Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Screwing with our economy

Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 11:38:56 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
"our" economy? Silly collectivist, property is for individuals.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 11:44:13 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 11:42:20 AM, Frodobaggins wrote:
The economy is a collection of a societies transactions in the briefest definition.

What's screwing with it?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Frodobaggins
Posts: 602
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 11:46:34 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 11:44:13 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/21/2010 11:42:20 AM, Frodobaggins wrote:
The economy is a collection of a societies transactions in the briefest definition.

What's screwing with it?

There is a link; it links to an article. Read the article; then discuss the article.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 12:46:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
If banks can't give loans to high-risk groups, even with higher rates of interest, the "working poor" and those without a stable employment will not be able to obtain a loan for their house. This bill harms the poor more than others.

Also, with less new loans, the money supply will contract, meaning deflation and unemployment.

God bless our new economic policy.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 12:57:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 11:46:34 AM, Frodobaggins wrote:
At 1/21/2010 11:44:13 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/21/2010 11:42:20 AM, Frodobaggins wrote:
The economy is a collection of a societies transactions in the briefest definition.

What's screwing with it?

There is a link; it links to an article. Read the article; then discuss the article.

again, are you referring to Obama screwing with our economy? Or to the traders that drive the value of the stock market?

I'm all for "taxing" the banks that received aid, though I wouldn't call it a tax. If they provide money for us, and we don't pay it all back what would they do? Take our house (if it was a mortgage), garnish our paychecks, charge fees and high interest. When they get a loan from the people or government, I'm fine with the government getting paid back.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Frodobaggins
Posts: 602
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 1:04:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 12:57:20 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/21/2010 11:46:34 AM, Frodobaggins wrote:
At 1/21/2010 11:44:13 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 1/21/2010 11:42:20 AM, Frodobaggins wrote:
The economy is a collection of a societies transactions in the briefest definition.

What's screwing with it?

There is a link; it links to an article. Read the article; then discuss the article.

again, are you referring to Obama screwing with our economy? Or to the traders that drive the value of the stock market?

I'm all for "taxing" the banks that received aid, though I wouldn't call it a tax. If they provide money for us, and we don't pay it all back what would they do? Take our house (if it was a mortgage), garnish our paychecks, charge fees and high interest. When they get a loan from the people or government, I'm fine with the government getting paid back.

Clearly I'm referring to Obama's misguided policies which you clearly didn't read thus why you posted this garbage.

"Barack Obama announced new limits on the size of risks taken by the biggest U.S. banks.

The president proposed prohibiting commercial banks from trading for their own accounts, and he proposed prohibiting banks from owning or investing in hedge funds."

This has absolutely nothing to do with paying back loans.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 1:06:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
This has absolutely nothing to do with paying back loans.

And the tax announced before doesn't either, as most of those targeted already paid back their share of those 'loans'.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 1:09:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Hold up, hold up!

The tax isn't about paying back loans - its about paying for insurance after-the-fact. The rational is that the stimulus package was an insurance package that the banks got but never paid for beforehand - this tax will make them. I made the mistake of thinking it was for paying back loans as well - it isn't.
Frodobaggins
Posts: 602
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 1:10:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 1:09:29 PM, Volkov wrote:
Hold up, hold up!

The tax isn't about paying back loans - its about paying for insurance after-the-fact. The rational is that the stimulus package was an insurance package that the banks got but never paid for beforehand - this tax will make them. I made the mistake of thinking it was for paying back loans as well - it isn't.

This thread is not about any tax at all sweet jesus people stay on topic
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 1:11:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 1:10:38 PM, Frodobaggins wrote:
At 1/21/2010 1:09:29 PM, Volkov wrote:
Hold up, hold up!

The tax isn't about paying back loans - its about paying for insurance after-the-fact. The rational is that the stimulus package was an insurance package that the banks got but never paid for beforehand - this tax will make them. I made the mistake of thinking it was for paying back loans as well - it isn't.

This thread is not about any tax at all sweet jesus people stay on topic

Oh, I just followed matt's post - I haven't seen the OP article. It doesn't load for some reason.
Frodobaggins
Posts: 602
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 1:11:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 1:09:29 PM, Volkov wrote:
Hold up, hold up!

The tax isn't about paying back loans - its about paying for insurance after-the-fact. The rational is that the stimulus package was an insurance package that the banks got but never paid for beforehand - this tax will make them. I made the mistake of thinking it was for paying back loans as well - it isn't.

That rationale itself is also poorly guided as the interest rate on a loan is the "BS insurance payment" that Obama is referring to.
Frodobaggins
Posts: 602
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 1:12:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Oh, I just followed matt's post - I haven't seen the OP article. It doesn't load for some reason.

Stocks were plunging today after President Barack Obama announced new limits on the size of risks taken by the biggest U.S. banks.

The president proposed prohibiting commercial banks from trading for their own accounts, and he proposed prohibiting banks from owning or investing in hedge funds.

At 3:19 p.m. ET, the Dow Jones Industrial Average ($INDU) had plummeted 215 points, or 2%, to 10,388. The Nasdaq Composite Index ($COMPX) was down 24 points, or 1%, to 2,267, and the Standard & Poor's 500 Index ($INX) had lost 21 points, or 1.9%, to 1,117.

"We should no longer allow banks to stray too far from their central mission of serving their customers," Obama said in a White House address, calling the proposal the "Volcker rule," after former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, with whom Obama met before the announcement.

"If these folks want a fight, it's a fight I'm ready to have,"
Frodobaggins
Posts: 602
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 1:33:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Come on surely we have Obama lovers in this forum who are just jumping with golly at the idea of taxing "big business" to death for absolutely no reason.

Bring it on, I want blood.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 1:36:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 1:33:58 PM, Frodobaggins wrote:
Come on surely we have Obama lovers in this forum who are just jumping with golly at the idea of taxing "big business" to death for absolutely no reason.

Bring it on, I want blood.

I'm not a fan of it, to be honest. If there were any tax that would be viable, it would be the bonus taxes that the British are installing. This one though, paying for a non-agreed-to insurance package, is a little draconian. Sure, it makes sense when you think about it, but it doesn't make it right.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 1:43:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Obama need 2lrn2economik.

1. Corporations don't get hurt by taxes.
2. Consumers and shareholder do get hurt by taxes.
3. The banks will simply increase consumer costs while reducing the value of equity, at a time when banks are already under-capitalized.

^ That's as simple as it gets.
Frodobaggins
Posts: 602
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 1:49:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
It doesn't make really any sense to me at all. The entire definition of insurance is to insure against. If you don't insure ahead of time then you don't have insurance.

What happened was a loan plain and simple. Interest was paid which is never done on an "unpaid, unagreed to insurance package"
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 2:31:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 11:42:20 AM, Frodobaggins wrote:
The economy is a collection of a societies transactions in the briefest definition

A society doesn't have a transaction. One individual has them with another individual.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 2:44:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 2:31:54 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/21/2010 11:42:20 AM, Frodobaggins wrote:
The economy is a collection of a societies transactions in the briefest definition

A society doesn't have a transaction. One individual has them with another individual.

Or with a company. Like buying a casket from Wal-Mart.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 2:45:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
True nuff. Which consists of a transaction that one entrepreneur has with one stockholder, hen another stockholder, so on and so forth.

But you don't wind up with a society :)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 2:48:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 2:45:46 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
True nuff. Which consists of a transaction that one entrepreneur has with one stockholder, hen another stockholder, so on and so forth.

But you don't wind up with a society :)

Oh, I never supported the idea of "societal transactions". Even if a mass of people were to chip in to buy something, that's simply a lot of individual transactions to whomever is ultimately buying, and then from that person to whomever is being bought from. :D
Frodobaggins
Posts: 602
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 3:24:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 1:12:41 PM, Frodobaggins wrote:
Oh, I just followed matt's post - I haven't seen the OP article. It doesn't load for some reason.

Stocks were plunging today after President Barack Obama announced new limits on the size of risks taken by the biggest U.S. banks.



The president proposed prohibiting commercial banks from trading for their own accounts, and he proposed prohibiting banks from owning or investing in hedge funds.



At 3:19 p.m. ET, the Dow Jones Industrial Average ($INDU) had plummeted 215 points, or 2%, to 10,388. The Nasdaq Composite Index ($COMPX) was down 24 points, or 1%, to 2,267, and the Standard & Poor's 500 Index ($INX) had lost 21 points, or 1.9%, to 1,117.



"We should no longer allow banks to stray too far from their central mission of serving their customers," Obama said in a White House address, calling the proposal the "Volcker rule," after former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, with whom Obama met before the announcement.



"If these folks want a fight, it's a fight I'm ready to have,"

Just in case people forgot the topic
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2010 6:45:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Topic:
The president's new proposal would restrict commercial banks, preventing them from investing in speculative or risky investment banking activity, including proprietary trading of their own accounts such as mortgage-backed securities.
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
resolutionsmasher
Posts: 579
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2010 8:01:25 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/21/2010 12:46:01 PM, wjmelements wrote:
If banks can't give loans to high-risk groups, even with higher rates of interest, the "working poor" and those without a stable employment will not be able to obtain a loan for their house. This bill harms the poor more than others.

If banks give out high risk loans then they will inevitably lose large sums of money (the odds don't lie). The next reasonable thing to do is to foreclose on those who don't pay. In the end, the banks are bankrupt, and the poor don't have ANY house to live in rather than the low end one they could have afforded at a reasonable rent or low mortgage payment. Also, have you ever noticed that when you go through a reasonably poor part of town you still see quite a few nice cars. This is because according to a Gallop pole 95% of lower income America would prefer to buy an extremely expensive car and make payments on it for the rest of their lives than use that money to carve 5 years off of their home loan. Strangely enough, the nice car depreciates to the value of a go cart while the house price will rise an average of 25% over the period of the 30 year loan. Maybe that is why lower income America will probably stay lower income America.

Also, with less new loans, the money supply will contract, meaning deflation and unemployment.

With more bankrupt banks mutual funds, stocks, and bonds will lose all value, this means that no one will have money for college or retirement (mutual funds). If no one goes to college then Colleges close and America returns to third world status. If no one retires, then they work till they are dead to make a living and thus they die sooner, reducing our standard of living. If stocks hit the floor, then businesses fail. If businesses fail then the government will have to supply our needs. If the government must supply our needs then we are socialists and life will suck.

God bless our new economic policy.

God bless logic and may the stupid learn to be wise so that we may all experience prosperity. All it takes is one stupid president to ruin this country while it took two hundred years of presidents to make it what it is. The president has no power over the economy. The power of the purse is granted to Congress. Any president who assumes any control over the economy has stepped over his constitutional limits and should be run out of town on a rail. (France would probably take him)
In the relationship between Obama and the rest of the U.S..... I think the U.S. is getting the short end of the hockey stick.