IT'S NOT A GAME!

[Tunnelcat]

Guys, guys, you're getting me slightly wrong. I didn't say it was totally Reagan's fault, I saying that he's part of the BEGINNING or NEXUS of this mess we have now. All grand plans have a starting point. Now to be fair, I should have said the Carter/Reagan administrations were the beginning since Carter should to take the blame for starting on the deregulation bandwagon, but Reagan continued it with his desire for continued deregulation of the economy. He also raised the national debt to 3 trillion dollars, also for military spending during the Cold War. I also blame Clinton for caving into a Rebulican controlled Congress for the lovely Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. That ONE piece of legislation allowed the creation of all these giant mega-investment/bank mergers that set the stage for this 'legal' derivatives/collateral debt obligation GAMBLING that has brought down some very large companies and our economy. Banks used to be stodgy and a safe place to put your money, but now when just one fails, it brings the economy to it's knees.

All this greed at the cost of their companies, their ethics and the theft of my hard earned money and that of my father's and a lot of other American's savings and retirement accounts. I blame Bush for the little oversight of what was going on with Wall Street and AGAIN ballooning the national debt due to, you guessed it WAR SPENDING! He let this economic mess percolate just long enough to fall in the lap of the next administration so it wouldn't occur on his watch. Cheney was famous for this quote, \"You know Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter\". Hmmmmm, Reagan again.

Now while Bush was ballooning our national debt with massive deficit spending for a needless war and a trade deficit growing by leaps and bounds, I didn't hear hardly one wit of complaining about government spending by Republicans, or even Democrats, for a long while after 911. But brother, the Democrats get in office and start deficit spending on OUR COUNTRY, not SOMEONE ELSE'S, the hypocrite Republicans come out in droves. No griping about wasteful spending by contractors or the billions that have just plain disappeared down the Iraq sinkhole, just BS about how much this recovery is going to cost and no concrete solutions of their own.

I'm not a crazy liberal, but I also don't believe in pure conservatism. I don't believe in the government controlling every aspect of our lives, gun control, establishment of a central religion or full control over the markets and our lives. But, I also don't believe in unfettered Capitalism. What I do believe in is fair play and rules to keep the game from turning into unbridled war. We need a government to protect us militarily, to referee the market and protect us from greed running amok yet allow it to grow, to keep our infrastructure sound and flexible, police the streets, put out fires, make sure all our children get a basic education and keep us healthy. We should all have the chance to make the American Dream with hard work and perseverance, but I think that's slowly slipping away and we are drifting towards an oligarchy with the loss of all the working class bread and butter jobs that are now overseas. Unfortunately, Obama's election was just a reaction to the failure of our politicians to seek and keep a stable middle ground. The Republicans are being blamed now, but if Obama goes too far in the other direction, voters will swing right back again to the Republicans. A vicious cycle that will keep repeating itself over and over until we can come to a consensus beneficial for all. Not everybody will be happy, but we'll have stability perhaps. Working class Americans have given up a lot so far, it's time the little piggies in Wall Street give up something too. I'll give Obama's ideas a while to work and see what happens. So far, not so good. I'm not blind to the missteps so far.

[Lothar]

Reagan continued it with his desire for continued deregulation of the economy.

What do you mean by "deregulation"? Did Reagan push for lowered transparency, or for lower government interference? There's a big difference.

With lowered transparency, banks can "gamble" as you put it -- only they're not even gambling with their own money, since they can pawn the risk off to someone else and say "here's some nice quality loans." The only reason banks are in trouble right now is that they all got suckered into buying other banks' bad debt through repackaged securities -- they all pawned off their own risk but ended up buying someone else's.

I didn't hear hardly one wit of complaining about government spending by Republicans, or even Democrats, for a long while after 911.

I heard plenty of it on this board. I didn't hear a bit of complaining from the politicians, but I heard plenty from normal people who didn't like the fact that Bush was busy cutting taxes and didn't cut spending with it. Republicans, Democrats, independents, and foreigners ALL complained about the exact same thing (though we all presented different solutions; mine was to keep cutting taxes and force congress to cut spending to match.)

I also don't believe in unfettered Capitalism. What I do believe in is fair play and rules to keep the game from turning into unbridled war.

That's exactly what I'd say I believe in, only I think we have different ideas of what "fair play" means. I don't think the government needs to protect us from greed; the government needs to protect us from greedy liars. If someone can get rich by offering a product people want at a price they're willing to pay, we don't need protected from that. What we need protected from is someone getting rich by telling us he's offering one product, but actually selling us something worse.

And that's what the current mess really comes down to. The problem isn't that banks were too big, or that banks combined investment with traditional banking, or that there was too much war spending. The problem is that too much of our economy was relying on future money that people didn't actually have a way to pay off (ie, bad loans) and too many investors and banks ended up holding those loans without even knowing it. If banks had realized 5 years ago that they were holding a bunch of garbage loans, they'd have planned around it -- tightened up lending standards, gathered up higher quality assets, and so on. But because they thought they were holding grade-AAAA+++OMGWIN loans, they thought they could keep taking risks by writing new bad loans. Then all of a sudden the old loans started falling apart and everyone realized their balance sheets looked a lot uglier than they thought, and they started having to sell off good assets to cover their own debts.

(Of course, this presents a tremendous opportunity for those who have held on to cash or equivalents. With so many groups desperate for cash, things like stocks are at a nice discount. I don't know about the rest of you, but for me, it's time to buy into the market.)

[CUDA]

"if you're not a liberal in your 20's, you have no heart, but if you're not a conservative in your 40's, you have no brain".

I think this about sums things up

[VonVulcan]

Indeed.

[Tunnelcat]

Lothar, if ONE or even TWO companies can gamble with other's peoples money, lose it and bring down our economy, they're too big for their own good. Too much risk in one place. Don't you think that's dangerous?

I liken regulations to the rules of the game. If a game has no rules, the winner takes all and it's no fun to watch since there is no fair play, unless you're into cage fighting.

[Lothar]

Lothar, if ONE or even TWO companies can gamble with other's peoples money, lose it and bring down our economy, they're too big for their own good.

The problem isn't with the size of the company. The problem is with their ability to gamble with other people's money!

If a company gets to be huge and gambles with their own money, they can only bring themselves down. But if a company can be huge and gamble with everyone else's money (without everyone else's knowledge and permission), they can bring everyone down.

That's why we need rules, not limiting how big the company can get, but requiring them to be honest and transparent about what they're offering and how they're backing it up. And we need to get rid of special exceptions that allow Fanny/Freddie shareholders to gamble with government money, or that allow various groups to resell risky investments as grade-AAAAA+ super-duper-safe investments, or that otherwise allow companies to gamble with others' money.

[dissent]

which just gets back to the Wired article you posted earlier, tc. They thought they could use their new magic mathematical formulations to properly calculate the risk inherent with these new securities.

Turns out they couldn't.

More than a little hubris to pass around between the financial community AND the government.

[dissent]

News flash -

\"Toxic assets\" are now \"legacy loans\". heh!

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch ... ublic.html

[Duper]

Lothar, if ONE or even TWO companies can gamble with other's peoples money, lose it and bring down our economy, they're too big for their own good.

The problem isn't with the size of the company. The problem is with their ability to gamble with other people's money!

If a company gets to be huge and gambles with their own money, they can only bring themselves down. But if a company can be huge and gamble with everyone else's money (without everyone else's knowledge and permission), they can bring everyone down.

That's why we need rules, not limiting how big the company can get, but requiring them to be honest and transparent about what they're offering and how they're backing it up. And we need to get rid of special exceptions that allow Fanny/Freddie shareholders to gamble with government money, or that allow various groups to resell risky investments as grade-AAAAA+ super-duper-safe investments, or that otherwise allow companies to gamble with others' money.

This is why I don't play with 401k. (no rime intended )

[Tunnelcat]

Duper, if you intend to save any money for a future retirement, where are you going to put it? Under the mattress as they say? I'd like to know of a safe place where it can put securely and even grow safely, or at least not disappear.

Here's a Senator that foresaw in 1999 what was going to happen in our economy ten years later, essentially right now. Yes, I know he's a Democrat, but he seems to be a smart one at least.

http://www.minotdailynews.com/page/cont ... 19278.html

[Duper]

Duper, if you intend to save any money for a future retirement, where are you going to put it? Under the mattress as they say? I'd like to know of a safe place where it can put securely and even grow safely, or at least not disappear.

Here's a Senator that foresaw in 1999 what was going to happen in our economy ten years later, essentially right now. Yes, I know he's a Democrat, but he seems to be a smart one at least.

http://www.minotdailynews.com/page/cont ... 19278.html

I don't plan to retire. I don't make enough money to save. The money I save over 20 years (plus or minus)in a 401k (assuming there isn't another catastrophic crash!) will be pretty much out stripped by inflation.

I'm sure you don't believe that, but that's where I'm at. Also, who's to say that the law (401k) won't be changed or deleted over the next 20 years .. of taxed.

and tunnel, you never hide anything under your mattress, that's the FIRST place people look. (like snoopy mom's and Dad's).. you had been a Guy you would know that. Literature is never safe there, why would money!

I use mason jars. (joking)

But I would like to point out, that this last crash should have shown you that no institution is "safe"; a private credit union might be your best bet there, and even then you need to be careful.

[CUDA]

you invest in tradeable commodities, Gold, Property, Art, other types of collectables. those are about the only things that consistantly weather the economic storms.

[Duper]

yes. thanks Cuda. I thought of those, but didn't add them.

[Tunnelcat]

Gads Duper, you plan to keep working until you die? Mind you, I don't see any problem with that if you enjoy your job and stay healthy. But what if you get sick or your body just plain wears out with age? What will you do when that happens? Just die? You'll find that when you get older, you'll still want to live, even if you can't afford to.

ROFL on your comment only guys don't hide money under the mattress. We females had the same problem with our mothers and fathers too. I got pretty creative hiding things from my parents. There's was lot of stuff they've NEVER found I collected over the years nor were the sneaky things that I pulled as a teenager FOUND OUT either! I always appeared as the good kid in the family and generally on the whole I was, however, they just never knew some of the little details.

As for saving commodities, I've been saving Star Wars, Star Trek and Indiana Jones stuff for years and have some valuable items now. I guess that I could always sell stuff if I need the money.

[Lothar]

you invest in tradeable commodities, Gold, Property, Art, other types of collectables. those are about the only things that consistantly weather the economic storms.

Provided you bought them before the storm started.

Gold has tripled in value in the last ~decade. If you had it back then, this would be the time to sell to some sucker who thinks "gold is a safe investment!"

Don't be the sucker who's buying it right now, though.

[Duper]

Gads Duper, you plan to keep working until you die?

nearly, yes. What's wrong with that? Staying a productive, active citizen?

But what if you get sick or your body just plain wears out with age? Just die?

Pretty much, yeah. If I'm working, I should have health insurance, so that shouldn't be an issue. If some politians get their way, old folks will be out in the cold anyways. "you're old, you're dieing. Deal with it."

You'll find that when you get older, you'll still want to live, even if you can't afford to.

Actually, what I'll find is that I'll be ready for it. I'm a Christian remember? Death isn't a problem for me; not that I WANT to die.. at least not yet, but if it happens, it happens. I worked for years in adult foster care and worked with many as they died. Either you come to terms with your own mortality in that kinda work or you crack. Besides, sitting around doing "nothing" drives me crazy. a Week is about all I can handle. I don't earn enough(as I stated earlier) to plan on a long luxurious retirement. So I can't "travel" or work around the house ..as I will probably always live in apartments. (THAT bugs me more than death)

Here are a couple things that I believe.
1) inside of twenty years, this won't be our country per say. 401k's might still be worth something, but I doubt it. The financial crisis and it's global impact has pretty much started us down that road.
2) Ir really expect Christ to return before I'm 70.

This is a really foreign idea, but I live my faith. I'm not perfect by any stretch. I'm not saying that. It's an intergral part of my life and there isn't an aspect of my life that it doesn't effect. ... except maybe the using the bathroom. These are my personal thoughts and convictions and on the whole, I'm not fussed by money. If I have it, great. Use it well. If I don't no matter, I'll survive and God will take care of things as needed. ... and believe me, I've been without money plenty of times in my life and I'm still here.

Thanks Lothar, I was thinking the same thing. Gold is like $1,200 / oz right now. ... PER OUNCE! o_0 yikes. when I was in Highschool it was only about 650/oz, but it fluctuating wildly then too. Also, this assumes (as you are illuding too) you have to start with a substantial amount of capital to invest soundly into commidities.

[Tunnelcat]

Duper, I had the same ideas as you when I was younger. I felt strong enough to work forever. You'll find as you get older though, the body becomes less willing to get through the day and you begin to drag and drag.

Now that's just old age. Add on top of that some illnesses that don't kill you outright, but linger and make it difficult for you to work, you'll find it a distinct possibility you'll be unable to support yourself. Besides, when you get older, you just get plain tired out and want to do more fun things with your time and less hard work. After all, you worked all your life, you want some release and relaxation in the end. Old age changes your outlook on life.

What will you do if you become sick enough to be unable to physically work, but it's not something life threatening and health care becomes too expensive or can't cure your ills and make you productive again? As a Christian, would you be willing to commit suicide if you couldn't work but were not close to dying?

I too, can't stand to be bored or inactive in life. However, as a Agnostic, if I became unable to support myself or become unable to to the things it like to do in life, suicide is a viable option to me. This was really forced home to me watching the suffering my mother went through for 2 years dying from lung cancer and the treatments to 'cure' it. No bloody way!

[SilverFJ]

TC, it's called planning. Pick a career where when you're old you'd have been promoted to a desk job, and be good enough at it to succeed in this.

I'll have a desk job by 35, and dont gimme none of that \"it may not end up like you think\" jargon.

[Tunnelcat]

Bwaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaa! Nothing stays the same, ever. There is no security, only change, good or bad. You can't always choose or get what you want.

[CUDA]

hell I chose a career in the Collision Industry 27 years ago, started out as an apprentice at 24K, moved to a Journeyman at 50K, then into the office at 37years old as an estimator at 55K, now I'm in management as an assistant making 75K a year, next step manager at 100K. one thing is certain about my industry. you can always count on the driving stupidity of people to keep you employeed. people dont plan their automobile accidents and as long as cell phone's are legal I will stay busy, more people die from cell phone related accident's now than from drunk drivers

[Duper]

TC, if I die, I die. I'm not fussed. Commit suicide? You're joking, right? Why? To avoid suffering? I don't think so. ..\"Will to commit suicide\" what exactly do you mean by that? as in I'll be forced to?

My Dad died of lung cancer last year, just before Thanksgiving. He went in 3 weeks. It was inexpensive, relatively speaking.

I'll work while I can and when I can't, then we'll see.

[Tunnelcat]

Duper, I know this is morbid but my mother essentially committed suicide by refusing to eat. The lung cancer didn't kill her, her body still functioned, but the cancer-involved nerve pain became so great she couldn't take it anymore. She actually tried to overdose on pain medication but only ended up in the hospital with aspiration pneumonia because she threw up after she passed out. The treatments to slow the cancer only gave her ONE miserable extra year of life that cost the insurance company around $900,000. She was in that category of people that couldn't take opiates without getting violently ill and the medical system presently has no other solution for pain.

What I'm getting at is that you never know what you're capable of until you get into great, constant, unrelenting pain. I know she suffered greatly and near the end, she voiced her desire that she just wanted to die. After watching her go through all that torture, I'm of the opinion that if I ever get inoperable cancer, I would rather die on my own terms than suffer through the 'cure' that I can't afford anyway. In fact, I'm not even bothering to have regular cancer screenings since I don't have any family history to indicate a trend and I've never smoked. Many of the regular cancer screenings for women expose you to ionizing radiation EVERY YEAR and come up with a lot of false positives. Most of the time, they catch it too late anyway and make you suffer through chemo and radiation treatments that will kill you just as effectively as the cancer.

Duper, what about if you can't afford treatment for an illness and you want to live at all cost. Say it doesn't kill you but puts you in great pain or just makes it impossible for you to work to pay for treatment? What would you do then to survive? I'm not saying to commit suicide for that reason, but what would you do personally? A major reason for bankruptcy and yes, even suicide, in the U.S. is because of high medical bills.