A question for American friends - Politics

This is how we end up with people who hate gay marriage so much that they vote Republican even though they may hate that party's environmental record and people that believe so strongly in a woman's right to choose that they vote Democratic even though they might prefer lower taxes. There is simply precious little room for compromise or a position that represents middle ground. The slightest perceived weakness is set upon with a fervor designed to enforce artificial party boundaries.

I think that's a pretty poor couple of examples and I don't agree that there is such fervor. There are political groups that rule with such an iron fist but that is not universal. I can think of neocons and radical christians as two examples but I have a hard time finding something comparable on the opposing side.

This sort of alliance with one side or another is inherent in humanity. You see it in Mac vs. PC and Nikon vs. Canon here. People just can't realize they aren't members of a team; they have to choose sides even when there aren't any sides. People aren't happy unless they identify the enemy and they're easily manipulated for that reason. No one knows that better than the Republicans.

This sort of alliance with one side or another is inherent in humanity. You see it in Mac vs. PC and Nikon vs. Canon here. People just can't realize they aren't members of a team; they have to choose sides even when there aren't any sides.

Now Craig, I'm perfectly happy to shoot on either Nikon or Canon, but in all honesty I get more pleasure out of shooting Leicas. Where does that leave me I wonder?

Politically speaking, I am most certainly voting for the UK's Monster Raving Looney Party (yes it really does exist and actually fields candidates), if that is they field a local candidate. At least they can't be as daft as the alternatives, and if they are, well, they were honest about it.

... UK's Monster Raving Looney Party (yes it really does exist and actually fields candidates) ...

Along those lines ... did "Jedi" become an "official" religion in the UK? I remember a few years ago there was a survey ... and if enough people (some threshold %) indicated that their religion was "Jedi" it was going to become "official" ... and there was a small campaign to get it through ...

Did it happen? Am I getting my facts wrong?

EDIT ... found my answer ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_census_phenomenon

I think that's a pretty poor couple of examples and I don't agree that there is such fervor. There are political groups that rule with such an iron fist but that is not universal. I can think of neocons and radical christians as two examples but I have a hard time finding something comparable on the opposing side.

 

This sort of alliance with one side or another is inherent in humanity. You see it in Mac vs. PC and Nikon vs. Canon here. People just can't realize they aren't members of a team; they have to choose sides even when there aren't any sides. People aren't happy unless they identify the enemy and they're easily manipulated for that reason. No one knows that better than the Republicans.

Well, my poor examples are only from my experience. I didn't make them up; I actually know those people. Perhaps my view of the fervor is artificially enhanced by my geography -- I'm in DC after all. I do miss Austin and it's toned down sensibilities. And Celis, before Miller bought them out .

You're right about one thing, though. The most effective of what pass for politicians these days understand human nature and take full advantage of it.

Mike

"here" was a poor choice of words on my part. I should have said "amongst photographers".

Well, my poor examples are only from my experience.

I said that because gay marriage and taxes are issues that Republicans use to "fire up the base". There are gay-friendly Republicans, environmental Republicans, pro-choice Republicans, and tax-and-spend Republicans. It's more perception than anything.

The melting North Pole-hugging country north of 45 will have a federal election on October 14... most boring and useless election the country ever had. Only good thing about it: It'll be over on October 15 and we will then be able to concentrate on the really interesting election, i.e. the US Presidential race.

Politics are the same everywhere; let's simply hope that whoever wins the next one will be able, with the help of the right people, to fix the mess that has been going on for some time now.

I'd hate to be in the shoes of the next President, GOP or democrat, it will be a heck of a job to manage an ailing economy, a monstruous deficit, a useless war (Irak that is) while trying to make life better for a majority of Americans. Fortunately, this country has incredible resiliency.

Buckminster Fuller was probably thinking about the fall of 2008 when he wrote: Politicians are always realistically maneuvering for the next election. They are obsolete as fundamental problem-solvers.

JB for President

Michel Gilbert

Living only 35 minutes away from the future Republic of Vermont!

Along those lines ... did "Jedi" become an "official" religion in the UK? I remember a few years ago there was a survey ... and if enough people (some threshold %) indicated that their religion was "Jedi" it was going to become "official" ... and there was a small campaign to get it through ...

 

Did it happen? Am I getting my facts wrong?

 

EDIT ... found my answer ...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_census_phenomenon

Obi Wan never told you what happened to John Bantin.....

.....The jedi are no more my young apprentice- Once more the Sith doth rule the Galaxy.........

Soon this forum will experience the full power of the dark side of the force-

And you will all pay the price for your lack of vision........

I posted this here because it's the only forum I subscribe to that has an American public.

 

 

Why don't you elect statesmen like Nancy Pelosi to be President instead of the succession of cowboys you seem to get landed with?

When the world is full of outlaws that would rather kill you than negociate with you, a cowboy makes sense. On a side note I found it rather interesting that the Democrats really had a slam dunk going into this election if they would have only put Hillary on the ticket. I found it curious that rolled the dice with Obama. It seemed a rather arrogant attitude that declared "it doesn't matter who we put on the ticket, we'll win". So now they have a race on their hands. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

Methinks thow art trolling

Methinks thow art trolling

oops....after swallowing the hook thoroughly I suppose I could hope for John's conservation side to win out; moreover, to cut the hook and throw me back.

I'm actually quite amazed at how many people I've heard say, "Screw the market, screw my 401(k), we shouldn't bail out a bunch of criminals." Shocking, really

I'm not sure what's amazing about this. The last time W and the democrat leadership ran around saying if we didn't act now the sky would fall we purchased ourselves a nice little plot of land in the middle of a 4000 year old battle. Fool me once....

Gawd, I miss Clinton, at least on his watch the only thing getting blown was mostly him

I'm not sure what's amazing about this. The last time W and the democrat leadership ran around saying if we didn't act now the sky would fall we purchased ourselves a nice little plot of land in the middle of a 4000 year old battle. Fool me once....

Just so you know - not saying you are wrong - but ...

That's what people said in 1929 in this country and in 1989 in Japan.

The treasury plan does not "bail out fat cats" ... it is an attempt to create a market. It does not recapitalize the system - it relies on the market to do that once the "spark" from the program lights the market pilot light.

More liberal plans - like those proposed by Paul Krugman - would have the US taxpayer actually recapitalize the system and under some proposals redistribute taxpayer wealth to home owners who are likely to default.

A Krugman-like plan would likely cost $1-3 trillion and have a significant portion of the banking system nationalized.

Paulson's plan doesn't pick winners and losers - it just creates a new market for illiquid asset-backed securities ... and it may not work as it assumes private capital steps in to re-equitize the banking system.

Here's the difference in a nutshell ... think of a balance sheet - it can stand in for the whole financial system or one particular institution ...

Prior to the crisis (say January 2007), the total assets were 100. 95 "good" assets and 5 "questionable" assets bought for 5. The Liabilities are 95 - 80 in deposits and 15 in debt ... leaving equity of 5.

The crisis hits, and the market collapses for these "questionable assets" ... most of which are AAA+ and never supposed to default ... but the perfect storm hits and housing craters and they start losing value. Merrill sold $30 billion worth at 20 cents on the dollar.

So ... no we find ourselves with these questionable assets written down to 1 on the balance sheet. That directly hits equity ... which falls from 5 to 1. Now the bank/system is under severe stress and highly over-leveraged. It needs to sell those assets AND raise new equity.

Under the Paulson plan, we buy those assets from the company for 1-2 ... leaving it STILL undercapitalized and the hope is that private capital steps in and takes the bait.

Under a Krugman-like plan, we buy those assets from the company for 4-5 and get back warrants/equity/ownership in return ... and the bank is recapitalized, except the Federal Government now owns 80% of the company.

The Krugman plan would be WAY more expensive and would truly be socialism and represent the nationalization of the banking system. We have already effectively nationalized the biggest insurer (AIG) and 50-75% of the mortgage market (Fannie and Freddie). Do we really want to nationalize the banks, too?

That's the choice as I see it.

The last time W and the democrat leadership ran around saying if we didn't act now the sky would fall we purchased ourselves a nice little plot of land in the middle of a 4000 year old battle. Fool me once....

It's getting worse. GWB says we are on the edge of a financial catastrophe. No one believes him. He has zero political capital to convince members of his own party. He has zero credibility. Leaders of Congress join in the chorus for saving us. No one believes them. JB's favorite stateswoman goes on a rant before the big vote. The plan goes down in flames; 40% of her own party votes no. She is either a weak leader, or a cunning deceiver who sabotaged the vote. I'm still not sure which.

Her rant blames Bush's deficits as one cause of the mess. The new plan adds another $100 billion of tax relief, pushing the total to $800 billion, which will increase the deficit. The Bush plan went from 3 pages to 110 pages. It is now 450 pages. Tucked away in the tax provisions is a landmark health care provision demanding that insurance companies provide coverage for mental health treatment—such as hospitalization—on parity with physical illnesses. Price tag? A paltry $3.8 billion. It includes continued tax breaks for manufacturers of wooden arrowheads for children. (Sorry plastic arrowhead manufacturers) This is how we do things in the U.S.

One headline I loved, "Congress lives up to its 10% approval rating"

Bush will sign anything that passes.

On a positive note, France is pushing a European 300 billion Euro bailout fund. Misery loves company. Democracy, the worst form of government, except for all the rest.

It's getting worse. GWB says we are on the edge of a financial catastrophe. No one believes him. He has zero political capital to convince members of his own party. He has zero credibility. Leaders of Congress join in the chorus for saving us. No one believes them. JB's favorite stateswoman goes on a rant before the big vote. The plan goes down in flames; 40% of her own party votes no. She is either a weak leader, or a cunning deceiver who sabotaged the vote. I'm still not sure which.

 

Her rant blames Bush's deficits as one cause of the mess. The new plan adds another $100 billion of tax relief, pushing the total to $800 billion, which will increase the deficit. The Bush plan went from 3 pages to 110 pages. It is now 450 pages. Tucked away in the tax provisions is a landmark health care provision demanding that insurance companies provide coverage for mental health treatment—such as hospitalization—on parity with physical illnesses. Price tag? A paltry $3.8 billion. It includes continued tax breaks for manufacturers of wooden arrowheads for children. (Sorry plastic arrowhead manufacturers) This is how we do things in the U.S.

 

One headline I loved, "Congress lives up to its 10% approval rating"

 

Bush will sign anything that passes.

 

On a positive note, France is pushing a European 300 billion Euro bailout fund. Misery loves company. Democracy, the worst form of government, except for all the rest.

And the smart, rich guys will be getting richer. Warren Buffet's buying up a bunch of stuff at a premium. Isn't capitalism awesome. Again, the worst form of economic system, except for all the rest.

The crisis hits, and the market collapses for these "questionable assets" ... most of which are AAA+ and never supposed to default ...

 

Do we really want to nationalize the banks, too?

I've never heard defaulted mortgages referred to as AAA+ assets before. You must be a banker with something to sell.

Until you explain what caused the crisis to "hit" and what created the massive amount of bad mortgage debt you aren't going to get to the root cause or an effective solution. Until then, why cast aspersions on the "Krugman plan" (as if there were one). I'm all for nationalizing certain banks, namely the one that creates and controls our money.

Craig: I'll email you a pretty funny cartoon that explains this all in laymans terms - including how a fund full of bad debt can get a AAA rating.

Cheers

James

I am totally against the bailout plan. However, if I can get on it, I might change my mind!

Craig: I'll email you a pretty funny cartoon that explains this all in laymans terms - including how a fund full of bad debt can get a AAA rating.

 

Cheers

James

The real danger is what will push through in the name of expediency. May be you remember the S&L debacle of the 80’s. The result was federal government intervention and regulation i.e. “fair value” or “mark to market” evaluation of assets requirement. There was a provision in the “bail out” bill to remove this restriction that was struck down. Not to worry, the SEC has issued new guidelines that you can drive a truck full of pork bellies through that basically nullifies the fair market requirement in violation of FASB and GAAP guidelines.

The SEC's announcement of additional guidance: http://email.aicpa.org/cgi-bin15/DM/y/ecoe0VUPFM0GSt0lmE0Ea

Frequently Asked Questions about Fair Value Accounting: http://email.aicpa.org/cgi-bin15/DM/y/ecoe0VUPFM0GSt0lmF0Eb

Letter from the Center for Audit Quality, an AICPA affiliate, to Congress and the SEC: http://email.aicpa.org/cgi-bin15/DM/y/ecoe0VUPFM0GSt0WIF0Ee

Craig: I'll email you a pretty funny cartoon that explains this all in laymans terms - including how a fund full of bad debt can get a AAA rating.

 

Cheers

James

James, the thing I object to is "most of which are AAA+ and never supposed to default". Bad loans are never AAA+ assets. They may be disguised by liars and cheats but that's another matter. That statement suggests that loans that aren't supposed to fail are failing and contributing to the snowball. That's untrue. The comic was great, though.

I wasn't actually asking for an explanation. What I'm saying is that bad loans are not the entire story. I have a good idea what the other half of the story is, but we as ordinary citizens aren't going to be allowed to know for sure. Banks don't all collapse at once because people default on their mortgages; something is happening that is pushing these bad loans to the surface. Banks are required to maintain a fractional reserve and it's important to know what is going on there.

Who's been profiting recently through oil futures? High crude oil prices are the result of cornering the market on futures. It wouldn't surprise me at all if these two events are linked.