Why are people trying to make excuses for reckless gamblers whose ignorance and naked greed have created 2 asset price bubbles within a decade, and then when they face the consequences of their stupidity and avarice, try to hijack the political system and media to gain sympathy and then use violent force and extortion to compel the rest of society (the poor and those who invest/save responsibly) to bail them out? What happened to personal responsibility, informing oneself, taking the consequences of one's own actions? How can it be morally acceptable to forcibly tax others to pay for their losses when they would have taken 100% of the upside if the bull market had continued? These parasites helped to make stocks and then real estate unaffordable for everyone else for a decade, and destabilized and distorted the economy through their reckless uninformed risk-taking. They are in the process of ushering in a period of socialism and stagnation, and are burdening their children and grandchildren with record levels of debt to pay down. They are self-serving and immoral - they are not victims, they are victimising others. If any hedge fund took insane risks with borrowed money, and the fund manager overstretched with a huge mortgage on a house he couldn't afford, then blew up, the typical middle class person would laugh and say "see, that's what you get for being greedy". If the manager started moaning how he couldn't retire in the style to which he was accustomed, he would be treated with derision. If he tried to deny that his reckless gambling had inflated 2 distorting and damaging economic bubbles, helping to contribute to the worst recession in 75 years, he would be harangued and insulted. If the fallen hedge fund manager then tried to lobby the political system for bailouts, there would be outrage. If the fund manager then proposed doubling the national debt and imposing swingeing tax increases for the next 10-20 years so he could be made whole, lynch mobs would start to form outside his house. If he succeeded in his lobbying and turned the government into a socialist mess, it would spark a revolution. Yet somehow when the middle class en masse do exactly the same thing, not only is there little or no criticism, but society bends over backwards to sympathise with and accommodate them. The political system start sucking up to their demands. The media run sympathetic profiles of them. The man and woman in the street agrees with them. If they had taken their losses on the chin, like a poker pro who moves all in on a bluff and gets called, then I could at least respect their integrity and personal accountability. I would have thought them a bit dumb for taking such risks unknowingly, and a bit irresponsible for distorting the economy by purchasing wildly overvalued assets using huge leverage. But I could at least respect them. But their whining, their loser mentality of "not my fault", I can't have anything but contempt for that. Worst of all is their attempts to pass the consequences on to others. What happened to "the buck stops here"? At this point they go from dumb whiners to immoral looters. If this is the western middle class, the supposedly educated, hard-working, responsible part of society and even the world, then it's not anything I want to be associated with. My recommendation is fuck this society and just look out for yourself. I'll be damned if I spend one more year paying taxes through the nose to support these thieving hypocritical scum.
Cutten: I'll be damned if I spend one more year paying taxes through the nose to support these thieving hypocritical scum. Great!!! Now what's your plan.
I basically agree with you ( I am just not that angry about it ) To stop paying US taxes you will have to ex patriate ,where are you going to move ? I am 100% serious , not mocking you in any way.
Millions of people want to buy houses and need a loan. Banks make loans to buyers. Housing market blows up. Narrative: banks are greedy crooks for making loans. homeowners are victims. why is this so? easy: homebuyers have millions more votes in the next election than bank presidents. period.
Cutten, go from a beginning. Lenders give loans to people who have no proof if they can afford. Why? Because it is a big money maker to sell the loan they make, (even if liar loan..who cares, it can still be sold to someone else for a profit, and that is the motivation) So yes, the person who took of loan they can not afford is not responsible, but the lender is not responsible too. Now everything is big mess because the people default on the loans at the same time housing prices go down. And these loans have sold many times,and the bonds too, and the swaps insurance. Now the money is spread over many places. Loss for some hedge funds, pension funds, and 401k invested of the financials. But who is getting bailout for bad mistakes and risk they took? The Banks and insurance companys. (Not middle class) And the money from bailout to help foreclosure people has a limitations that the morgage has to be equal to or less of the value of the house. Why? Because this will help keep people in the home AND keep the people paying for the loan that is MORE valuable to banks. So all of this bailout is for the player who made big money before (bank, insurance), but has danger of losing now for bad risk, so they save them. Not capitalism. But the game has so much counterparty risk, and all instituitions connected, that the goverment say of one blow up, all blow up. You think that is true? That is what confuse me, is that true, or the bank people have so much power they can not lose...even if they really are the loser?
This guy was a state worker. Took the job years ago for the security it offered, pay was below the private sector. As the state gov't increased wage parity to private sector he thought to himself "This is great". (considering productivity is absent) Imo, working for the gov't for years, one becomes accustomed to a sense of entitlement. It is pervasive. Example, if you have a private gym, a paying member might use one towel, but when a gov't employee uses the same gym, he takes two towels. Now for the wife, stay at home mom, she taps the internet stock boom, makes almost a million and loses it all. Just an empty head but the course of her life is now as a social advocate (influence of state worker husband). Both now apply themselves to various part time capitalist endeavors but following the entitlement theme.
that the goverment say of one blow up, all blow up. You think that is true? ------------------ I do. It's called lockstep. If you hire people who went to the same schools, took the same courses, drink the same drinks, compete in the same sports, have the same desires, you'll get the same results, just the firm names are different.
that the goverment say of one blow up, all blow up. You think that is true? ------------------ I do. It's called lockstep. If you hire people who went to the same schools, took the same courses, drink the same drinks, compete in the same sports, have the same desires, you'll get the same results, just the firm names are different.
agreed .... im pissed out of my mind right now, haven't thought coherently as in relates to "politics" in a few months. good god ... our president is rubbing shoulders with 3-rd world strongmen.
So they give a banks who take big risk and make bad bets bailout because of counterparty risk to all the system. You say it is "lockstep". What if all the people who lose their money with 401k say they are all lockstep thinking that the fund manager will protect the money, so they did not pay attention? What if they say we are middle class and not educated with finance, and we thought fund manager is to protect us. Do all the middle class people who lost 401k have reason for bailout because of lockstep of ignorance of finance? No. They lose. Ok, that is the game. Why the banks are special? There are other bank who can compete for that business if bad ones blow up. So it is who has power, not who plays of a better game.