US House votes against $700bn bailout

Earthhorse

Mordeth wrote: »

and how about the idiots who actually took out mortgages they should have known they weren't able to afford?

blaming the regulators for this problem is like blaming publicans for drink driving, it completely misses the point and is nothing more than an easy target so the population at large has a nice flammable straw man.

javaboy wrote: »

Wah wah. The banks gave me the money I asked for and now I won't be able to pay it back. Who can I blame?

There doesn't need to be a monopoly on blame. It's this person's fault but not that person's. The idea that people who took out mortgages are somehow entirely to blame when banks were giving loans they knew were high risk whilst the regulators looked the other way is what completely misses the point.

Having said that, I blame the immigants. Even when I said it was the bears I knew it was the immigants.

javaboy

Earthhorse wrote: »

There doesn't need to be a monopoly on blame. It's this person's fault but not that person's. The idea that people who took out mortgages are somehow entirely to blame when banks were giving loans they knew were high risk whilst the regulators looked the other way is what completely misses the point.

Sorry when did they start giving out mortgages to children? Oh right they didn't. They only lend to adults. People need to grow up and get some responsibility.

In saying that, there are a few cases of banks deliberately flouting regulations and deceiving borrowers but I'd say they're a minority.

Earthhorse

javaboy wrote: »

Sorry when did they start giving out mortgages to children? Oh right they didn't. They only lend to adults. People need to grow up and get some responsibility.

In saying that, there are a few cases of banks deliberately flouting regulations and deceiving borrowers but I'd say they're a minority.

Any transaction people make in life is based on trust. This is especially true the further the gap in knowledge between the two parties involved; I know jack shit about modern, or even ancient, medicine but if my doctor screws up prescription or diagnosis no one tells me to grow up and get some responsibility.

When financial institutions give out 100% mortgages en masse they are sending a signal that such loans are safe. When regulators don't bother looking into why banks are suddenly okay with a practise they previously found unacceptable they renege on their responsibility to keep them in check. Bankers and regulators are adults too; when do they have to grow up and get some responsibility?

Ourlad

javaboy wrote: »

Sorry when did they start giving out mortgages to children? Oh right they didn't. They only lend to adults. People need to grow up and get some responsibility.

In saying that, there are a few cases of banks deliberately flouting regulations and deceiving borrowers but I'd say they're a minority.

I think a lot a people trusted their bank to advise them properly on a mortgage they could afford. A person just doesnt go in demanding x amount from a bank, they have to prove what they earn a year plus what are they paying out on loans they may have already and then a bank will give them a figure they can afford on the information they have being given.

So i think the banks are just as much to blame as they handed out the money to people with a higher chance of struggling to pay it back.

javaboy

Earthhorse wrote: »

Any transaction people make in life is based on trust. This is especially true the further the gap in knowledge between the two parties involved; I know jack shit about modern, or even ancient, medicine but if my doctor screws up prescription or diagnosis no one tells me to grow up and get some responsibility.

It takes years of training to become a doctor. Beyond the basics, much of it is incomprehensible to someone who hasn't undergone that training. So yes you have to trust the doctor. And if they screw up, yes it's their fault.

On the other hand, if you go to a doctor and they say "Get some bed rest and take some aspirin. Your cancer should clear up within a few weeks", then it's your fault if you take that advice contrary to your own common sense.

You're both to blame then. Similar situation with the mortgages. People just got greedy and saw how much money they could borrow and went for big houses that they couldn't afford.

When financial institutions give out 100% mortgages en masse they are sending a signal that such loans are safe. When regulators don't bother looking into why banks are suddenly okay with a practise they previously found unacceptable they renege on their responsibility to keep them in check. Bankers and regulators are adults too; when do they have to grow up and get some responsibility?

If a person takes out a 100% percent mortgage and bases their belief that it is safe on some implicit 'signal that such loans are safe' then they are a fool imo. The bankers and regulators are certainly responsible for screwing up the economy to a large extent. But as far as I'm concerned, the main person responsible for screwing up an individual's financial situation is the individual themselves.

Overheal

True. what seems to have happened here was thousands of idiots though were given loans and mortgages though. now its rippling back, and now its affecting even the fiscally responsible people.

javaboy

Overheal wrote: »

True. what seems to have happened here was thousands of idiots though were given loans and mortgages though. now its rippling back, and now its affecting even the fiscally responsible people.

+1. The responsible ones are now seeing their pension funds being eroded and will probably feel the pain in their mortgage repayments if they still have one. People will be laid off who aren't to blame.

Those people can blame the lenders, borrowers, regulators, FF, Alan Greenspan, NWO and CIE for all I care. They are being screwed over through no fault of their own. I just object to the people who borrowed silly amounts now complaining that somebody allowed them to do it.

Earthhorse

javaboy wrote: »

You're both to blame then. Similar situation with the mortgages. People just got greedy and saw how much money they could borrow and went for big houses that they couldn't afford.

Yes, that's what I'm saying; that they're both to blame. In fact, the regulators are to blame too. A case could be made in fact that regulators and bankers are more to blame as they had more power; one regulatory step and a lot of bad loans are kept in check. If you take out one 100% mortgage it is only effecting you, not the whole system.

javaboy wrote: »

If a person takes out a 100% percent mortgage and bases their belief that it is safe on some implicit 'signal that such loans are safe' then they are a fool imo. The bankers and regulators are certainly responsible for screwing up the economy to a large extent. But as far as I'm concerned, the main person responsible for screwing up an individual's financial situation is the individual themselves.

Perhaps they are a fool, I don't know, it depends on the individual's situation I think. However, they have less power than the regulators or banks to stymie the overall fallout from situations like this, and the net result, which is foreclosure on mortgages and the possiblity of deposits not being safe is that even if you acted prudently you could be screwed.

PS A 100% percent mortgage! What's that? :P

javaboy

Earthhorse wrote: »

PS A 100% percent mortgage! What's that? :P

It's where your house costs €300,000 Euro and you borrow the entire amount. :pac:

Overheal

Hey Listen to this.

Seems they've stopped calling it a "Bailout Plan" and have re-jazzed it up as an "Economic Rescue Package"

Dubh Geannain

Overheal wrote: »

Hey Listen to this.

Seems they've stopped calling it a "Bailout Plan" and have re-jazzed it up as an "Economic Rescue Package"

My God, you're right!

What's Obama's favourite phrase again... oh yea, "you can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig"

Earthhorse

Re-jazzed it up? Sounds like a re-jazzupment of the phrase jazzed it up.

Overheal

Earthhorse wrote: »

Re-jazzed it up? Sounds like a re-jazzupment of the phrase jazzed it up.

nonsense this is the no spin zone were all fair and balanced here!

Which totally reminds me of this hilarious clip from last night: http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=186076&title=seniors-citizens-watch-the

SimpleSam06

javaboy wrote: »

In saying that, there are a few cases of banks deliberately flouting regulations and deceiving borrowers but I'd say they're a minority.

Regulations were relaxed, in particular securitisation regulation which meant you could wrap up any old rubbish and sell it on to someone else. This meant the banks felt perfectly happy about lending to whoever wandered in off the street.

The banks are to blame. The government is to blame, in part for loosening regulations, in part for squandering the gains in a way guaranteed to cripple us for decades to come. To a lesser extent those members of the public who were enabled by the combination of these two are also to blame.

Look up "predatory lending" and "attractive nuisance".

javaboy

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Regulations were relaxed, in particular securitisation regulation which meant you could wrap up any old rubbish and sell it on to someone else. This meant the banks felt perfectly happy about lending to whoever wandered in off the street.

The banks are to blame. The government is to blame, in part for loosening regulations, in part for squandering the gains in a way guaranteed to cripple us for decades to come. To a lesser extent those members of the public who were enabled by the combination of these two are also to blame.

Look up "predatory lending" and "attractive nuisance".

Enabling or facilitating stupid actions doesn't relieve the person who does the stupid thing of responsibility. Sure the banks/regulators have to shoulder a huge amount of the blame for the current crisis but if more borrowers had used their common sense, they wouldn't be in such a bad situation.

Futurism

This enormous $700bn bailout will devour us all!

SimpleSam06

javaboy wrote: »

Enabling or facilitating stupid actions doesn't relieve the person who does the stupid thing of responsibility. Sure the banks/regulators have to shoulder a huge amount of the blame for the current crisis but if more borrowers had used their common sense, they wouldn't be in such a bad situation.

To an extent thats true, but you also need to look at the poisonous environment that caused the effect. It was practically impossible to hear any dissenting voices to the mantra "you can't lose on property".

Even in the prop/accom forum here, you had to shout yourself hoarse to try to make people aware of the dangers, against a horde of people crying "begrudger" with a sneer on their faces, and that was as late as 2007. And even then they wouldn't believe you. Back in 2004 or 2005, forget about it, there was no chance.

If the environment is such that no prominent source exists to warn people about a danger, its hard to fault them for taking the leap. And the banks knew full well what they were doing, they knew there was no way out for those hapless fools. So did the government.

javaboy

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

To an extent thats true, but you also need to look at the poisonous environment that caused the effect. It was practically impossible to hear any dissenting voices to the mantra "you can't lose on property".

Even in the prop/accom forum here, you had to shout yourself hoarse to try to make people aware of the dangers, against a horde of people crying "begrudger" with a sneer on their faces, and that was as late as 2007. And even then they wouldn't believe you. Back in 2004 or 2005, forget about it, there was no chance.

If the environment is such that no prominent source exists to warn people about a danger, its hard to fault them for taking the leap. And the banks knew full well what they were doing, they knew there was no way out for those hapless fools. So did the government.

I suppose you're right but then some people managed not to get sucked in and believe the hype so you can fault them to some extent for taking the leap imo.

How did some people manage not to get sucked in?

Earthhorse

javaboy wrote: »

How did some people manage not to get sucked in?

Sceptism. Education. Intelligence. Blind luck. Don't really matter.

So level with us javaboy, which are you; a banker or a regulator?

javaboy

Earthhorse wrote: »

So level with us javaboy, which are you; a banker or a regulator?

I was just about to ask you how much you're in hock to the banks for!

Overheal

Futurism wrote: »

This enormous $700bn bailout will devour us all!

that was yesterday, today is a more friendlier $700bn economic recovery package.

The_Conductor

Is it true that the Department of Finance's bailout of the Irish Banking Sector is an unsecured loan of potentially as much as EUR435billion from the taxpayer? How can the Irish taxpayer stomach or indeed countenance guarantees such as this being given to the top 6 financial institutions in the country- particularly as we're being fleeced by them anyway we look at it? Does this bailout have implications under EU State Aid rules? How can we afford to do this?

Heroditas

smccarrick wrote: »

Is it true that the Department of Finance's bailout of the Irish Banking Sector is an unsecured loan of potentially as much as EUR435billion from the taxpayer? How can the Irish taxpayer stomach or indeed countenance guarantees such as this being given to the top 6 financial institutions in the country- particularly as we're being fleeced by them anyway we look at it? Does this bailout have implications under EU State Aid rules? How can we afford to do this?

We can't afford it. The mere thought that all the banks would need to be bailed out is far too frightening a scenario and I think the govt realize that it is also highky unlikely. It does seem to have stalled the tailspin of shares however.

Does the bailout have implications? No idea.
Am I slightly annoyed about it? Well yes actually I am. I fail to see why we should have to insure public institutions with our tax money. They gave loans out recklessly to people and now they expect us to protect them. They should be in front of a judge explaining their reckless lending.

<I didn't make millions in the boom so allow me to indulge >

ShooterSF

dsmythy wrote: »

I see the DOW ended up down 777.7

What message does the 7's send?

It will give them a good chance of beating Final Fantasy 7

Any character whose hit points are reduced to 7777 after an attack gets all lucky 7's effect. The character goes in to a mad rage and begins attacking the enemy non-stop landing a hit for 7777 points of damage each time. To get this you must first get your characters HP over 7777. this means all lucky 7's affect can only happen to high level characters, or those equipped with several hp plus Materia. You must also be very lucky since a attack must knock that character down to exactly 7777 HP. it can happen but its not likely to happen when you want it to. Also after a battle where a characters hit points are 7777, that characters HP is reduced to 1. So you cant carry this effect over in to another battle. I have not yet found a way to get this effect by equipping Materia and equipment, but that's not to say that it cant be done.

thelordofcheese

Heroditas wrote: »

We can't afford it. The mere thought that all the banks would need to be bailed out is far too frightening a scenario and I think the govt realize that it is also highky unlikely. It does seem to have stalled the tailspin of shares however.

Does the bailout have implications? No idea.
Am I slightly annoyed about it? Well yes actually I am. I fail to see why we should have to insure public institutions with our tax money. They gave loans out recklessly to people and now they expect us to protect them. They should be in front of a judge explaining their reckless lending.

<I didn't make millions in the boom so allow me to indulge >

because is a bank folds in the morning that's a large chunk of money in the economy that suddenly does not exist anymore.

This is a very bad thing.
VERY BAD.

Run_to_da_hills

thelordofcheese wrote: »

because is a bank folds in the morning that's a large chunk of money in the economy that suddenly does not exist anymore.

This is a very bad thing.
VERY BAD.

It could also mean that your next bank card could be issued by the state and be eventually incorporated into the multi functional "National ID", seen as all the Irish banks have been nationalised over night.

An interesting quote from Business week in April 18th 1977 states: "If there's just one card... It will be issued by the Government".

javaboy

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

It could also mean that your next bank card could be issued by the state and be eventually incorporated into the multi functional "National ID", seen as all the Irish banks have been nationalised over night.

+1. That would be handy alright.

An interesting quote from Business week in April 18th 1977 states: "If there's just one card... It will be issued by the Government".

Who else would issue it? I mean if there is ever going to be only one card to cover ID, banking, passport, library etc., why would you want it issued by a for profit private company? Surely the government is the ideal organisation to be handling something like that?

thelordofcheese

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

It could also mean that your next bank card could be issued by the state and be eventually incorporated into the multi functional "National ID", seen as all the Irish banks have been nationalised over night.

An interesting quote from Business week in April 18th 1977 states: "If there's just one card... It will be issued by the Government".

Go away.
Nobody cares about your batshit insane ramblings.

shenanigans1982

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

An interesting quote from Business week in April 18th 1977 states: "If there's just one card... It will be issued by the Government".

Its in your sig, we see it every time you post....it will probably be on your headstone. All this uncertainty must be like winning the lottery for you. Years of scarmongering soundbytes that you have built up over the years can be unleashed upon the rest of the world.

SimpleSam06

javaboy wrote: »

I suppose you're right but then some people managed not to get sucked in and believe the hype so you can fault them to some extent for taking the leap imo.

Its a fairly ephemeral point, but I'd use the laws on entrapment to support the position of those who bought - if the police leave an unlocked car in a car park and you steal it, they have you. If they meet you in a bar, get you drunk, and actively try to convince you to steal the car, or do something stupid, thats entrapment. The banks and property developers have been buying the rounds for years now.

smccarrick wrote: »

How can the Irish taxpayer stomach or indeed countenance guarantees such as this being given to the top 6 financial institutions in the country- particularly as we're being fleeced by them anyway we look at it?

They can't and won't, but remember, as with all aspects of macroeconomics we're dealing with a scale of years. Nobody is angry enough at the moment to do anything about it, but in 24 months when the real hardship hits, thats when we'll see change. The random flutters and jitters of the markets are hardly worth paying any heed to on that scale.