ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

rojimboo wrote:

And that when these super complicated low risk (false) derivative financial instruments were sold to GSEs, it was an unwritten rule that the government would bail them out?

They never expected to need to be bailed out.

I will try to give you something similar to the banking/popular mindset of the time.

Let's say I were to loan you 20,000 exalts at zero percent interest for 2 years and if the loan weren't paid off in two years at 10% interest starting from day one.

The loan also stipulated that you could pay off the exalts in the next challenge league with 1 chaos per exalt.

All you have to do is find 20 chaos to pay in the next challenge league to pay me off.

Then GGG decides to eliminate the chaos orb.

Would you have expected that?

Real Estate had been win win win win win win win win for well over 20 years. No one thought it could fail. People didn't really think there was a price cap.

Everyone was taking risks they never should have taken.

"

erdelyii wrote:

Would Trump be even greater in your eyes if he did have a more proudly American style?

No. I'm personally not a fan of the all gold, or all log cabin look. Trump likes gold. Some people like all white interiors - which I can't stand either. Those aren't my houses, so what does it matter?

Some people like open spaces and high ceilings. Some like cozy enclosed spaces. Some people like bizarre art, some like things they find at garage sales. I have two friends who are professional oil painters and though their art styles are similar, both are quiet different in how they decorate their homes and their politics. One hates Trump with a passion, the other is indifferent to politicians in general.

The thing Trump deniers don't understand is that his supporters don't support Trump because of his personality, but because he voices the ideas many of them have held for decades before Trump ever ran for office.

Like the Contract With America in 1994 - Trump represents something that people have been wanting for a very long time.

https://www.history.com/news/midterm-elections-1994-republican-revolution-gingrich-contract-with-america

Imagine if GGG found a way to 'fix' trade that everyone liked. Now imagine CNN hating on Chris Wilson and complaining about how Chris Wilson decorates his house, or how Chris Wilson eats his food with a fork, and CNN wondering how anyone could support Chris Wilson when he made this terrible terrible change in trade.

Whether the change was good or not, there would have been a lot of people wanting a change.

Grok that and you will understand Trump support really isn't about Trump, it is about the positions he holds that others have held for a long time.

Now leftists are pretending Clinton and Democrats weren't colluding & coercing banks into giving poor people government backed subprime mortgages.

Tricking poor people (or anyone really) into a subprime mortgage is one of the most evil things you can do. You extremist leftists love Clinton so much you cannot bring yourself to see what a con artist he was.

"

Khoranth wrote:

You cannot ignore how devastating it was for Clinton to send Reno out to make up fake racist lawsuits. That influenced how banks gave out garbage subprime loans.

I dislike Clinton as much as many do. Reno was a disaster. That said, I do not recall "fake racist lawsuits"

If you meant this:

"The Community Reinvestment Act or CRA was meant to encourage banks to invest in real estate and lend to people that are otherwise passed over because of their poor economic situations. The main gist of the law was to get home loans to those that would not normally qualify for a mortgage."
"the CRA was born in 1977 and largely unenforced and ignored until President Bill Clinton's overhaul of the anti-redlining rules under the act in 1993. (Redlining is a practice of banks not investing in an area of a city or charging more for financial services in that area because they determine it to be hazardous to business)"

Redlining had occurred. The extent to which present banks were responsible is debatable. What isn't debatable is that the dollar percentage of such loans granted under the CRA collapsing was extremely small compared to the total dollars of failed loans.

It would be like blaming a GGG change in whetstone frequency to causing the price collapse of exalts.

Failed loans were everywhere, throughout the system.

It didn't matter if you could pay your loan or not <-- this WAS the bank thinking at the time. Your house would appreciate in value so rapidly, that you could still sell it and pay it off, and have everyone be a winner.

The CRA loans weren't race based anyways, they were based on areas. You could drive by a neighborhood and look at how run down the houses and cars were and tell whether it was a CRA area or not.

In many cases, the CRA loans did a lot of good and helped revitalize some parts of towns. It was the mindset of people who bought a home, put a small amount of fixer upper money in and repeatedly flipped the houses that caused much of the problem.

You can't lose! Eternal Orbs guaranteed with every Elreon master mission!

Oops, Elreon gets removed.

"

Khoranth wrote:

I would have to wonder if some of you even know what a subprime mortgage is?

If you are a decent human being, and go read what a subprime mortgage is, the first thought in your head should be "Wow, this is even legal?

Based off of credit ratings. You do realize that if things go the way China is going, and the way Europe is starting to think, that credit scores will be based off of public behavior, social media postings etc.

If the powers you like are in power - your score is good. If the powers you talk against get into office, your credit scores are bad.

Currently, your credit score is based off of more than the credit companies admit to. The major credit bureaus have been caught a couple times doing illegal things to gauge your credit worthiness, but have never been prosecuted for it.

Lastly, it wasn't just the lending to questionable credit ratings that did it, it was all the ridiculous payback terms and the over inflated prices of real estate that made the bank's pseudo Ponzi scheme lending practices seem worth pursuing.

You can't Lose!

"

rojimboo wrote:

Instead of commenting on the fact that was presented (financial crises each time GOP had full control for over 4 years), you attacked the credibility of the source.

I didn't dispute that. I could probably find some correlation between sunspot activity and financial upswings or downswings. I disputed there was any cause and effect between them, and the expertise of the source.

Why choose a bad source that has nothing to say?

I was talking with an executive of a major hedge fund a few weeks ago, and we were discussing Congress' piss poor economic management skills. Despite this executive's long successful career in handling insane amounts of money, the executive didn't pretend to know exactly where the economy was headed long term. The one take away from the conversation was that Congress doesn't seek advice or input from financial experts on a regular basis, but more on a basis of when they want to hear an opinion that supports what they already want to do.

One thing you will probably learn as life goes on, is that the more of an expert someone is, the more focused their expertise is in a narrow subject.

People who trade stocks are not experts in history (except maybe the history of the companies whose stocks they are looking at). The people who specialize in history, aren't experts in stocks.

I would never bother with the WSJ for political information, for instance.

I wouldn't listen to CNN or Fox for science information - such as climate change announcements - unless I wanted a good laugh.

I wouldn't read Nature for political information.

If your source had tried to make some claim as to cause and effect of the correlation, then I would have focused on that.

BTW - there are a few valid points they could make along those lines. Some of which have been danced around, but not discussed in the last several pages. It tells me who knows what they are talking about, and who is just Googling for counterpoints.

Although we disagree, I do respect that your viewpoints seem to be consistent and honestly held. When two people are at odds, and both are communicating honestly, the chances of discovering the truth increases.

The discrepancies may be due to perspective (where both people hold somewhat similar values/viewpoints but the particulars make it seem that they do not. It could be erroneous information gathered by one or both parties.

In any case, I will stop here, and let you get a last response in, if you wish, so you can get some well earned rest.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

rojimboo wrote:

Instead of commenting on the fact that was presented (financial crises each time GOP had full control for over 4 years), you attacked the credibility of the source.

I didn't dispute that.

Good. So we are left with the initial fact, that each time GOP had full control of the government for more than 4 years, epic financial collapses and crisis ensued.

In addition, my main point of my original post that tied it all in to this thread, was the mention of tariffs. I.e. what that orange buffoon is doing at the moment.

Since you have neglected to comment on that on multiple occasions, I can only assume you agree.

Good.

"

I could probably find some correlation between sunspot activity and financial upswings or downswings. I disputed there was any cause and effect between them, and the expertise of the source.

I already said that correlation does not necessarily imply causation.

But what you did, was try to google dirt on the source, and try to discredit the facts because of the dubious credentials that he had.

This is basically what you did

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

and I suppose it's one way of debating, just a really poor way, which I don't like.

"

One thing you will probably learn as life goes on, is that the more of an expert someone is, the more focused their expertise is in a narrow subject.

This is true.

"

People who trade stocks are not experts in history (except maybe the history of the companies whose stocks they are looking at). The people who specialize in history, aren't experts in stocks.

I would never bother with the WSJ for political information, for instance.

I wouldn't listen to CNN or Fox for science information - such as climate change announcements - unless I wanted a good laugh.

I wouldn't read Nature for political information.

This is not true.

I know plenty of people without the PhD credentials you deem necessary in the right field, that can and will hold a very detailed debate/discussion about most subjects. Their general knowledge and current affairs knowledge is off the charts. These are people who learned very well, to learn, usually in some area of academia.

Again I refer to my very appropriate parable, regarding the homeless man claiming the sky is blue, and the guy not believing and trying to seek out a dual PhD graduate with degrees in optical spectroscopy and eye surgery.

It's simply not necessary, in the slightest.

It's actually the opposite of how science works. The first step, is to see what they wrote in the science paper, not check their university undergraduate grades and note that 'ah, she only got a C in Thermodynamics, I guess we can dismiss her claims'.

It's actually completely the wrong way of doing things.

"

Although we disagree, I do respect that your viewpoints seem to be consistent and honestly held. When two people are at odds, and both are communicating honestly, the chances of discovering the truth increases.

The discrepancies may be due to perspective (where both people hold somewhat similar values/viewpoints but the particulars make it seem that they do not. It could be erroneous information gathered by one or both parties.

I like the fact that in an open and civil discussion, with factual arguments used, possibly even sourced, new knowledge and at least information is gained sometimes.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

Khoranth wrote:

I would have to wonder if some of you even know what a subprime mortgage is?

If you are a decent human being, and go read what a subprime mortgage is, the first thought in your head should be "Wow, this is even legal?

Based off of credit ratings. You do realize that if things go the way China is going, and the way Europe is starting to think, that credit scores will be based off of public behavior, social media postings etc.

If the powers you like are in power - your score is good. If the powers you talk against get into office, your credit scores are bad.

Currently, your credit score is based off of more than the credit companies admit to. The major credit bureaus have been caught a couple times doing illegal things to gauge your credit worthiness, but have never been prosecuted for it.

Lastly, it wasn't just the lending to questionable credit ratings that did it, it was all the ridiculous payback terms and the over inflated prices of real estate that made the bank's pseudo Ponzi scheme lending practices seem worth pursuing.

You can't Lose!

If you want to argue that the way credit scores are determined is racist, fine. Then the government should go after them and enforce non racist credit scoring, but dont call mortgage lenders racist for using annual income and credit scores to determine who to give loans too.

Their using the information available, I dont recall Clinton & Reno attacking the credit score companies (did they?) But they did go after banks with fake charges of racism.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204464404577117091015102330

Bear with me here. Problem is, I’d assert for pretty much everything, bad leadership. On all sides. Election cycles have this tendency to distill perception of causality into a straw model, much like a coin. This side or that, this cause or that; seldom this cause and that.

Said this plenty of times, don’t feel like doing it again. Political duopoly, parasitic ratings driven media, erosion of merit in elections, erosion of efficacy of elections, merit’s tendency to localize potential harm, with absence the opposite, blah blah blah.

It takes two to tango. Unless you’re a mime. Neither party is a mime. Fun fact: every time republicans assume control, democrats previously had control. Fun opinion: neither should, just a barrel of fish and incompetence.

"

Khoranth wrote:

Now leftists are pretending Clinton and Democrats weren't colluding & coercing banks into giving poor people government backed subprime mortgages.

Tricking poor people (or anyone really) into a subprime mortgage is one of the most evil things you can do. You extremist leftists love Clinton so much you cannot bring yourself to see what a con artist he was.

Khoranth, we hear you. It is known by everyone reading this thread that you have previously made this assertion on multiple occasions. It has been acknowledged previously. Your assertion implies cause and effect that has not been proven and you refuse to provide any source for the basic assertion. It is irrelevant and also contains silly insults. It does not deserve as much attention as it has already received. Sorry.