BF2S Forums Islamic banks 'better in crisis'

lowing wrote:

Onidax wrote:

lowing wrote:

Sorry, we didn't have a problem until democrats decided a home was a right and not something work for and earned.

+1 karma for being so stupid yet being capable of operating a keyboard.  Americans are too party oriented, most of you fail to look at the policies. I think both major American parties are crap so consider me impartial. But if you for one moment think that this fuck up started since Obama took office your crazy. Bet you weren’t bitching about the Bush bailouts.  Bailouts will fail regardless of party. Do try to bear in mind that all these bad loans were made under someone else’s watch. I’ll let you figure it out.

I am not party oriented, I am a conservative with libertarian leanings. I do not have opinions based on party lines. My opinions are what I believe. It just so happens liberals and all their welfare state govt. dependancy bullshit represents everything I do not approve of.

I also do not think this starte under Obama, this started long before his stupid ass took office http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act


Acually if you read my posts during the initial baillouts, I was very much opposed t oany govt. interference.

regardless, thanks for the karma.

JahManRed wrote:

lowing wrote:

Nope, I would think since you know I have posted consistently that I am against ANY govt. bailouts for ANY companies, that you would recognize that I hold companies equally as irresponsible for their actions as I do consumers for theirs. SO you are wrong in this accusation.


Lawyers seeking blood money pretty much goes without saying. It is the consumer that unleashes them is what I am talking about. Now please disagree with what I said regarding this and greed

Ok, point taken. So we agree that the consumers and the companies all acted irresponsibly. I know your against big government. But surly you can admit that this greed was allowed to perpetuate under government and should have been controlled with legislation by the previous administration? That is governments job after all. To accommodate a strong balanced economy and protect consumers from the corporations and vise versa.

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:

You find greed in all layers of society lowing, the consumer, the investor, the company head, the company owner ... no difference what so ever ... and that universal greed is what caused the finacial crisis ... reinvestment act or any other act was just a tool for greedy people to misuse ... just like a gun don't kill people, people kill people ... the act itself didn't cause the crisis ...

Yet for some reason you want to thump the companies only and pat the consumers who fed them with fause promisary notes on the ass and tell them it is ok it is not your fault you are a jack-off. This is why I have stated repeatedly NO BAILOUTS FOR ANYONE! Or are you going to deny that this has always been my position.

You have always been wrong on this issue so no I don't deny that this has always been your position ...

I'm not going after the companies alone lowing but they are most often the professional part and should know better ... I'm not particularly for bailouts either, however these are special times and special steps needs to be taken ... some receive bailout that doesn't deserve it and some are actually going out of business that deserves a bailout ... it takes only one irresponcible company to make several others go bankrupt or finds themselves in a position where layoffs are needed because outstanding money is lost ...

lowing wrote:

As stated, the cause of this was precisely due to govt. interference in the free market. Not a lack of it.

Totally wrong, mechanisms put into the market that lacked proper regulation is amongst the things that caused this ... without that regulation the greed took over ... several of us has explained this to you in detail so many times now I'm amazed you still have the same believes ...

Free market can't be 100% free lowing ... that's very common knowledge and you really don't have to know economic mechanisms very well to grasp that ...

lowing wrote:

1. Companies are not responsible for your spending habits. It is debt taken and not paid off that caused this. Consumers not paying their debts owed to companies who in turn can not pay their debt is the problem and the reason shit fell apart. Democrats at gun point forcing banks to give loans to people who do not deserve them ( govt. interference) caused this.

lowing wrote:

2.Consumers control the market place, not the govt. WE set the prices for goods and services, not the govt. WE decide who stays in business and who folds, NOT the govt. Your solution to put dead companies on life support is awaste of tx payer money. Period. Let them die and let the market regulate itself once again

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

Yet for some reason you want to thump the companies only and pat the consumers who fed them with fause promisary notes on the ass and tell them it is ok it is not your fault you are a jack-off. This is why I have stated repeatedly NO BAILOUTS FOR ANYONE! Or are you going to deny that this has always been my position.

You have always been wrong on this issue so no I don't deny that this has always been your position ...

I'm not going after the companies alone lowing but they are most often the professional part and should know better ... I'm not particularly for bailouts either, however these are special times and special steps needs to be taken ... some receive bailout that doesn't deserve it and some are actually going out of business that deserves a bailout ... it takes only one irresponcible company to make several others go bankrupt or finds themselves in a position where layoffs are needed because outstanding money is lost ...

lowing wrote:

As stated, the cause of this was precisely due to govt. interference in the free market. Not a lack of it.

Totally wrong, mechanisms put into the market that lacked proper regulation is amongst the things that caused this ... without that regulation the greed took over ... several of us has explained this to you in detail so many times now I'm amazed you still have the same believes ...

Free market can't be 100% free lowing ... that's very common knowledge and you really don't have to know economic mechanisms very well to grasp that ...

1. Companies are not responsible for your spending habits. It is debt taken and not paid off that caused this. Consumers not paying their debts owed to companies who in turn can not pay their debt is the problem and the reason shit fell apart. Democrats at gun point forcing banks to give loans to people who do not deserve them ( govt. interference) caused this.

Consumers control the market place, not the govt. WE set the prices for goods and services, not the govt. WE decide who stays in business and who folds, NOT the govt. Your solution to put dead companies on life support is awaste of tx payer money. Period. Let them die and let the market regulate itself once again

2.

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

1. Companies are not responsible for your spending habits. It is debt taken and not paid off that caused this. Consumers not paying their debts owed to companies who in turn can not pay their debt is the problem and the reason shit fell apart. Democrats at gun point forcing banks to give loans to people who do not deserve them ( govt. interference) caused this.

Correct in theory ... but when companies "tricks" you into taking on a mortgage you can't afford saying you can afford it then the company is to blame, not alone of course but they did target a group of people that didn't know better and they did it purely to make money of a group that otherwise would not have borrowed that kind of money ... they where stupid to trust someone they thought was helping them ...

It's way to easy blaming all this on one badly regulated act alone ... it's way more complicated than that lowing ...


Also correct in theory and in a market that is normal ... the crisis we have now is not normal ... a lot of companies is now on the brink of folding because of events they could never have foreseen ... some companies deserves to die but the problem is the entire group they belong in is about to fold and if we let that happen the crisis will only get worse ... much worse, regrettably we need the very same companies that deserves to die to restore the market ...

1. I find it mind boggling that you contend a person making 1500 a month could not possibly know they could not afford a mortgage of 1000 a month. and should not be held accountable for it. Regardless, I maintain all parties involved should fold. I pay my bills, I should not be held accountable for the stupidity of others, or the company that did business with them

2. This cris is only made to be a desaster by democrats wh oview it is a golden opportunity for power grabbing  and money grabbing to set up their dream welfare state. Nothing more. The economy from I have read was already starting to show signs of improvment before the stimulous, which is why Obama had to get it pushed through quickly, before it was too late.

It's true the economy had a slight sign of improving ... that is also quite normal between the drops in a bear market like this ...

You should read some books on basic economics and how it works, it really doesn't take much to grasp the basic economic mechanisms ... even the wiki on the great depression is a good read to enhance your understanding ...

Varegg wrote:

What you can read in the papers and what you can learn by reading a book is two different things lowing, you obviously get the headlines but you sure don't get the how and why ... you don't understand the basics of how economy works, that shines through very well in the way you post about this ...

And please read and adress the whole sentence, not just parts of it like you just did ...

The economy showed signs of improvement, you know what a sign is? ... it did not improve however ...

In the kind of bear market we have now the market is on its way down ... once in a while it will show a little improvement but that is just a short spike before it continues further down ...

Bull and bear market are two terms you should familiarize yourself with ...

Bear market

A bear market is a steady drop in the stock market over a period of time.[4] It is described as being accompanied by widespread pessimism. Investors anticipating further losses are often motivated to sell, with negative sentiment feeding on itself in a vicious circle. The most famous bear market in history was preceded by the Wall Street Crash of 1929 and lasted from 1930 to 1932, marking the start of the Great Depression. A milder, low-level, long-term bear market occurred from about 1973 to 1982, encompassing the stagflation of U.S. economy, the 1970s energy crisis, and the high unemployment of the early 1980s.

Prices fluctuate constantly on the open market. To take the example of a bear stock market, it is not a simple decline, but a substantial drop in the prices of the majority of stocks over a defined period of time. According to The Vanguard Group, "While there’s no agreed-upon definition of a bear market, one generally accepted measure is a price decline of 20% or more over at least a two-month period."

Bull market

A bull market tends to be associated with increasing investor confidence, motivating investors to buy in anticipation of future price increases and future capital gains. In describing financial market behavior, the largest group of market participants is often referred to, metaphorically, as a herd. This is especially relevant to participants in bull markets since bulls are herding animals. A bull market is also sometimes described as a bull run. Dow Theory attempts to describe the character of these market movements.

India's BSE Index SENSEX was in a bull run for almost five years from April 2003 to January 2008 as it increased from 2,900 points to 21,000 points. Another notable and recent bull market was in the 1990s when the U.S. and many other global financial markets rose rapidly.