covered the people part, but the bank part is crucial. I don't want to explain it wrong, so I'd get the story, brilliantly told, here. Banks gave the money away to people who couldn't pay it back, so it's partially their fault too. ) Also for green isn't bad, I never said it was... I said that if it causes prices to go up and the only reason to buy this and not something cheaper (which would be money management nullAray what I'm saying is that this "lets become green" attitude should not be a main focus for government funds (yes it is a good goal but..) should be better money management (COs not getting 50000 trillion dollars), cheaper cars, more fuel efficient (not for green (yes its nice) but for less dependence on foreign oil and less money for gas) For not just America, I didn't want to state something I didn't know and I live in America. And to the banks great point! They shouldn't be giving money but they wouldn't have to worry about that if people were responsible and saved money and didn't depend on credit (we survived before credit cards.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h3%5kr3w Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 Learnaseyego, your AGREEING with nullArray?! j/k (office politics) no.no.no. just kidding. ok now for me to say something that adds to the conversation: wait...wait for it... crap.. I have nothing. I am just going to say that I dont have anything to add, because everybody has already said everything about it. ill just restate the obvious people who live beyond their means = fail global warming = fail cheaper/more fuel efficient stuffs = win nuff said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Learnaseyego Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 Learnaseyego, your AGREEING with nullArray?! j/k (office politics) no.no.no. just kidding. ok now for me to say something that adds to the conversation: wait...wait for it... crap.. I have nothing. I am just going to say that I dont have anything to add, because everybody has already said everything about it. ill just restate the obvious people who live beyond their means = fail global warming = fail cheaper/more fuel efficient stuffs = win nuff said. hahaha... couldn't have said it any better lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zer0cool Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 It's funny to note that the root of all evil is money, I guess it's not actually that funny. More sad than anything. L2 resource based economy I say. http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shonen Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 everything is always politics. poli = a french word meaning many tics = Those annoying blood sucking creatures. nuff said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingwray Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 Oooh, you edited to add this. It wasn't just America that didn't live within their means, it was several countries. The blame is half banks, half people. You sorta covered the people part, but the bank part is crucial. I don't want to explain it wrong, so I'd get the story, brilliantly told, here. Banks gave the money away to people who couldn't pay it back, so it's partially their fault too. Actually its all their fault. Banks with regulations weren't allowed to give more loans out than they had in deposits. But because of securitisation they didn't have the loan or the risk. That was until they started buy the securities because they "were" making money on them. It was simple supply and demand, people wanted securities, the banks provided them, no risk to the banks, create even more of them, thus give a loan to everyone and anyone who wants one. The recession spawns from this simple model. If the banks had been more heavily regulated then this wouldn't have happened and things like house prices wouldn't have spiraled up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaKo Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 Its very simple, climate change isn't just the temperature going up or down, its stuff like over fishing, pollution, deforestation and the impact of farming. Basically as a species we are converting to much of the biosphere to support one species, us. This is pushing out other species because we are much better at competing for these resources. As a result the systems that support the systems we need to survive are starting to collapse. An example of this is global fish stocks. As our species grows in number we consume more and more fish, and despite regulations we catch young fish before they have chance to breed, thus reducing the stocks even faster. We are going to have to start looking at population controls & reduction programs, GM food and more mass production before too long as without this we will suffer a population collapse. As for the finance stuff, its an old story, people thought they could move money around very quickly and that this would produce more money. The only problem is that our governments are spending the cash needed for rebuilding our actual productive capability on propping up a failed economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digip Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 Americans didn't buy houses and just walk away. Some might have, but for the most part, they bought houses, waited 3 years, then their mortgage doubled, and they were forced out from forclosure. Theres a difference. Also, the banks didn't care about the consumer because they sold their loans within the first year or so that they lent them the money, so the banks that gave out the original loan didn't lose anything, its the second and third banks that bought up the loans or partial loans split bewtween two or more banks that lost their shirt when the home owner couldn't pay. The fact that these banks got a bailout was bullshit to begin with. They fucked over the consumer, and yet the consumer is still screwed over, but the bank gets paid while still forclosing on the home owner. Aside from the fact that these CEO's are walking away with huge bonuses after getting bailout money, the banks have not accounted for 1 cent of any money they received, and that is where Obama wants to change things. He wants to put a cap on corporate spending as well as have a paper trail of all money spent and accounted for, something that was not put into the initial TARP program. Dennis Kucinich was one of the first to come forward and call for an investigation, only one month after the program started because it was obvious CEO's were getting paid, but it was business as usual at the banks with no concern for the consumer and home owners who got the loans. It would, in my opinion, have been better to pay off the loans instead of giving the money to the banks. An indpendent team of people should have went in, had these houses appraised for current market value and the remainder of what was too high of a cost should have been knocked off the price, reducing the peoples loans to pre surge price, or their original mortgage price before the 3 year or so hike that took place so that they can both pay for their house and the banks continue to get paid back. Instead, they came in and gave all the money to the banks, and not one cent went to help the consumer. As for global warming, Vako said it best, its not just about warming the planet, but the effect it has on a global scale. Drilling for more oil and continuing to be dependent on foreign oil is only perpetuating the problem. To create jobs here in the US while cutting down on our carbon footprint is a GOOD thing. It also puts money in a new work sector that is an investment in our future for new technology and new jobs. Imagine if green tech was the next big thing instead of people saying computer degrees and the IT field is the next big thing, you will need both computer skills, but also a degree in environmental science and the impact we have on the earth. Bush killed off all the programs put in place to preserve land and resources set up by previous presidents, and Obama has 60 days to reverse the so called "midnight" signings BUsh did the last week he was in office to try an open up reserved land for oil drilling and selling it off to oil companies. Obama effectively put a block for cashing any checks made by these oil companies, stating that we will not take money for land they do not own. We lost 600,000 jobs in the last month alone. That is half of all the jobs lost in the past year! If that isn't a sign that things are getting worse, then maybe you should all ellect Rush Limbaugh for president next time around so you can have yourself another Bush in office. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. If we continue to do the same thigns over and over again and spew the same rhetoric, then we're the insane ones, not the people trying to change the status quo. I for one support the money Obama is trying to spend. The republicans are going to want to debate and cry about how much is being spent no matter how big or little the amount is. Knowing that they are just trying to throw their weight around and cut in half whatever is on the table, you have to be smart enough to inflate those numbers, knowing that no matter what it is, they will want to trim it. In order to get things done, you inflate it out of proportion, get them to have their little fillibuster, then drop some stuff to get the majority of it passed. It's called politics and lets see who has the biggest penis. Only problem is, they cut too much of the stuff that in my mind should have stayed in. Just take a look what happens when politics gets in the way of progress: http://i.gizmodo.com/5148778/broadband-cut...e-the-internets http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/07/sti...cuts/index.html Partially cut: • $3.5 billion for energy-efficient federal buildings (original bill $7 billion) • $75 million from Smithsonian (original bill $150 million) • $200 million from Environmental Protection Agency Superfund (original bill $800 million) • $100 million from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (original bill $427 million) • $100 million from law enforcement wireless (original bill $200 million) • $300 million from federal fleet of hybrid vehicles (original bill $600 million) • $100 million from FBI construction (original bill $400 million) Fully eliminated • $55 million for historic preservation • $122 million for Coast Guard polar icebreaker/cutters • $100 million for Farm Service Agency modernization • $50 million for Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service • $65 million for watershed rehabilitation • $100 million for distance learning • $98 million for school nutrition • $50 million for aquaculture • $2 billion for broadband • $100 million for National Institute of Standards and Technology • $50 million for detention trustee • $25 million for Marshalls Construction • $300 million for federal prisons • $300 million for BYRNE Formula grant program • $140 million for BYRNE Competitive grant program • $10 million state and local law enforcement • $50 million for NASA • $50 million for aeronautics • $50 million for exploration • $50 million for Cross Agency Support • $200 million for National Science Foundation • $100 million for science • $1 billion for Energy Loan Guarantees • $4.5 billion for General Services Administration • $89 million General Services Administration operations • $50 million from Department of Homeland Security • $200 million Transportation Security Administration • $122 million for Coast Guard Cutters, modifies use • $25 million for Fish and Wildlife • $55 million for historic preservation • $20 million for working capital fund • $165 million for Forest Service capital improvement • $90 million for State and Private Wildlife Fire Management • $1 billion for Head Start/Early Start • $5.8 billion for Health Prevention Activity • $2 billion for Health Information Technology Grants • $600 million for Title I (No Child Left Behind) • $16 billion for school construction • $3.5 billion for higher education construction • $1.25 billion for project based rental • $2.25 billion for Neighborhood Stabilization Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zimmer Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 DIDIP OK maybe I shouldn't have phrased it as buy houses walk away but the end result was a lot houses in foreclosure and people walking away... Didn't mean to make it sound as though it happened in a day... Sorry for the mis-phrasing (<--- Is that a word?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingwray Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Americans didn't buy houses and just walk away. Some might have, but for the most part, they bought houses, waited 3 years, then their mortgage doubled, and they were forced out from forclosure. Mortgages don't double, interest rates change and that affects different types of mortgages in different ways, but it doesn't double, no where near it. The problem is they were sold a mortgage, which they could simply never ever meet the repayments on, this was because of securitisation and the person selling the mortgage was going to take none of the risk and yet still make a decent amount of money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digip Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Mortgages don't double, interest rates change and that affects different types of mortgages in different ways, but it doesn't double, no where near it. The problem is they were sold a mortgage, which they could simply never ever meet the repayments on, this was because of securitisation and the person selling the mortgage was going to take none of the risk and yet still make a decent amount of money. The total mortgage may not have doubled, but their imediate payment per month did.(Or close to double) A lot of people were misled and didn't understand the sliding scale for their mortgage payment and how much it was going to go up. On top of the fact that the banks could plainly see that if their payment went any higher they would no tbe able to make payments. I know, because I work for a bank, and they have more than enough insight to see if the borrower will be able to afford the increase. The banks didn't care because they broke up the assets and sold them off to other banks, getting their money up front, while the second adn third banks down the line came in buying up these assets only do find the borrower couldn't meet the higher interest payments. Its a combination of stupid people living beyond their means, and the banks taking them for a ride, telling them how much they can afford. I went to severl banks myself, and they all told me I could get a mortgage for 1200 a month. That wa sbefore taxes and insurance! I then went to my employer(which is a bank) and did the same thing adn they told me no way, no how with what I make can I afford those kind sof numbers! They at least were honest enough to set it straight. I went from having the credit to get a $300,000.00 home from these other lenders, to being told I only make enough for a house worht in the ballpark of $88,000.00! That is what happened to these people! They got fucked by the prospect of having the American dream, a nice big house, 2 car garage, etc, and then their bank sold it out from under them while their adjustable rate jumped and they got forclosed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nullArray Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 The total mortgage may not have doubled, but their imediate payment per month did.(Or close to double) A lot of people were misled and didn't understand the sliding scale for their mortgage payment and how much it was going to go up. On top of the fact that the banks could plainly see that if their payment went any higher they would no tbe able to make payments. I know, because I work for a bank, and they have more than enough insight to see if the borrower will be able to afford the increase. The banks didn't care because they broke up the assets and sold them off to other banks, getting their money up front, while the second adn third banks down the line came in buying up these assets only do find the borrower couldn't meet the higher interest payments. Its a combination of stupid people living beyond their means, and the banks taking them for a ride, telling them how much they can afford. I went to severl banks myself, and they all told me I could get a mortgage for 1200 a month. That wa sbefore taxes and insurance! I then went to my employer(which is a bank) and did the same thing adn they told me no way, no how with what I make can I afford those kind sof numbers! They at least were honest enough to set it straight. I went from having the credit to get a $300,000.00 home from these other lenders, to being told I only make enough for a house worht in the ballpark of $88,000.00! That is what happened to these people! They got fucked by the prospect of having the American dream, a nice big house, 2 car garage, etc, and then their bank sold it out from under them while their adjustable rate jumped and they got forclosed. You know what's up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingwray Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 The total mortgage may not have doubled, but their imediate payment per month did.(Or close to double) A lot of people were misled and didn't understand the sliding scale for their mortgage payment and how much it was going to go up. On top of the fact that the banks could plainly see that if their payment went any higher they would no tbe able to make payments. I know, because I work for a bank, and they have more than enough insight to see if the borrower will be able to afford the increase. The banks didn't care because they broke up the assets and sold them off to other banks, getting their money up front, while the second adn third banks down the line came in buying up these assets only do find the borrower couldn't meet the higher interest payments. Its a combination of stupid people living beyond their means, and the banks taking them for a ride, telling them how much they can afford. I went to severl banks myself, and they all told me I could get a mortgage for 1200 a month. That wa sbefore taxes and insurance! I then went to my employer(which is a bank) and did the same thing adn they told me no way, no how with what I make can I afford those kind sof numbers! They at least were honest enough to set it straight. I went from having the credit to get a $300,000.00 home from these other lenders, to being told I only make enough for a house worht in the ballpark of $88,000.00! That is what happened to these people! They got fucked by the prospect of having the American dream, a nice big house, 2 car garage, etc, and then their bank sold it out from under them while their adjustable rate jumped and they got forclosed. You know you just repeated exactly what I said, but I did it in 5 lines. The banks didn't care about the repayments as they didn't hold any of the risk. As securities (loans and other things packaged together and sold to other institutions) don't hold any risk for the person who sold the loan, or the person that packaged it and were making decent money from it, there was a high demand for securities, thus more loans were given out. Supply and demand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OtterFox Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 It's funny to note that the root of all evil is money, I guess it's not actually that funny. More sad than anything. L2 resource based economy I say. http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/ That's achually a great doco (the second one is better though), More people should watch zeitgeist, I've tried getting people to watch it but it seems that they would rather watch lost, prison break ect or another Hollywood movie. My 2c is that all the co-orps should all be left to die along with their bureaucratic governments and corruption. A little bit of anarchy would be a start. Although failing that...Obama seems pretty good. One interesting thing to note is how the election came so close...most Americans seem to support him, and most other countries seemed the all be gunning for Obama to win. It's almost as if theres a second half of America that no-one sees or talks to that still gets to vote (unless they gave co-orps extra votes), Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rapturestar Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 The House & Senate's version of the Economic Stimulus bill just passed today completely. Now we are waiting on Obama to sign or not. Also congress will not impose restrictions on executives' bonuses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zimmer Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Got Pork, well I guess the governess wants to through money at it... and guess who ends up paying the tax payers Joy! (that there was sarcasm encase anyone thought I was being literal) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.