RE: Obama is not even trying to hide his Marxist views.
Quote:
"Wall Street will remain a big, important part of our economy, just as it was in the '70s and the '80s," he said. "It just won't be half of our economy."
Wall Street is our economy, dumbass...
BTW, it's also how you got elected since we the voters no longer matter.
__________________
Kevin Haendiges
NAHC Life Member
NRA Member
Wildlife Forever Member
GOA Member
Buckmasters Member
http://hunting-indiana.com
RE: Obama is not even trying to hide his Marxist views.
Quote:
ORIGINAL: kevin1
Quote:
"Wall Street will remain a big, important part of our economy, just as it was in the '70s and the '80s," he said. "It just won't be half of our economy."
Wall Street is our economy, dumbass...
BTW, it's also how you got elected since we the voters no longer matter.
RE: Obama is not even trying to hide his Marxist views.
[:@]SHAME ON US!! How did we let our officials get the Damn Idea that we the people work for them. They were elected to represent us not to rule us. It frosts me when they call the president the most powerful person in the world. Where does he get that power? He is a REPRESENTATIVE of the most powerful PEOPLE on earth. We are going down the drain. BUT WE pulled the plug ourselves and only the people can put the plug back in by electing representatives that know who they work for and where they get their check. The world stands waiting for the King to make the next big decision as to what the rest of our lives will be like while the Sheeple wait for slaughter.[:@][:@][:@] Sorry Maybe off topic but I woke up, Fed up with the march to socialism or worse.
RE: Obama is not even trying to hide his Marxist views.
Quote:
ORIGINAL: Canuck_Buck
Quote:
ORIGINAL: kevin1
Quote:
"Wall Street will remain a big, important part of our economy, just as it was in the '70s and the '80s," he said. "It just won't be half of our economy."
Wall Street is our economy, dumbass...
BTW, it's also how you got elected since we the voters no longer matter.
RE: Obama is not even trying to hide his Marxist views.
Well, I read the article and don't see the big problem in the article. A little regulatory ballast to stabliize the financial institutions -- including investment banks -- seems like an obvious no brainer. Penn Square Bank 1981; savings and loan debacle mid-1980s; current financial problems -- these each have a common thread of excess risk in the pursuit of profits. I'm not saying profits are bad, but you need a brake. The situation is very dangerous where a guy can make huge profits taking big risks when he doesn't have a downside risk comperable to the huge profits. Hmmm, if my wild gamble pays off I'll pocket $50 M; if my gamble crashes and burns I need to go find a new job. Let's roll those dice, baby!
Maybe y'all are reading too much into the few words there, which may well have been spoken somewhat casually. "Wall Street will be less than 50% of the economy." That could be read to meanthat Washington would control greater than 50% of the economy, which would suck. It could also mean that the expression "Wall Street," in this usage, means the investment banks and brokerage houses on Wall street in New York City -- not the total asset value of American publically traded companies.
I'm always ready for some good Obama bashing, but I'm content to reserve my limited capacities for bashing on bonafide BS. I don't think this has much worth hammering on in it.
I will say, just to take a shot while I'm here, the proposition that our best and brightest will be attracted to engineering is a bit naive. Speaking as one who was an engineer for some 14 years, it doesn't look very promising. To be expected to work 60 hours per week (no overtime, straight salary) in a profession that requires constant technical refreshment to remain current and that has a salary that plateaus out in about 5 years post graduation, and which is highly subject to boom bust cylces, and which is highly subject to mass off-shoring . . . the best and brightest are bright enough to figure out that ain't where it's at! Some of the less bright take 14 years to figure this out. I welcome comments from other engineers with 10+ years of professional experience on these thoughts.
People are motivated by compensation and financial rewards. Working is not an avocation, it is not a hobby, it is an economic activity. Those whose main economic asset is their time and their education are typically disposed to invest some thought into what application of that asset provides the best ROI -- economic activity is rationalized. The poor compensation prospects for engineering have more to say about why we don't produce many engineers any more than anything else.
RE: Obama is not even trying to hide his Marxist views.
Quote:
".... We don't want every single college grad with mathematical aptitude to become a derivatives trader. We want some of them to go into engineering, and we want some of them to be going into computer design."
RE: Obama is not even trying to hide his Marxist views.
Quote:
ORIGINAL: etothepii
Quote:
".... We don't want every single college grad with mathematical aptitude to become a derivatives trader. We want some of them to go into engineering, and we want some of them to be going into computer design."
Obama is an idiot.
Make no mistake; Obamination is far, far, far, worse!
Barack Hussein Obama is a dangerous, socialist, cancer!!! Obama and the other liberals (in both parties) arekilling America!!! They are bankrupting nation,weakening our military and their witch hunt of the Bush administration only empowers our enemies.
Obama and the other liberals are serpents! [:@][:@][:@]
__________________
Liberalism is a cancer.
Support Christian Family values.
John 3:16
RE: Obama is not even trying to hide his Marxist views.
Quote:
Well, I read the article and don't see the big problem in the article. A little regulatory ballast to stabliize the financial institutions -- including investment banks -- seems like an obvious no brainer. Penn Square Bank 1981; savings and loan debacle mid-1980s; current financial problems -- these each have a common thread of excess risk in the pursuit of profits.
I'm with Alsatian on this one. The regulatory underpinning of the banking industry was ripped away by those$luts in congress who were in the pockets of the Wall St. fat cats,Fanny Mae, Freddie Macand the mortgage brokers. Wall St. fat cats dreamed up new and innovative ways, some criminal, to make more short term money for their banks and huge commissions for themselves.When a bank has leverage ratios in excess of 30-1 something is most likely to turn sour.
"It is very critical to track this ratio over time. I learned this by examining Citigroup over many years. If you tracked this ratio on Citigroup, you would have seen massive deterioration. Back in 2002, when things weren't so bad for Citigroup, tangible assets divided by tangible equity was 20 times. By the end of 2007, leverage had increased to 37 times and then Citi cut the dividend and had to raise capital.
So let's look at what has happened to GE over the years. On a tangible assets-to-tangible common equity basis, GE was only 13 times levered in 1992. It is now 142 times levered. Notice that GE has less tangible common equity today than in 1992, while its balance sheet assets are four times bigger. I call that massive deterioration. Even if we include the recent preferred equity raise, it is almost 90 times levered. This is not a triple-A balance sheet; it is not a double-A. It should be junk rated.
So how did it get here? By piling debt on debt. At a leverage ratio of 20:1, GE Capital actually stands tall among finance companies. To achieve this profile, however, Immelt & Co. has journaled billions from the parent - $9.5 billion this year on top of $5 billion in October. Without these capital infusions, GE Capital would be 34 times levered, a level similar to Citigroup at the end of 2007. But GE is very, very sensitive to the ratios of GE Capital, and so are the rating agencies. So, to appease them, GE moved capital to GE Capital. GE is not so sensitive to what the capital ratios look like for the entire
company and for GE ex-GE Capital."
BTW: My sister was an executive in the FDIC when Penn Square Bank folded. i have extensively studied the failure of the Penn Square Bank. This was one of the first big bank failures in the country. Have a friend who lost $600,000 when that bank failed. Why the guy had that much money above insured accounts in one bank is beyond me.The significance of the failure of the Penn Square Bank is that itaffected other banks.
The man who principally did in the bank was Bill G. Patterson, a flamboyant young (early 30s) man whose friends called him Monkey Brain. Patterson, the man in charge of all energy loans at Penn Square, enjoyed tossing food around in restaurants. He thought it clever to drink beer or Amaretto and soda out of his shoe. He paraded around in bizarre costumes: once, during a visit to a Las Vegas hotel, he materialized in public wearing a yellow cap and angel wings, and nothing else. On another occasion he showed up at the bank wearing a Nazi general's uniform, a gift from an admirer. (The outfit seems not to have reflected Patterson's politics, only his zaniness.) He also found it amusing to make loan commitments on cocktail napkins.
So question No. 2 is why anybody in his right mind would trust a banker like Patterson. Here again, the question is even tougher than it might sound at first. The people victimized by Penn Square doubtless included some elderly widows and inexperienced small businessmen. But the principal victims were other banks, all of them substantially larger than Penn Square. They were done in by their purchases of bum loans from Penn Square. The loans contributed mightily to the near collapse of Continental Illinois and to the forced merger of the other main victim, Seafirst of Seattle (now part of Bank of America).
Wall St. hired a whole train loads of idiots as crazy asPatterson.
Obama is not even trying to hide his Marxist views.
