BF2S Forums DAST Chat

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

No, you were decrying giving money to the " evildoers" who you think caused the problem to begin with--bankers.

Well, they did cause a lot of the problem.

Second, their businesses failed. Giving money to failed businessmen so their companies can avoid bankruptcy and they can continue drawing salaries and bonuses is madness.

The government effectively bought the banks and retained the failed execs on the payroll, seems beyond stupid to me.

The government has gotten the majority of those loans back, with interest.

Just as with any other businesses, they needed capital infusions to continue, and they received them from investors. Those investors were the taxpayers...who have received a positive return thus far.

And many/most of those execs found other work, IIRC.

The bulk of the problem was government intervention, not the banks doing what they wanted to do. Forcing lending practices that made no sense. We've been over all this before...but you keep "forgetting."

Arguing with some religious folks on another forum. It's like talking to a brick wall. They profess a deep love of freedom in one breath and in the next breath denounce 'liberalism' and argue for the return of prayer in school. So... frustrating.

A formation of Harrier jump jets has made its final journey from HMS Ark Royal - the last such flight from a UK aircraft carrier for about 10 years.
The Harriers, heading to RAF Cottesmore in Rutland, will be decommissioned in 2011 and replaced by the F35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft.

-Both the Ark Royal and the Harriers are being scrapped under cost-saving plans.

-The crew of the 22,000-tonne Ark Royal, which has seen active service in the Balkans and 2003 invasion of Iraq, lined the decks to watch the historic departure.

-A group of former Royal Navy admirals have suggested scrapping the Harrier force and HMS Ark Royal could leave the Falklands open to attack - a claim denied by ministers who insist the UK will still be able to defend the islands

Buying JSF's is a money saving decision? I guess the difference is made up in the maintenance/operation cost.

Dilbert_X wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Arguing with some religious folks on another forum. It's like talking to a brick wall. They profess a deep love of freedom in one breath and in the next breath denounce 'liberalism' and argue for the return of prayer in school. So... frustrating.

Don't bother, you're going to hell anyway.

Also, Obama's the antichrist.

Dilbert_X wrote:

The government has gotten the majority of those loans back, with interest.

So? No doubt many other bankrupt businesses would be able to recover given multi-billion dollar loans.
Since when were bailouts a cornerstone of capitalist policy?

When the government provides capital, it's called a bailout. When private investors provide capital under the same conditions, they are called investors or venture capitalists. Note the word that keeps cropping up: capital.

No doubt if other businesses were considered that important to the national economy, they would be considered for investment. Some were. And didn't make the cut.

Dilbert wrote:

Very few of those execs have moved in fact.

Not sure that is a fact.

Dilbert wrote:

The bulk of the problem was government intervention, not the banks doing what they wanted to do. Forcing lending practices that made no sense. We've been over all this before...but you keep "forgetting."

There is nothing to forget, the govt manipulated the mortgage system, what they didn't do was force the merchant banks to repackage those mortgages as toxic collateralised debt obligations and then stand the global financial system on top of them.

Many of the basic mortgages were crap, bankers spreading said crap on Doritos and marketing it as caviar on water biscuits to investors was the real problem.

The government forced poor lending practices through crappy legislation (CRRA). Fannie & Freddie Mac had massive problems that theBush administration tried to reform, but was blocked by Congress from doing so.

Companies tried to make lemons out of lemonade with mortgage backed securities. Strangely enough, a government agency (the SEC) was asleep at the wheel, there, too. And you seem to think the solution to the problem is more government? They caused the problem at every turn.

So...yeah. Plenty for you to repeatedly "forget."

Dilbert_X wrote:

The thing is, investors use their own money to try to make more money. They don't rescue failed businesses out of the goodness of their heart.
This is not the same thing as the govt using taxpayers money to prop up a company solely because letting it fail would damage the economy.

It's about investment goals and objectives. Not all private investors invest to make more money as their primary goal. Not all private investors invest solely with their own money, either. Institutional investors invest with $billions of other peoples' money all the time.

Dilbert wrote:

The govt did not in any way cause the CDO problem, they failed to notice it was a problem or that t carried huge external risk, this isn't the same as causing it.

Failure to do their job was a contributing factor to the larger problem. Had they done their job, the CDSs wouldn't have been approved or gotten as prevalent as they did.

Plus these come with a brand new carrier. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Queen_Elizabeth_(CVF)?wasRedirected=true

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Failure to do their job was a contributing factor to the larger problem. Had they done their job, the CDSs wouldn't have been approved or gotten as prevalent as they did.

Since when was it the business of the government to meddle in commercial risks taken by privately owned merchant banks, or legislate on what paper products people can buy and sell?

Since always, when it comes to the SEC. It's called regulation, Dilbert. Thought you were all gay for that...

I disagree. Different situations require different policies. You don't drive 70 mph all the time.



That isn't to say we are doing it right though.

Dilbert_X wrote:

The thing is, the US needs to pick a philosophy and stick with it.

Free market: Businesses which do well should be allowed to keep their profits, those which fail should be allowed to die - the government or other companies can pick over the bones.

Regulated market: The government tightly regulates the market, if the system fails the govt can provide bail-outs to keep it all stable since the govt bears some responsibility.

Pick one and stick with it.

What you have at present is a hybrid which fails. The banks keep their profits in the good times and the govt prevents them taking losses.

Hybrids actually tend to work better than models that are strictly dogmatic.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Well, they work better for the bankers thats for sure.

More than bankers profit under those systems.

Yet another fact you conveniently forget when you troll.

It looks like ICE which is a division focused on immigration/customs. .. not that it makes it any less confusing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-11839816 excactly what I would expect these creeps to look like