The "free market" is a Big Government Program

[Indeependent]

I can tell you from professional experience that "GW's" Housing Bubble and Crash are going to occur again.

I can tell you the dregs of society , god's 'special children' ie corn-struction workers are all expecting a crash Indeep

I know for a fact that these people earn in the lower 20-30Ks and I am convinced that the Lenders are Rubber Stamping these Loans "Approved".
Just as in the GW years, there is no way the Tables in the software provided by the Municipalities, States and Federal levels of Government are allowing people who work in Pizza Shops to take out Home Equity Loads in the 600K range.

a recipe for another housing disaster

Everybody loves a great economy, but everyone wants to jump aboard before they're capable of earning and paying their own way.

true, but don't you sense the constant revaluation via fiscals such as the derivatives market a factor InDeep?

~S~

Institutional Trading should be Illegal.
I'm tired of egotistical assholes with a bullshit degree in Finance from a "prestigious" University that their daddy's bribe got them into, determining from thin air how a much a given piece of a MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATION, with an almost infinite amount of physical Assets & Liabilities alone, is worth at any given second.
HOW THE FUCK DO THEY KNOW????
It's a fucking game that they never lose at!

I explained it last week to a naive person here who wants to believe all people on Wall Street are honest.

I will now calm down...nah!

how a much a given piece of a MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATION, with an almost infinite amount of physical Assets & Liabilities alone, is worth at any given second.

If they're overpricing it, don't buy from them.
If they're underpricing it, don't sell to them.

I get the impression you were on the up and up.
Not so the Institutional Traders who are baiting the small guy.

The Market rides like a roller coaster all day long...there's no way that would happen if the data being fed to the masses were honest.
Are investors really pulling in and out of the same deal all day long?
No way.

It's like a big flashing advertisement, but when it fails, it destroys an entire economy.

In fact, with today's technology, crashes should never happen because we found out something that happened last year was suddenly discovered.

Just look at the Housing Crash...who didn't really know the Loans were BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD!
But everybody's got a dream.

Not so the Institutional Traders who are baiting the small guy.

Again... as I pointed out before, your 401K is run by institutional traders. Union pension funds, are run by institutional traders. The trust fund of schools like Yale and Harvard, are run by institutional traders. Annuities for old people retiring, are run by institutional traders.

Basically every single retirement, or investment program in the world, is run by institutional traders.

The small guy.... benefits specifically from institutional traders. I've doubled my money in the stock market, through an IRA..... run by institutional traders.

The Market rides like a roller coaster all day long...there's no way that would happen if the data being fed to the masses were honest.

Of course it would go up and down, with or without accurate information.

Just like there are hundreds of factors involved in the value of a stock, there are also hundreds of factors involved in investor choices.

Simple example: Had an idiot years ago, who during the sub-prime crash, sold all his stocks. He was convinced, the market was going to completely tank, and he was going to magically lose all his money.

So he sold all his stocks.

I on the other hand, I bought every single stock I could buy. Every single spare dollar I could grab, I purchased stocks with it.

The information we had was identical. He didn't have any more information than I did, and I didn't have any more information than him. Yet both of us had completely opposite reactions to the market.

Warren Buffet supposedly said (I've heard this from multiple sources, but I still can't confirm it), when he was asked by a reporter how much money he lost in the Sub-prime stock market crash, responded "None. I didn't sell my stocks".

So you have 3 different people, and each had different reactions to the same exact information. One guy sold all his stocks (which would drive prices down), one guy bought every stock he could be (which would drive prices up), and one guy did absolutely nothing.

Do you see the problem with your logic? You act like if everyone had perfect information, that we'd all do the exact same thing, and the market would be completely static.

Not so. People react differently to perfect information all the time.

So.... No. The market should naturally go up and down, constantly. It would be ridiculous to think otherwise.

It's like a big flashing advertisement, but when it fails, it destroys an entire economy.

Um... no. The stock market reflects the economy. Not the other way around. A stock market crash, can't somehow magically cause the economy to crash.

Just think about that logically for a moment. Say you are a company, like oh.... Apple Computer. Say the stock market hits a bump and crashes.

How does that affect you?

It doesn't. If people are still buying iPhones, you are still going to sell them. If people are still buying your computers, you are still going to sell them. If products are still being sold, you are still going to have them made.

How does the dropping of your stock price, cause Apple computer, or any other company you might work for, have any problems? It doesn't.

Let's take the 1929 Crash. Did that crash cause any companies to go under? No. In fact, the unemployment rate in 1929, even after the stock market crash, was still just 3%.

But why did the stock market crash? Because investors saw that Smoot Hawley tariffs were going to cash business to crash. In 1930, the Smoot Hawley tariff was imposed, and unemployment from all those businesses forced back into the US (that was sarcasm) jumped up to 8.7%. Then you had the dust bowl, unemployment hit 15%, and the Hoover tax increases to pay for all the government programs, and unemployment hit 23%, and then FDR's new deal, and unemployment hit 24%.

Historical US Unemployment Rate by Year

The unemployment rate has fluctuated greatly since 1929. Learn how GDP, inflation, economic events, and other policies have historically impacted unemployment.

www.thebalance.com

Again, did the crash in 1929 cause businesses to close? No. It was the Smoot-Hawley protectionism that caused businesses to close. The investors saw that coming, that's why the stock crash happened in 1929, when the bill to impose protectionism was introduced.

But none of the economic decline happened after the stock market crash. It happened as tariffs and retaliatory tariffs were placed against the US, which killed the economy, and people lost their jobs.

The stock market reacted to future implications. It didn't cause anything. Stock markets do not "cause" the economy to fail. The future information that the economy would fail, caused the markets to crash.

You are trying to put the cart in front of the horse.

Just look at the Housing Crash...who didn't really know the Loans were BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD!
But everybody's got a dream.

Who didn't know the loans were bad? Government. You want me to post videos of Maxine Waters, and Barnie Frank saying that everything was great? You want me to post the news articles where Freddie Mac signed a deal with First Union (wachovia) and Bear Stearns, two of the largest crashes.... to make bad sub-prime loans?

Or how about Obama who said openly, that sub-prime loans were a good idea?

Government didn't know the loans were bad. They pushed bad loans, throughout the entire sub-prime bubble.

Uh huh...Yeah.
By the way, The Great Depression, as defined by Milton Freidman in one of his last videos, was caused by excessive off-shoring of assets and the lack of technology to know those assets were wasted on parties. Yep, MF says it and every Conservative who hears that sentence blocks it out because Conservatives are just as mentally ill as Liberals.

The rest of your comments are pure nonsense as you have not spent any time in any Wall Street firm at a meeting attended and run by 20 MBAs who didn't care about anything else other than selling an idea or an actual product, regardless of the viability of the product.

Who didn't know the loans were bad? Government. You want me to post videos of Maxine Waters, and Barnie Frank saying that everything was great? You want me to post the news articles where Freddie Mac signed a deal with First Union (wachovia) and Bear Stearns, two of the largest crashes.... to make bad sub-prime loans?
Grow up already; every Loan Officer Rubber Stamped Loans. You really do live in Kansas, don't you?
Half of the Lenders in my community were hired by the Obama Administration to investigate these Papers stamped "Approved" because they were among the few Lenders who followed the Government provided software that Rejected the Loan; these Lenders lost their careers because there weren't enough Borrowers who listened to their advice and buy a less expensive home.

"The stock market reacted to future implications. It didn't cause anything. Stock markets do not "cause" the economy to fail. The future information that the economy would fail, caused the markets to crash."
I hope you're kidding...Stock markets can, and have, turned wealthy people into paupers in mere moments.
In fact, this happened a few months before Trump's tax cuts.

Or how about Obama who said openly, that sub-prime loans were a good idea?
You didn't listen to Rush back then, did you?
Rush loved sub-prime Loans and claimed the GW was a genius!
The Loans themselves were only a fraction of the issue as nobody cares if minorities lose their home and wind up homeless.
After all, there were no Smart Devices back then to storm Wall Street and hand the MBAs.
The Rubber Stamped Loans were packed into other projects, almost all doomed to fail, and then sold to Financial Firms in the Eastern Hemisphere.
Why? Because no firm here cared if a Bank in Asia could collect on the loan because the bankers here would conjure up another scheme to raise that money.

But Whitey made a mistake which I understood because I was taking Karate and understood the Asian mentality...
You owe me $1.00 this month, I'm not accepting $.99.
Sounds funny, doesn't it, but Asians back then, before we tainted them, work on real numbers, not American vapor.

I could go on but you already bought the Rush Limbaugh horse crap.

GW, The Rs and the Ds and every Financial Firm in the US caused a deficit that will never be paid off.
But Obama!..Saved you from starving by borrowing against the future.
You're so Lilly White...
Send your bank account and every check you get to the Fed.
But I work for my check!
You know why your boss has a business?
Obama borrowed against the future.
I was there, I saw business owners begging the banks for a penny!

I could write a book on your delusions, but what the heck, every RWer in my community still denies this GW farce.

Look, you're a really smart guy but so damned Yankee Doodle.
Stop responding to what you consider nonsense (since you weren't there and can only rely on Fox and The Wall Street Journal of Bullshit for your knowledge base).

By the way, The Great Depression, as defined by Milton Freidman in one of his last videos, was caused by excessive off-shoring of assets and the lack of technology to know those assets were wasted on parties. Yep, MF says it and every Conservative who hears that sentence blocks it out because Conservatives are just as mentally ill as Liberals.

Thomas Rustici on Smoot-Hawley and the Great Depression - Econlib

Thomas Rustici of George Mason University and author of Lessons from the Great Depression talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the impact of the Smoot-Hawley Act on the economy. The standard view is that the decrease in trade that followed Smoot-Hawley was not big enough to be a...

www.econtalk.org

Economist Rustici, clearly documents the effects of the Smoot Hawley tariff, and how it caused the crash. One clear example, is the Pittsburgh steel industry. The Smoot Hawley tariff, drastically increased the cost of raw iron ore from Canada. Of course Canada equally put in place a retaliatory tariff against steel imported from the US.

Do tell sparky... if you were a steel company, which would cause you more problems: A drop in your company stock price, or the price of your raw steel going up dramatically at the exact same time the price of your finished product steel dropping dramatically?

The rest of your comments are pure nonsense as you have not spent any time in any Wall Street firm at a meeting attended and run by 20 MBAs who didn't care about anything else other than selling an idea or an actual product, regardless of the viability of the product.

That is not a counter argument to anything I said.

Grow up already; every Loan Officer Rubber Stamped Loans.

Does not change anything I said. Not a counter argument to anything.
Again, if you want me to post the videos of Maxine Waters, and Barnie Frank both praising sub-prime loans, and Obama calling it a good idea, and Andrew Cuomo suing banks to make bad loans.... I will do so. But your statement, changes nothing.

Lenders who followed the Government provided software that Rejected the Loan; these Lenders lost their careers because there weren't enough Borrowers who listened to their advice and buy a less expensive home.

Robot Check

John A. Allison was CEO of BB&T bank, when regulators under the Clinton administration showed up, and required that they lower lending standards.

This is well documented.

But Obama!..Saved you from starving by borrowing against the future.

Bull crap. A number of countries did not bailout out their banks, and were just fine.

Plus, Obama was part of the group pushing sub-prime loans to being with. Only a brainless idiot, sees someone create a problem, and then present themselves as a solution to a problem they created, and claim they saved us.

You are dumbest moron on the face of the planet, if you honestly believe that.

You know why your boss has a business?
Obama borrowed against the future.
I was there, I saw business owners begging the banks for a penny!

My boss was not there. Nor did anything that created that company, or the products that company sold, ever come from Obama.

I could write a book on your delusions, but what the heck, every RWer in my community still denies this GW farce.

My delusions? Which one of us right now, is sitting around justifying government taking your tax money, and giving it to wealthy people?

Stop responding to what you consider nonsense (since you weren't there and can only rely on Fox and The Wall Street Journal of Bullshit for your knowledge base).

Well because I'm right. I know I'm right. You are wrong, and I can prove it. So why should I stop responding, when you are the one making insane claims?

Do us a favor...find the MF video and stop quoting everyone else.

As I always tell Liberals...
Capitalism is, well, ok...until you try everything else...then Capitalism is GREAT!

First, I wager I have watched every single video Milton Friedman ever made.

Second, no person is god-like. Everyone, is wrong sometimes. Thomas Sowell has been wrong. Mises has been wrong. Adam Smith has been wrong. Everyone has been wrong.

This is the same thing as "Ronald Reagan said!".... doesn't matter. Ronald Reagan was right most of the time, just like Milton Friedman. But they were wrong sometimes too.

So this idea that Milton said something, and therefore it's now divine truth.... no. Just no.

Now if you are going to tell me to stop quoting everyone else until I see your Milton Friedman video... ok.... How about you stop quoting only Milton Freidman all the time, until you read those books that document what happened with the Sub-prime loans and the Smoot Hawley tariff.

Between the two of us, which has a better way of understanding? The one who grabs one single video, by one single person, and proclaims that as gospel truth, or the one who has a multitude of data from a number of sources?

Obviously, having more than one single source for a claim, is better.

Go learn some stuff, and then come back. Don't give me this, "This one divine prophet knows all, and no other source of information matters!" crap. You are wrong.

If you watched the one about Free Trade and missed what he said, you need anti-bullshit meds.
I have watched many MFs videos and he is a globalist who wouldn't care if you were digging ditches all day long.
He loved the Slave Labor Camps in India and China; he was basically a self-righteous piece of shit.

I will no longer continue this specific discussion as you watch too much FoxNews.

Watch other people's videos?...
I have..every Conservative who has been touted by Rush and Fox talks for a living and...talks for a living.
The beautiful facts about the insanity on both sides is that their audiences are big enough to provide them with the advertisement bucks they need to live their lives.

I remember when every Conservative on FoxNews and their Conservative guests after the Housing Crash were insulting the unemployed...
Can't they sell the stuff in their closet and start a corporation?????

Really, what kind of a spoiled, psychotic pos says that? on TV?

I don't need to point out how psycho the Left is because it's way too obvious,

I have watched many MFs videos and he is a globalist who wouldn't care if you were digging ditches all day long.

You are implying that he should care. If I am offered a job to dig ditches, and I choose to take such a job.... why should anyone care if I'm digging ditches?

Now if you have socialism, and you force people to dig ditches, no, Friedman was very much against that.

He loved the Slave Labor Camps in India and China; he was basically a self-righteous piece of shit.

No, that is entirely untrue, and right now, you are the one being a self-righteous piece of sh!t.

Watch other people's videos?...
I have..every Conservative who has been touted by Rush and Fox talks for a living and...talks for a living.

Ironically I don't listen to Rush, or Fox.

The beautiful facts about the insanity on both sides is that their audiences are big enough to provide them with the advertisement bucks they need to live their lives.

You realize this this forum is paid for, in part, by advertising revenue? I guess you yourself, are part of the insanity now, huh?

I remember when every Conservative on FoxNews and their Conservative guests after the Housing Crash were insulting the unemployed...
Can't they sell the stuff in their closet and start a corporation?????

Yeah, I agree with that. In 2008, I was laid off. I found a job, in 2008, in roughly one month from when I was laid off. That job ended in 2009, and I found another job in one week from when I was laid off. That job was a contract position that lasted until 2010, and I found another job that I spent several years working at.

I was able to find all of these jobs, during the recession, despite having no real skills, no trade skills, no college degrees, no training or certifications of any kind.

If someone with as little in qualifications as me, am able to find work in 2008, 2009, and 2010.... all the years that were the worst of the recession.... then why can't anyone else, who likely have better qualifications than me?

I was reading about a guy who was working at one of the big banks that crashed during the sub-prime burst. He could have stayed at home, living off Bush's 99-weeks of unemployment. Instead he got a job at McDonalds.

True story. He went from a six-figure income, to working at McDonald's. He determined for himself, that he was not going to be a burden on society, and that he would work for living, while looking for better employement.

After working there a month, the manager pulled him into the office, and asked him what his deal was. He was obviously not like the other employees. The story came out, and a month later, McDonald's Corporate called, and gave him a management position at McDonald's corporate.

Point is.... yeah. Get your butt to work. Stop with the excuses. I've never watched Fox, but if what you said is true, yeah, I agree with them completely. Find a job. Get to work.

You found one schmuck...good for you.
How old was he?
Did he pay off all his debts?
Did working at McDonald make him lose everything, including his spouse, his home, his children?

Maybe he wasn't a schmuck...maybe he made his fortune and could well afford to work at McDonalds.

No, actually his spouse is the one who told the story, because she was so proud of her husband willing to do whatever it takes to earn a living.

Seeing someone willing to humble themselves, is honestly very inspiring.

So no, he didn't lose anything. Now I don't think he's earning quite as much being a manager at McDonald, than he was at the bank.... but no he didn't lose his house, or his family. In fact, I think his wife respects and honors him more now, than she did before.

Too bad almost 100% of US citizens thinks this guy is mentally ill.

 

[Andylusion]

I can tell you from professional experience that "GW's" Housing Bubble and Crash are going to occur again.

I can tell you the dregs of society , god's 'special children' ie corn-struction workers are all expecting a crash Indeep

I know for a fact that these people earn in the lower 20-30Ks and I am convinced that the Lenders are Rubber Stamping these Loans "Approved".
Just as in the GW years, there is no way the Tables in the software provided by the Municipalities, States and Federal levels of Government are allowing people who work in Pizza Shops to take out Home Equity Loads in the 600K range.

a recipe for another housing disaster

Everybody loves a great economy, but everyone wants to jump aboard before they're capable of earning and paying their own way.

true, but don't you sense the constant revaluation via fiscals such as the derivatives market a factor InDeep?

~S~

Institutional Trading should be Illegal.
I'm tired of egotistical assholes with a bullshit degree in Finance from a "prestigious" University that their daddy's bribe got them into, determining from thin air how a much a given piece of a MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATION, with an almost infinite amount of physical Assets & Liabilities alone, is worth at any given second.
HOW THE FUCK DO THEY KNOW????
It's a fucking game that they never lose at!

I explained it last week to a naive person here who wants to believe all people on Wall Street are honest.

I will now calm down...nah!

how a much a given piece of a MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATION, with an almost infinite amount of physical Assets & Liabilities alone, is worth at any given second.

If they're overpricing it, don't buy from them.
If they're underpricing it, don't sell to them.

I get the impression you were on the up and up.
Not so the Institutional Traders who are baiting the small guy.

The Market rides like a roller coaster all day long...there's no way that would happen if the data being fed to the masses were honest.
Are investors really pulling in and out of the same deal all day long?
No way.

It's like a big flashing advertisement, but when it fails, it destroys an entire economy.

In fact, with today's technology, crashes should never happen because we found out something that happened last year was suddenly discovered.

Just look at the Housing Crash...who didn't really know the Loans were BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD!
But everybody's got a dream.

Not so the Institutional Traders who are baiting the small guy.

Again... as I pointed out before, your 401K is run by institutional traders. Union pension funds, are run by institutional traders. The trust fund of schools like Yale and Harvard, are run by institutional traders. Annuities for old people retiring, are run by institutional traders.

Basically every single retirement, or investment program in the world, is run by institutional traders.

The small guy.... benefits specifically from institutional traders. I've doubled my money in the stock market, through an IRA..... run by institutional traders.

The Market rides like a roller coaster all day long...there's no way that would happen if the data being fed to the masses were honest.

Of course it would go up and down, with or without accurate information.

Just like there are hundreds of factors involved in the value of a stock, there are also hundreds of factors involved in investor choices.

Simple example: Had an idiot years ago, who during the sub-prime crash, sold all his stocks. He was convinced, the market was going to completely tank, and he was going to magically lose all his money.

So he sold all his stocks.

I on the other hand, I bought every single stock I could buy. Every single spare dollar I could grab, I purchased stocks with it.

The information we had was identical. He didn't have any more information than I did, and I didn't have any more information than him. Yet both of us had completely opposite reactions to the market.

Warren Buffet supposedly said (I've heard this from multiple sources, but I still can't confirm it), when he was asked by a reporter how much money he lost in the Sub-prime stock market crash, responded "None. I didn't sell my stocks".

So you have 3 different people, and each had different reactions to the same exact information. One guy sold all his stocks (which would drive prices down), one guy bought every stock he could be (which would drive prices up), and one guy did absolutely nothing.

Do you see the problem with your logic? You act like if everyone had perfect information, that we'd all do the exact same thing, and the market would be completely static.

Not so. People react differently to perfect information all the time.

So.... No. The market should naturally go up and down, constantly. It would be ridiculous to think otherwise.

It's like a big flashing advertisement, but when it fails, it destroys an entire economy.

Um... no. The stock market reflects the economy. Not the other way around. A stock market crash, can't somehow magically cause the economy to crash.

Just think about that logically for a moment. Say you are a company, like oh.... Apple Computer. Say the stock market hits a bump and crashes.

How does that affect you?

It doesn't. If people are still buying iPhones, you are still going to sell them. If people are still buying your computers, you are still going to sell them. If products are still being sold, you are still going to have them made.

How does the dropping of your stock price, cause Apple computer, or any other company you might work for, have any problems? It doesn't.

Let's take the 1929 Crash. Did that crash cause any companies to go under? No. In fact, the unemployment rate in 1929, even after the stock market crash, was still just 3%.

But why did the stock market crash? Because investors saw that Smoot Hawley tariffs were going to cash business to crash. In 1930, the Smoot Hawley tariff was imposed, and unemployment from all those businesses forced back into the US (that was sarcasm) jumped up to 8.7%. Then you had the dust bowl, unemployment hit 15%, and the Hoover tax increases to pay for all the government programs, and unemployment hit 23%, and then FDR's new deal, and unemployment hit 24%.

Historical US Unemployment Rate by Year

The unemployment rate has fluctuated greatly since 1929. Learn how GDP, inflation, economic events, and other policies have historically impacted unemployment.

www.thebalance.com

Again, did the crash in 1929 cause businesses to close? No. It was the Smoot-Hawley protectionism that caused businesses to close. The investors saw that coming, that's why the stock crash happened in 1929, when the bill to impose protectionism was introduced.

But none of the economic decline happened after the stock market crash. It happened as tariffs and retaliatory tariffs were placed against the US, which killed the economy, and people lost their jobs.

The stock market reacted to future implications. It didn't cause anything. Stock markets do not "cause" the economy to fail. The future information that the economy would fail, caused the markets to crash.

You are trying to put the cart in front of the horse.

Just look at the Housing Crash...who didn't really know the Loans were BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD!
But everybody's got a dream.

Who didn't know the loans were bad? Government. You want me to post videos of Maxine Waters, and Barnie Frank saying that everything was great? You want me to post the news articles where Freddie Mac signed a deal with First Union (wachovia) and Bear Stearns, two of the largest crashes.... to make bad sub-prime loans?

Or how about Obama who said openly, that sub-prime loans were a good idea?

Government didn't know the loans were bad. They pushed bad loans, throughout the entire sub-prime bubble.

Uh huh...Yeah.
By the way, The Great Depression, as defined by Milton Freidman in one of his last videos, was caused by excessive off-shoring of assets and the lack of technology to know those assets were wasted on parties. Yep, MF says it and every Conservative who hears that sentence blocks it out because Conservatives are just as mentally ill as Liberals.

The rest of your comments are pure nonsense as you have not spent any time in any Wall Street firm at a meeting attended and run by 20 MBAs who didn't care about anything else other than selling an idea or an actual product, regardless of the viability of the product.

Who didn't know the loans were bad? Government. You want me to post videos of Maxine Waters, and Barnie Frank saying that everything was great? You want me to post the news articles where Freddie Mac signed a deal with First Union (wachovia) and Bear Stearns, two of the largest crashes.... to make bad sub-prime loans?
Grow up already; every Loan Officer Rubber Stamped Loans. You really do live in Kansas, don't you?
Half of the Lenders in my community were hired by the Obama Administration to investigate these Papers stamped "Approved" because they were among the few Lenders who followed the Government provided software that Rejected the Loan; these Lenders lost their careers because there weren't enough Borrowers who listened to their advice and buy a less expensive home.

"The stock market reacted to future implications. It didn't cause anything. Stock markets do not "cause" the economy to fail. The future information that the economy would fail, caused the markets to crash."
I hope you're kidding...Stock markets can, and have, turned wealthy people into paupers in mere moments.
In fact, this happened a few months before Trump's tax cuts.

Or how about Obama who said openly, that sub-prime loans were a good idea?
You didn't listen to Rush back then, did you?
Rush loved sub-prime Loans and claimed the GW was a genius!
The Loans themselves were only a fraction of the issue as nobody cares if minorities lose their home and wind up homeless.
After all, there were no Smart Devices back then to storm Wall Street and hand the MBAs.
The Rubber Stamped Loans were packed into other projects, almost all doomed to fail, and then sold to Financial Firms in the Eastern Hemisphere.
Why? Because no firm here cared if a Bank in Asia could collect on the loan because the bankers here would conjure up another scheme to raise that money.

But Whitey made a mistake which I understood because I was taking Karate and understood the Asian mentality...
You owe me $1.00 this month, I'm not accepting $.99.
Sounds funny, doesn't it, but Asians back then, before we tainted them, work on real numbers, not American vapor.

I could go on but you already bought the Rush Limbaugh horse crap.

GW, The Rs and the Ds and every Financial Firm in the US caused a deficit that will never be paid off.
But Obama!..Saved you from starving by borrowing against the future.
You're so Lilly White...
Send your bank account and every check you get to the Fed.
But I work for my check!
You know why your boss has a business?
Obama borrowed against the future.
I was there, I saw business owners begging the banks for a penny!

I could write a book on your delusions, but what the heck, every RWer in my community still denies this GW farce.

Look, you're a really smart guy but so damned Yankee Doodle.
Stop responding to what you consider nonsense (since you weren't there and can only rely on Fox and The Wall Street Journal of Bullshit for your knowledge base).

By the way, The Great Depression, as defined by Milton Freidman in one of his last videos, was caused by excessive off-shoring of assets and the lack of technology to know those assets were wasted on parties. Yep, MF says it and every Conservative who hears that sentence blocks it out because Conservatives are just as mentally ill as Liberals.

Thomas Rustici on Smoot-Hawley and the Great Depression - Econlib

Thomas Rustici of George Mason University and author of Lessons from the Great Depression talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the impact of the Smoot-Hawley Act on the economy. The standard view is that the decrease in trade that followed Smoot-Hawley was not big enough to be a...

www.econtalk.org

Economist Rustici, clearly documents the effects of the Smoot Hawley tariff, and how it caused the crash. One clear example, is the Pittsburgh steel industry. The Smoot Hawley tariff, drastically increased the cost of raw iron ore from Canada. Of course Canada equally put in place a retaliatory tariff against steel imported from the US.

Do tell sparky... if you were a steel company, which would cause you more problems: A drop in your company stock price, or the price of your raw steel going up dramatically at the exact same time the price of your finished product steel dropping dramatically?

The rest of your comments are pure nonsense as you have not spent any time in any Wall Street firm at a meeting attended and run by 20 MBAs who didn't care about anything else other than selling an idea or an actual product, regardless of the viability of the product.

That is not a counter argument to anything I said.

Grow up already; every Loan Officer Rubber Stamped Loans.

Does not change anything I said. Not a counter argument to anything.
Again, if you want me to post the videos of Maxine Waters, and Barnie Frank both praising sub-prime loans, and Obama calling it a good idea, and Andrew Cuomo suing banks to make bad loans.... I will do so. But your statement, changes nothing.

Lenders who followed the Government provided software that Rejected the Loan; these Lenders lost their careers because there weren't enough Borrowers who listened to their advice and buy a less expensive home.

Robot Check

John A. Allison was CEO of BB&T bank, when regulators under the Clinton administration showed up, and required that they lower lending standards.

This is well documented.

But Obama!..Saved you from starving by borrowing against the future.

Bull crap. A number of countries did not bailout out their banks, and were just fine.

Plus, Obama was part of the group pushing sub-prime loans to being with. Only a brainless idiot, sees someone create a problem, and then present themselves as a solution to a problem they created, and claim they saved us.

You are dumbest moron on the face of the planet, if you honestly believe that.

You know why your boss has a business?
Obama borrowed against the future.
I was there, I saw business owners begging the banks for a penny!

My boss was not there. Nor did anything that created that company, or the products that company sold, ever come from Obama.

I could write a book on your delusions, but what the heck, every RWer in my community still denies this GW farce.

My delusions? Which one of us right now, is sitting around justifying government taking your tax money, and giving it to wealthy people?

Stop responding to what you consider nonsense (since you weren't there and can only rely on Fox and The Wall Street Journal of Bullshit for your knowledge base).

Well because I'm right. I know I'm right. You are wrong, and I can prove it. So why should I stop responding, when you are the one making insane claims?

Just out of curiosity, do you realize you didn't directly address anything I posted?

Why do you mention Europe when the I stated Obama had to bail out the world.

Why are you referencing some other video when MFs video is on YouTube?

Why are you blaming sub-primer loans alone when they were less than 3% of the crash?

Not to mention that the men who engineered the entire Lending Bubble, Alan Greenspan, Dick Cheney and Warren Buffet, made billions off the crash.

To be honest, you are so honest I wish you would run for office.

Yes, because you did not make any real points.

Because Obama didn't have to bail out the world. That is opinion. That is not a fact. It's opinion. We didn't bail out Lehman Brothers. It didn't doom the world.

Now I get it that banks claimed Obama had to bail out the world.... well of course they did. Those CEOs jobs are to save the company. If the only way to save the company is to get money from government, they are going to go to government ask for money.

And if the only way to convince government to give you money, is to claim that if you don't bail them out, that the world will end... then they are going to say you have to bail us out or the world will end.

But it's not true. That's just a bunch of rich people, saying whatever they have to say, to get cash.

No, Obama didn't have to bail out the world. The world would have been just fine, with zero bailouts. Iceland didn't bailout a single bank, and their big three banks that all failed, were a far larger percentage of their economy, then our banks were.

Iceland not only did not implode, but they recovered faster, and were recording great economic growth, while we were still in a recession.

Estonia years ago, also refused to bailout their banks, and their banks all went bankrupt and closed, and they recovered just fine, no problem.

Why are you referencing some other video when MFs video is on YouTube?

Because my videos are directly relevant to the topic at hand. Milton Friedman was not relevant to the topic at hand.

Why are you blaming sub-primer loans alone when they were less than 3% of the crash?

Because that is not true?

Sub-prime loans were almost 25% of the market by the end. And you'll notice, as I said before, that sub-prime loans were a niche market before 1997, when Bill Clinton, and his administration pushed Sub-prime loans into the main stream.

Not to mention that the men who engineered the entire Lending Bubble, Alan Greenspan, Dick Cheney and Warren Buffet, made billions off the crash.

People are always going to invest in ways that make a profit. People are going to invest in ways to make a profit, whether the economy is good, or the economy is bad.

Complaining that people made a profit, is pointless. They are always going to make a profit. That's like complaining it's sunny in Arizona, during a depression. Yeah, that's going to happen.

The question isn't "did people make a profit during....." We always answer that with.... yeah. That's what investors do. Investors make wise investments, that return a profit. They would not be investors, if they didn't make investments that returned a profit.

I myself, am an investor. In 2009, I was buying stocks even while the market was crashing. That's what wise investors do.

Even this year. When the market crashed back on Feb 20th, I started buying stocks. I've been buying stocks on the market since the beginning of this crash too. Because that's how you make wise investments, is by buying up stocks that are on sale.

So that is not a valid point. Pointing out that wise investors were investing wisely during the sub-prime crash, is not a valid point of anything. That's like saying "duh". Yeah, investors invested. Duh.

The only valid question is, why did sub-prime loans go from being a niche market, where they should have stayed... to being mainstream and taking up almost 1/4th of the market?

The answer is.... government. Freddie Mac in 1997, signed a deal with First Union (wachovia) and Bear Stearns, to give Sub-prime mortgages a AAA rating.

Bear Stearns, the CRA, and Freddie Mac - Cafe Hayek

I keep hearing that the subprime crisis was caused by people willing to buy stuff they couldn't evaluate. Why would smart people do that? One answer is that they were stupid. In an era of rising home prices, it's hard...

cafehayek.com

CHARLOTTE – First Union Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment​

Act (CRA) loans – marking the industry’s first public securitization of​

CRA loans.​

​

The affordable mortgages were originated or acquired by First Union​

Corporation and subsidiaries. Customers will experience no impact –​

they will continue to make payments to and be serviced by First Union​

Mortgage Corp. CRA loans are loans targeted to low and moderate income​

borrowers and neighborhoods under the Community Reinvestment Act of​

1977.​

​

"The securitization of these affordable mortgages allows us to redeploy​

capital back into our communities and to expand our ability to provide​

credit to low and moderate income individuals," said Jane Henderson,​

managing director of First Union’s Community Reinvestment and Fair​

Lending Programs. "First Union is committed to promoting home ownership​

in traditionally underserved markets through a comprehensive line of​

competitive and flexible affordable mortgage products. This transaction​

enables us to continue to aggressively serve those markets."​

​

The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and​

have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the​

investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation.​

Again, this is well documented.

And at the same time, Andrew Cuomo was suing banks to force them to make bad loans.



Andrew Cuomo admitted openly, that this would force the bank to make loans to people who otherwise would not qualify. Meaning, people who did not qualify for prime rate mortgages.... AND Cuomo equally admitted that the default rate would be higher.

Again, government forced banks to make bad loans, and rewarded sub-prime loans, and encourages sub-prime loans by giving them a AAA rating. This is well documented.

You are distracted...
Simple question...Start off with Yes/No and then we'll discuss if this ever happened and it's short and long effect on the economy where it happened.
Should legislation allow this to occur?

In a free market, can companies suddenly leave a nation in droves leaving millions of people who cannot afford to start their own unemployed?
Should legislation allow this to occur?

In a free market, can companies suddenly and simply lay off millions of employees and replace them with foreigners?
Should legislation allow this to occur?

That is a dumb question though. You are implying that somehow you can force people to hire other people?

That's tyranny. You are talking about Stalinism now.

Say I run a company.... what law are you going to pass, that is going to stop me from closing down the company? It's my company. I own it.

Are you going to do what Hugo Chavez did, and have soldiers forcibly remove owners from their companies, if they don't hire people?

Venezuelans Despair as Companies Flee

Irish packaging giant Smurfit left Venezuela amid a spat with the socialist government, joining other multinationals abandoning the sinking economy.

www.wsj.com

If you try and force companies to do what you want, they will leave completely.

This idea that "well if we just have a policy that says companies can't do stuff"... no, they'll just leave the country completely.

Then you won't have to worry about them hiring foreigners, because they wont' be hiring anyone in the US.

So to answer your question directly... Yeah I believe in freedom. And we are not a dictatorship, and no there should not be totalitarian rules on who companies hire.

You know that India tried that, right? India had rules on outsourcing, and rules on exactly who could be hired by any company.

The result was that companies that were created in India, moved all their operations out of India.

I believe Tata Motors was a huge one, that had all their operations spread out across the world, with virtually nothing in their home country of India. And they interviewed the CEO, and his answer was, because of all the regulations and laws.

So if you think you are going to somehow FORCE companies to act in a way you want... it's not going to happen. Whether you have the regulations "allowing" it or not, doesn't matter. If you pass all the regulations you want, they'll just not employ people in the US.

Excellent!
Guess what?
From a legal standpoint you are incredibly incorrect.
Every piece of Congressional legislation regarding the US economy requires an assay describing why it's good for the US economy.
And guess what, Free Market legislation caused the 2 biggest Global Crashes in the last century.
But the elite who endorsed the legislation become even wealthier.

But they'll leave!
Who 's the world biggest consumer?
Huh?
They'll leave?
Do you ever look around?
THEY LEFT!
And our economy crashed!

I wouldn't use India as a paradigm of how to run a nation as almost 100% of their population lives in unimaginable poverty.

They won't leave.

And guess what, Free Market legislation caused the 2 biggest Global Crashes in the last century.

Factually wrong, and I proved it with evidence already.

Who 's the world biggest consumer?
Huh?
They'll leave?
Do you ever look around?
THEY LEFT!
And our economy crashed!

Also factually wrong. Apple Computer, and numerous others, make more money outside the US, than inside.

Apple Computer still has 90,000 employees in the US. If they had left, it would be zero. Exxon has zero employees in Venezuela today.

Many companies still have tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, and likely collectively have millions of employees in the US. If you want that to be zero.... you can achieve that by trying to regulate the crap out of them.

And no, our economy did not crash because they left.

I wouldn't use India as a paradigm of how to run a nation as almost 100% of their population lives in unimaginable poverty.
They won't leave.

Right, they live in poverty, because in the past they were following your ideology in economics. By the way, as they have left your ideology in economics, and embraced more free-market capitalism, they have far fewer today in unimaginable poverty, as they did before.

Yes, they will leave. I guarantee you they will leave.

By the way, you are talking in circles.

You just said they all left, and we had a crash. Now you are saying they won't leave. Those are mutually exclusive statements.

Regardless.... the rules of economic fundamentals are true, no matter the culture, nation, or time frame.

Economic fundamentals don't change because one nation is poor, and another is rich.

Saying they won't leave is ridiculous. Of course they will leave. When France instituted a wealth tax, thousands packed up and left. When Jamaica put in place capital controls, companies simply closed, and reopened in Miami.

You can see this just within the states. Why do you think Amazon opened another HQ outside Seattle?

1,800 Companies Left California In a Year - With Most Bound for Texas

A record number of companies are leaving California for states with a better business climate, and a new report shows that Texas remains their No. 1 destination. See why they are being urged to leave the state, and what is bringing them to Texas.

www.southstarcommunities.com

Why have over 1800 companies moved from California to Texas? Texas is largely free-market capitalist, and California is more regulation and control.

If you put enough regulations, that companies have a hard time, they'll leave. I promise you they'll leave.

 

[Andylusion]

I can tell you from professional experience that "GW's" Housing Bubble and Crash are going to occur again.

I can tell you the dregs of society , god's 'special children' ie corn-struction workers are all expecting a crash Indeep

I know for a fact that these people earn in the lower 20-30Ks and I am convinced that the Lenders are Rubber Stamping these Loans "Approved".
Just as in the GW years, there is no way the Tables in the software provided by the Municipalities, States and Federal levels of Government are allowing people who work in Pizza Shops to take out Home Equity Loads in the 600K range.

a recipe for another housing disaster

Everybody loves a great economy, but everyone wants to jump aboard before they're capable of earning and paying their own way.

true, but don't you sense the constant revaluation via fiscals such as the derivatives market a factor InDeep?

~S~

Institutional Trading should be Illegal.
I'm tired of egotistical assholes with a bullshit degree in Finance from a "prestigious" University that their daddy's bribe got them into, determining from thin air how a much a given piece of a MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATION, with an almost infinite amount of physical Assets & Liabilities alone, is worth at any given second.
HOW THE FUCK DO THEY KNOW????
It's a fucking game that they never lose at!

I explained it last week to a naive person here who wants to believe all people on Wall Street are honest.

I will now calm down...nah!

how a much a given piece of a MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATION, with an almost infinite amount of physical Assets & Liabilities alone, is worth at any given second.

If they're overpricing it, don't buy from them.
If they're underpricing it, don't sell to them.

I get the impression you were on the up and up.
Not so the Institutional Traders who are baiting the small guy.

The Market rides like a roller coaster all day long...there's no way that would happen if the data being fed to the masses were honest.
Are investors really pulling in and out of the same deal all day long?
No way.

It's like a big flashing advertisement, but when it fails, it destroys an entire economy.

In fact, with today's technology, crashes should never happen because we found out something that happened last year was suddenly discovered.

Just look at the Housing Crash...who didn't really know the Loans were BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD!
But everybody's got a dream.

Not so the Institutional Traders who are baiting the small guy.

Again... as I pointed out before, your 401K is run by institutional traders. Union pension funds, are run by institutional traders. The trust fund of schools like Yale and Harvard, are run by institutional traders. Annuities for old people retiring, are run by institutional traders.

Basically every single retirement, or investment program in the world, is run by institutional traders.

The small guy.... benefits specifically from institutional traders. I've doubled my money in the stock market, through an IRA..... run by institutional traders.

The Market rides like a roller coaster all day long...there's no way that would happen if the data being fed to the masses were honest.

Of course it would go up and down, with or without accurate information.

Just like there are hundreds of factors involved in the value of a stock, there are also hundreds of factors involved in investor choices.

Simple example: Had an idiot years ago, who during the sub-prime crash, sold all his stocks. He was convinced, the market was going to completely tank, and he was going to magically lose all his money.

So he sold all his stocks.

I on the other hand, I bought every single stock I could buy. Every single spare dollar I could grab, I purchased stocks with it.

The information we had was identical. He didn't have any more information than I did, and I didn't have any more information than him. Yet both of us had completely opposite reactions to the market.

Warren Buffet supposedly said (I've heard this from multiple sources, but I still can't confirm it), when he was asked by a reporter how much money he lost in the Sub-prime stock market crash, responded "None. I didn't sell my stocks".

So you have 3 different people, and each had different reactions to the same exact information. One guy sold all his stocks (which would drive prices down), one guy bought every stock he could be (which would drive prices up), and one guy did absolutely nothing.

Do you see the problem with your logic? You act like if everyone had perfect information, that we'd all do the exact same thing, and the market would be completely static.

Not so. People react differently to perfect information all the time.

So.... No. The market should naturally go up and down, constantly. It would be ridiculous to think otherwise.

It's like a big flashing advertisement, but when it fails, it destroys an entire economy.

Um... no. The stock market reflects the economy. Not the other way around. A stock market crash, can't somehow magically cause the economy to crash.

Just think about that logically for a moment. Say you are a company, like oh.... Apple Computer. Say the stock market hits a bump and crashes.

How does that affect you?

It doesn't. If people are still buying iPhones, you are still going to sell them. If people are still buying your computers, you are still going to sell them. If products are still being sold, you are still going to have them made.

How does the dropping of your stock price, cause Apple computer, or any other company you might work for, have any problems? It doesn't.

Let's take the 1929 Crash. Did that crash cause any companies to go under? No. In fact, the unemployment rate in 1929, even after the stock market crash, was still just 3%.

But why did the stock market crash? Because investors saw that Smoot Hawley tariffs were going to cash business to crash. In 1930, the Smoot Hawley tariff was imposed, and unemployment from all those businesses forced back into the US (that was sarcasm) jumped up to 8.7%. Then you had the dust bowl, unemployment hit 15%, and the Hoover tax increases to pay for all the government programs, and unemployment hit 23%, and then FDR's new deal, and unemployment hit 24%.

Historical US Unemployment Rate by Year

The unemployment rate has fluctuated greatly since 1929. Learn how GDP, inflation, economic events, and other policies have historically impacted unemployment.

www.thebalance.com

Again, did the crash in 1929 cause businesses to close? No. It was the Smoot-Hawley protectionism that caused businesses to close. The investors saw that coming, that's why the stock crash happened in 1929, when the bill to impose protectionism was introduced.

But none of the economic decline happened after the stock market crash. It happened as tariffs and retaliatory tariffs were placed against the US, which killed the economy, and people lost their jobs.

The stock market reacted to future implications. It didn't cause anything. Stock markets do not "cause" the economy to fail. The future information that the economy would fail, caused the markets to crash.

You are trying to put the cart in front of the horse.

Just look at the Housing Crash...who didn't really know the Loans were BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD!
But everybody's got a dream.

Who didn't know the loans were bad? Government. You want me to post videos of Maxine Waters, and Barnie Frank saying that everything was great? You want me to post the news articles where Freddie Mac signed a deal with First Union (wachovia) and Bear Stearns, two of the largest crashes.... to make bad sub-prime loans?

Or how about Obama who said openly, that sub-prime loans were a good idea?

Government didn't know the loans were bad. They pushed bad loans, throughout the entire sub-prime bubble.

Uh huh...Yeah.
By the way, The Great Depression, as defined by Milton Freidman in one of his last videos, was caused by excessive off-shoring of assets and the lack of technology to know those assets were wasted on parties. Yep, MF says it and every Conservative who hears that sentence blocks it out because Conservatives are just as mentally ill as Liberals.

The rest of your comments are pure nonsense as you have not spent any time in any Wall Street firm at a meeting attended and run by 20 MBAs who didn't care about anything else other than selling an idea or an actual product, regardless of the viability of the product.

Who didn't know the loans were bad? Government. You want me to post videos of Maxine Waters, and Barnie Frank saying that everything was great? You want me to post the news articles where Freddie Mac signed a deal with First Union (wachovia) and Bear Stearns, two of the largest crashes.... to make bad sub-prime loans?
Grow up already; every Loan Officer Rubber Stamped Loans. You really do live in Kansas, don't you?
Half of the Lenders in my community were hired by the Obama Administration to investigate these Papers stamped "Approved" because they were among the few Lenders who followed the Government provided software that Rejected the Loan; these Lenders lost their careers because there weren't enough Borrowers who listened to their advice and buy a less expensive home.

"The stock market reacted to future implications. It didn't cause anything. Stock markets do not "cause" the economy to fail. The future information that the economy would fail, caused the markets to crash."
I hope you're kidding...Stock markets can, and have, turned wealthy people into paupers in mere moments.
In fact, this happened a few months before Trump's tax cuts.

Or how about Obama who said openly, that sub-prime loans were a good idea?
You didn't listen to Rush back then, did you?
Rush loved sub-prime Loans and claimed the GW was a genius!
The Loans themselves were only a fraction of the issue as nobody cares if minorities lose their home and wind up homeless.
After all, there were no Smart Devices back then to storm Wall Street and hand the MBAs.
The Rubber Stamped Loans were packed into other projects, almost all doomed to fail, and then sold to Financial Firms in the Eastern Hemisphere.
Why? Because no firm here cared if a Bank in Asia could collect on the loan because the bankers here would conjure up another scheme to raise that money.

But Whitey made a mistake which I understood because I was taking Karate and understood the Asian mentality...
You owe me $1.00 this month, I'm not accepting $.99.
Sounds funny, doesn't it, but Asians back then, before we tainted them, work on real numbers, not American vapor.

I could go on but you already bought the Rush Limbaugh horse crap.

GW, The Rs and the Ds and every Financial Firm in the US caused a deficit that will never be paid off.
But Obama!..Saved you from starving by borrowing against the future.
You're so Lilly White...
Send your bank account and every check you get to the Fed.
But I work for my check!
You know why your boss has a business?
Obama borrowed against the future.
I was there, I saw business owners begging the banks for a penny!

I could write a book on your delusions, but what the heck, every RWer in my community still denies this GW farce.

Look, you're a really smart guy but so damned Yankee Doodle.
Stop responding to what you consider nonsense (since you weren't there and can only rely on Fox and The Wall Street Journal of Bullshit for your knowledge base).

By the way, The Great Depression, as defined by Milton Freidman in one of his last videos, was caused by excessive off-shoring of assets and the lack of technology to know those assets were wasted on parties. Yep, MF says it and every Conservative who hears that sentence blocks it out because Conservatives are just as mentally ill as Liberals.

Thomas Rustici on Smoot-Hawley and the Great Depression - Econlib

Thomas Rustici of George Mason University and author of Lessons from the Great Depression talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the impact of the Smoot-Hawley Act on the economy. The standard view is that the decrease in trade that followed Smoot-Hawley was not big enough to be a...

www.econtalk.org

Economist Rustici, clearly documents the effects of the Smoot Hawley tariff, and how it caused the crash. One clear example, is the Pittsburgh steel industry. The Smoot Hawley tariff, drastically increased the cost of raw iron ore from Canada. Of course Canada equally put in place a retaliatory tariff against steel imported from the US.

Do tell sparky... if you were a steel company, which would cause you more problems: A drop in your company stock price, or the price of your raw steel going up dramatically at the exact same time the price of your finished product steel dropping dramatically?

The rest of your comments are pure nonsense as you have not spent any time in any Wall Street firm at a meeting attended and run by 20 MBAs who didn't care about anything else other than selling an idea or an actual product, regardless of the viability of the product.

That is not a counter argument to anything I said.

Grow up already; every Loan Officer Rubber Stamped Loans.

Does not change anything I said. Not a counter argument to anything.
Again, if you want me to post the videos of Maxine Waters, and Barnie Frank both praising sub-prime loans, and Obama calling it a good idea, and Andrew Cuomo suing banks to make bad loans.... I will do so. But your statement, changes nothing.

Lenders who followed the Government provided software that Rejected the Loan; these Lenders lost their careers because there weren't enough Borrowers who listened to their advice and buy a less expensive home.

Robot Check

John A. Allison was CEO of BB&T bank, when regulators under the Clinton administration showed up, and required that they lower lending standards.

This is well documented.

But Obama!..Saved you from starving by borrowing against the future.

Bull crap. A number of countries did not bailout out their banks, and were just fine.

Plus, Obama was part of the group pushing sub-prime loans to being with. Only a brainless idiot, sees someone create a problem, and then present themselves as a solution to a problem they created, and claim they saved us.

You are dumbest moron on the face of the planet, if you honestly believe that.

You know why your boss has a business?
Obama borrowed against the future.
I was there, I saw business owners begging the banks for a penny!

My boss was not there. Nor did anything that created that company, or the products that company sold, ever come from Obama.

I could write a book on your delusions, but what the heck, every RWer in my community still denies this GW farce.

My delusions? Which one of us right now, is sitting around justifying government taking your tax money, and giving it to wealthy people?

Stop responding to what you consider nonsense (since you weren't there and can only rely on Fox and The Wall Street Journal of Bullshit for your knowledge base).

Well because I'm right. I know I'm right. You are wrong, and I can prove it. So why should I stop responding, when you are the one making insane claims?

Do us a favor...find the MF video and stop quoting everyone else.

As I always tell Liberals...
Capitalism is, well, ok...until you try everything else...then Capitalism is GREAT!

First, I wager I have watched every single video Milton Friedman ever made.

Second, no person is god-like. Everyone, is wrong sometimes. Thomas Sowell has been wrong. Mises has been wrong. Adam Smith has been wrong. Everyone has been wrong.

This is the same thing as "Ronald Reagan said!".... doesn't matter. Ronald Reagan was right most of the time, just like Milton Friedman. But they were wrong sometimes too.

So this idea that Milton said something, and therefore it's now divine truth.... no. Just no.

Now if you are going to tell me to stop quoting everyone else until I see your Milton Friedman video... ok.... How about you stop quoting only Milton Freidman all the time, until you read those books that document what happened with the Sub-prime loans and the Smoot Hawley tariff.

Between the two of us, which has a better way of understanding? The one who grabs one single video, by one single person, and proclaims that as gospel truth, or the one who has a multitude of data from a number of sources?

Obviously, having more than one single source for a claim, is better.

Go learn some stuff, and then come back. Don't give me this, "This one divine prophet knows all, and no other source of information matters!" crap. You are wrong.

If you watched the one about Free Trade and missed what he said, you need anti-bullshit meds.
I have watched many MFs videos and he is a globalist who wouldn't care if you were digging ditches all day long.
He loved the Slave Labor Camps in India and China; he was basically a self-righteous piece of shit.

I will no longer continue this specific discussion as you watch too much FoxNews.

Watch other people's videos?...
I have..every Conservative who has been touted by Rush and Fox talks for a living and...talks for a living.
The beautiful facts about the insanity on both sides is that their audiences are big enough to provide them with the advertisement bucks they need to live their lives.

I remember when every Conservative on FoxNews and their Conservative guests after the Housing Crash were insulting the unemployed...
Can't they sell the stuff in their closet and start a corporation?????

Really, what kind of a spoiled, psychotic pos says that? on TV?

I don't need to point out how psycho the Left is because it's way too obvious,

I have watched many MFs videos and he is a globalist who wouldn't care if you were digging ditches all day long.

You are implying that he should care. If I am offered a job to dig ditches, and I choose to take such a job.... why should anyone care if I'm digging ditches?

Now if you have socialism, and you force people to dig ditches, no, Friedman was very much against that.

He loved the Slave Labor Camps in India and China; he was basically a self-righteous piece of shit.

No, that is entirely untrue, and right now, you are the one being a self-righteous piece of sh!t.

Watch other people's videos?...
I have..every Conservative who has been touted by Rush and Fox talks for a living and...talks for a living.

Ironically I don't listen to Rush, or Fox.

The beautiful facts about the insanity on both sides is that their audiences are big enough to provide them with the advertisement bucks they need to live their lives.

You realize this this forum is paid for, in part, by advertising revenue? I guess you yourself, are part of the insanity now, huh?

I remember when every Conservative on FoxNews and their Conservative guests after the Housing Crash were insulting the unemployed...
Can't they sell the stuff in their closet and start a corporation?????

Yeah, I agree with that. In 2008, I was laid off. I found a job, in 2008, in roughly one month from when I was laid off. That job ended in 2009, and I found another job in one week from when I was laid off. That job was a contract position that lasted until 2010, and I found another job that I spent several years working at.

I was able to find all of these jobs, during the recession, despite having no real skills, no trade skills, no college degrees, no training or certifications of any kind.

If someone with as little in qualifications as me, am able to find work in 2008, 2009, and 2010.... all the years that were the worst of the recession.... then why can't anyone else, who likely have better qualifications than me?

I was reading about a guy who was working at one of the big banks that crashed during the sub-prime burst. He could have stayed at home, living off Bush's 99-weeks of unemployment. Instead he got a job at McDonalds.

True story. He went from a six-figure income, to working at McDonald's. He determined for himself, that he was not going to be a burden on society, and that he would work for living, while looking for better employement.

After working there a month, the manager pulled him into the office, and asked him what his deal was. He was obviously not like the other employees. The story came out, and a month later, McDonald's Corporate called, and gave him a management position at McDonald's corporate.

Point is.... yeah. Get your butt to work. Stop with the excuses. I've never watched Fox, but if what you said is true, yeah, I agree with them completely. Find a job. Get to work.

You found one schmuck...good for you.
How old was he?
Did he pay off all his debts?
Did working at McDonald make him lose everything, including his spouse, his home, his children?

Maybe he wasn't a schmuck...maybe he made his fortune and could well afford to work at McDonalds.

No, actually his spouse is the one who told the story, because she was so proud of her husband willing to do whatever it takes to earn a living.

Seeing someone willing to humble themselves, is honestly very inspiring.

So no, he didn't lose anything. Now I don't think he's earning quite as much being a manager at McDonald, than he was at the bank.... but no he didn't lose his house, or his family. In fact, I think his wife respects and honors him more now, than she did before.

Too bad almost 100% of US citizens thinks this guy is mentally ill.

The nice thing about being successful and happy in life... you don't really give a crap what the rest of the pathetic public thinks.

When you are fine, and they are all screaming and crying that the big evil companies crashed the economy, and wah wah wah wah..... who cares what the public thinks?

 

[Indeependent]

I can tell you from professional experience that "GW's" Housing Bubble and Crash are going to occur again.

I can tell you the dregs of society , god's 'special children' ie corn-struction workers are all expecting a crash Indeep

I know for a fact that these people earn in the lower 20-30Ks and I am convinced that the Lenders are Rubber Stamping these Loans "Approved".
Just as in the GW years, there is no way the Tables in the software provided by the Municipalities, States and Federal levels of Government are allowing people who work in Pizza Shops to take out Home Equity Loads in the 600K range.

a recipe for another housing disaster

Everybody loves a great economy, but everyone wants to jump aboard before they're capable of earning and paying their own way.

true, but don't you sense the constant revaluation via fiscals such as the derivatives market a factor InDeep?

~S~

Institutional Trading should be Illegal.
I'm tired of egotistical assholes with a bullshit degree in Finance from a "prestigious" University that their daddy's bribe got them into, determining from thin air how a much a given piece of a MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATION, with an almost infinite amount of physical Assets & Liabilities alone, is worth at any given second.
HOW THE FUCK DO THEY KNOW????
It's a fucking game that they never lose at!

I explained it last week to a naive person here who wants to believe all people on Wall Street are honest.

I will now calm down...nah!

how a much a given piece of a MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATION, with an almost infinite amount of physical Assets & Liabilities alone, is worth at any given second.

If they're overpricing it, don't buy from them.
If they're underpricing it, don't sell to them.

I get the impression you were on the up and up.
Not so the Institutional Traders who are baiting the small guy.

The Market rides like a roller coaster all day long...there's no way that would happen if the data being fed to the masses were honest.
Are investors really pulling in and out of the same deal all day long?
No way.

It's like a big flashing advertisement, but when it fails, it destroys an entire economy.

In fact, with today's technology, crashes should never happen because we found out something that happened last year was suddenly discovered.

Just look at the Housing Crash...who didn't really know the Loans were BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD!
But everybody's got a dream.

Not so the Institutional Traders who are baiting the small guy.

Again... as I pointed out before, your 401K is run by institutional traders. Union pension funds, are run by institutional traders. The trust fund of schools like Yale and Harvard, are run by institutional traders. Annuities for old people retiring, are run by institutional traders.

Basically every single retirement, or investment program in the world, is run by institutional traders.

The small guy.... benefits specifically from institutional traders. I've doubled my money in the stock market, through an IRA..... run by institutional traders.

The Market rides like a roller coaster all day long...there's no way that would happen if the data being fed to the masses were honest.

Of course it would go up and down, with or without accurate information.

Just like there are hundreds of factors involved in the value of a stock, there are also hundreds of factors involved in investor choices.

Simple example: Had an idiot years ago, who during the sub-prime crash, sold all his stocks. He was convinced, the market was going to completely tank, and he was going to magically lose all his money.

So he sold all his stocks.

I on the other hand, I bought every single stock I could buy. Every single spare dollar I could grab, I purchased stocks with it.

The information we had was identical. He didn't have any more information than I did, and I didn't have any more information than him. Yet both of us had completely opposite reactions to the market.

Warren Buffet supposedly said (I've heard this from multiple sources, but I still can't confirm it), when he was asked by a reporter how much money he lost in the Sub-prime stock market crash, responded "None. I didn't sell my stocks".

So you have 3 different people, and each had different reactions to the same exact information. One guy sold all his stocks (which would drive prices down), one guy bought every stock he could be (which would drive prices up), and one guy did absolutely nothing.

Do you see the problem with your logic? You act like if everyone had perfect information, that we'd all do the exact same thing, and the market would be completely static.

Not so. People react differently to perfect information all the time.

So.... No. The market should naturally go up and down, constantly. It would be ridiculous to think otherwise.

It's like a big flashing advertisement, but when it fails, it destroys an entire economy.

Um... no. The stock market reflects the economy. Not the other way around. A stock market crash, can't somehow magically cause the economy to crash.

Just think about that logically for a moment. Say you are a company, like oh.... Apple Computer. Say the stock market hits a bump and crashes.

How does that affect you?

It doesn't. If people are still buying iPhones, you are still going to sell them. If people are still buying your computers, you are still going to sell them. If products are still being sold, you are still going to have them made.

How does the dropping of your stock price, cause Apple computer, or any other company you might work for, have any problems? It doesn't.

Let's take the 1929 Crash. Did that crash cause any companies to go under? No. In fact, the unemployment rate in 1929, even after the stock market crash, was still just 3%.

But why did the stock market crash? Because investors saw that Smoot Hawley tariffs were going to cash business to crash. In 1930, the Smoot Hawley tariff was imposed, and unemployment from all those businesses forced back into the US (that was sarcasm) jumped up to 8.7%. Then you had the dust bowl, unemployment hit 15%, and the Hoover tax increases to pay for all the government programs, and unemployment hit 23%, and then FDR's new deal, and unemployment hit 24%.

Historical US Unemployment Rate by Year

The unemployment rate has fluctuated greatly since 1929. Learn how GDP, inflation, economic events, and other policies have historically impacted unemployment.

www.thebalance.com

Again, did the crash in 1929 cause businesses to close? No. It was the Smoot-Hawley protectionism that caused businesses to close. The investors saw that coming, that's why the stock crash happened in 1929, when the bill to impose protectionism was introduced.

But none of the economic decline happened after the stock market crash. It happened as tariffs and retaliatory tariffs were placed against the US, which killed the economy, and people lost their jobs.

The stock market reacted to future implications. It didn't cause anything. Stock markets do not "cause" the economy to fail. The future information that the economy would fail, caused the markets to crash.

You are trying to put the cart in front of the horse.

Just look at the Housing Crash...who didn't really know the Loans were BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD!
But everybody's got a dream.

Who didn't know the loans were bad? Government. You want me to post videos of Maxine Waters, and Barnie Frank saying that everything was great? You want me to post the news articles where Freddie Mac signed a deal with First Union (wachovia) and Bear Stearns, two of the largest crashes.... to make bad sub-prime loans?

Or how about Obama who said openly, that sub-prime loans were a good idea?

Government didn't know the loans were bad. They pushed bad loans, throughout the entire sub-prime bubble.

Uh huh...Yeah.
By the way, The Great Depression, as defined by Milton Freidman in one of his last videos, was caused by excessive off-shoring of assets and the lack of technology to know those assets were wasted on parties. Yep, MF says it and every Conservative who hears that sentence blocks it out because Conservatives are just as mentally ill as Liberals.

The rest of your comments are pure nonsense as you have not spent any time in any Wall Street firm at a meeting attended and run by 20 MBAs who didn't care about anything else other than selling an idea or an actual product, regardless of the viability of the product.

Who didn't know the loans were bad? Government. You want me to post videos of Maxine Waters, and Barnie Frank saying that everything was great? You want me to post the news articles where Freddie Mac signed a deal with First Union (wachovia) and Bear Stearns, two of the largest crashes.... to make bad sub-prime loans?
Grow up already; every Loan Officer Rubber Stamped Loans. You really do live in Kansas, don't you?
Half of the Lenders in my community were hired by the Obama Administration to investigate these Papers stamped "Approved" because they were among the few Lenders who followed the Government provided software that Rejected the Loan; these Lenders lost their careers because there weren't enough Borrowers who listened to their advice and buy a less expensive home.

"The stock market reacted to future implications. It didn't cause anything. Stock markets do not "cause" the economy to fail. The future information that the economy would fail, caused the markets to crash."
I hope you're kidding...Stock markets can, and have, turned wealthy people into paupers in mere moments.
In fact, this happened a few months before Trump's tax cuts.

Or how about Obama who said openly, that sub-prime loans were a good idea?
You didn't listen to Rush back then, did you?
Rush loved sub-prime Loans and claimed the GW was a genius!
The Loans themselves were only a fraction of the issue as nobody cares if minorities lose their home and wind up homeless.
After all, there were no Smart Devices back then to storm Wall Street and hand the MBAs.
The Rubber Stamped Loans were packed into other projects, almost all doomed to fail, and then sold to Financial Firms in the Eastern Hemisphere.
Why? Because no firm here cared if a Bank in Asia could collect on the loan because the bankers here would conjure up another scheme to raise that money.

But Whitey made a mistake which I understood because I was taking Karate and understood the Asian mentality...
You owe me $1.00 this month, I'm not accepting $.99.
Sounds funny, doesn't it, but Asians back then, before we tainted them, work on real numbers, not American vapor.

I could go on but you already bought the Rush Limbaugh horse crap.

GW, The Rs and the Ds and every Financial Firm in the US caused a deficit that will never be paid off.
But Obama!..Saved you from starving by borrowing against the future.
You're so Lilly White...
Send your bank account and every check you get to the Fed.
But I work for my check!
You know why your boss has a business?
Obama borrowed against the future.
I was there, I saw business owners begging the banks for a penny!

I could write a book on your delusions, but what the heck, every RWer in my community still denies this GW farce.

Look, you're a really smart guy but so damned Yankee Doodle.
Stop responding to what you consider nonsense (since you weren't there and can only rely on Fox and The Wall Street Journal of Bullshit for your knowledge base).

By the way, The Great Depression, as defined by Milton Freidman in one of his last videos, was caused by excessive off-shoring of assets and the lack of technology to know those assets were wasted on parties. Yep, MF says it and every Conservative who hears that sentence blocks it out because Conservatives are just as mentally ill as Liberals.

Thomas Rustici on Smoot-Hawley and the Great Depression - Econlib

Thomas Rustici of George Mason University and author of Lessons from the Great Depression talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the impact of the Smoot-Hawley Act on the economy. The standard view is that the decrease in trade that followed Smoot-Hawley was not big enough to be a...

www.econtalk.org

Economist Rustici, clearly documents the effects of the Smoot Hawley tariff, and how it caused the crash. One clear example, is the Pittsburgh steel industry. The Smoot Hawley tariff, drastically increased the cost of raw iron ore from Canada. Of course Canada equally put in place a retaliatory tariff against steel imported from the US.

Do tell sparky... if you were a steel company, which would cause you more problems: A drop in your company stock price, or the price of your raw steel going up dramatically at the exact same time the price of your finished product steel dropping dramatically?

The rest of your comments are pure nonsense as you have not spent any time in any Wall Street firm at a meeting attended and run by 20 MBAs who didn't care about anything else other than selling an idea or an actual product, regardless of the viability of the product.

That is not a counter argument to anything I said.

Grow up already; every Loan Officer Rubber Stamped Loans.

Does not change anything I said. Not a counter argument to anything.
Again, if you want me to post the videos of Maxine Waters, and Barnie Frank both praising sub-prime loans, and Obama calling it a good idea, and Andrew Cuomo suing banks to make bad loans.... I will do so. But your statement, changes nothing.

Lenders who followed the Government provided software that Rejected the Loan; these Lenders lost their careers because there weren't enough Borrowers who listened to their advice and buy a less expensive home.

Robot Check

John A. Allison was CEO of BB&T bank, when regulators under the Clinton administration showed up, and required that they lower lending standards.

This is well documented.

But Obama!..Saved you from starving by borrowing against the future.

Bull crap. A number of countries did not bailout out their banks, and were just fine.

Plus, Obama was part of the group pushing sub-prime loans to being with. Only a brainless idiot, sees someone create a problem, and then present themselves as a solution to a problem they created, and claim they saved us.

You are dumbest moron on the face of the planet, if you honestly believe that.

You know why your boss has a business?
Obama borrowed against the future.
I was there, I saw business owners begging the banks for a penny!

My boss was not there. Nor did anything that created that company, or the products that company sold, ever come from Obama.

I could write a book on your delusions, but what the heck, every RWer in my community still denies this GW farce.

My delusions? Which one of us right now, is sitting around justifying government taking your tax money, and giving it to wealthy people?

Stop responding to what you consider nonsense (since you weren't there and can only rely on Fox and The Wall Street Journal of Bullshit for your knowledge base).

Well because I'm right. I know I'm right. You are wrong, and I can prove it. So why should I stop responding, when you are the one making insane claims?

Just out of curiosity, do you realize you didn't directly address anything I posted?

Why do you mention Europe when the I stated Obama had to bail out the world.

Why are you referencing some other video when MFs video is on YouTube?

Why are you blaming sub-primer loans alone when they were less than 3% of the crash?

Not to mention that the men who engineered the entire Lending Bubble, Alan Greenspan, Dick Cheney and Warren Buffet, made billions off the crash.

To be honest, you are so honest I wish you would run for office.

Yes, because you did not make any real points.

Because Obama didn't have to bail out the world. That is opinion. That is not a fact. It's opinion. We didn't bail out Lehman Brothers. It didn't doom the world.

Now I get it that banks claimed Obama had to bail out the world.... well of course they did. Those CEOs jobs are to save the company. If the only way to save the company is to get money from government, they are going to go to government ask for money.

And if the only way to convince government to give you money, is to claim that if you don't bail them out, that the world will end... then they are going to say you have to bail us out or the world will end.

But it's not true. That's just a bunch of rich people, saying whatever they have to say, to get cash.

No, Obama didn't have to bail out the world. The world would have been just fine, with zero bailouts. Iceland didn't bailout a single bank, and their big three banks that all failed, were a far larger percentage of their economy, then our banks were.

Iceland not only did not implode, but they recovered faster, and were recording great economic growth, while we were still in a recession.

Estonia years ago, also refused to bailout their banks, and their banks all went bankrupt and closed, and they recovered just fine, no problem.

Why are you referencing some other video when MFs video is on YouTube?

Because my videos are directly relevant to the topic at hand. Milton Friedman was not relevant to the topic at hand.

Why are you blaming sub-primer loans alone when they were less than 3% of the crash?

Because that is not true?

Sub-prime loans were almost 25% of the market by the end. And you'll notice, as I said before, that sub-prime loans were a niche market before 1997, when Bill Clinton, and his administration pushed Sub-prime loans into the main stream.

Not to mention that the men who engineered the entire Lending Bubble, Alan Greenspan, Dick Cheney and Warren Buffet, made billions off the crash.

People are always going to invest in ways that make a profit. People are going to invest in ways to make a profit, whether the economy is good, or the economy is bad.

Complaining that people made a profit, is pointless. They are always going to make a profit. That's like complaining it's sunny in Arizona, during a depression. Yeah, that's going to happen.

The question isn't "did people make a profit during....." We always answer that with.... yeah. That's what investors do. Investors make wise investments, that return a profit. They would not be investors, if they didn't make investments that returned a profit.

I myself, am an investor. In 2009, I was buying stocks even while the market was crashing. That's what wise investors do.

Even this year. When the market crashed back on Feb 20th, I started buying stocks. I've been buying stocks on the market since the beginning of this crash too. Because that's how you make wise investments, is by buying up stocks that are on sale.

So that is not a valid point. Pointing out that wise investors were investing wisely during the sub-prime crash, is not a valid point of anything. That's like saying "duh". Yeah, investors invested. Duh.

The only valid question is, why did sub-prime loans go from being a niche market, where they should have stayed... to being mainstream and taking up almost 1/4th of the market?

The answer is.... government. Freddie Mac in 1997, signed a deal with First Union (wachovia) and Bear Stearns, to give Sub-prime mortgages a AAA rating.

Bear Stearns, the CRA, and Freddie Mac - Cafe Hayek

I keep hearing that the subprime crisis was caused by people willing to buy stuff they couldn't evaluate. Why would smart people do that? One answer is that they were stupid. In an era of rising home prices, it's hard...

cafehayek.com

CHARLOTTE – First Union Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment​

Act (CRA) loans – marking the industry’s first public securitization of​

CRA loans.​

​

The affordable mortgages were originated or acquired by First Union​

Corporation and subsidiaries. Customers will experience no impact –​

they will continue to make payments to and be serviced by First Union​

Mortgage Corp. CRA loans are loans targeted to low and moderate income​

borrowers and neighborhoods under the Community Reinvestment Act of​

1977.​

​

"The securitization of these affordable mortgages allows us to redeploy​

capital back into our communities and to expand our ability to provide​

credit to low and moderate income individuals," said Jane Henderson,​

managing director of First Union’s Community Reinvestment and Fair​

Lending Programs. "First Union is committed to promoting home ownership​

in traditionally underserved markets through a comprehensive line of​

competitive and flexible affordable mortgage products. This transaction​

enables us to continue to aggressively serve those markets."​

​

The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and​

have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the​

investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation.​

Again, this is well documented.

And at the same time, Andrew Cuomo was suing banks to force them to make bad loans.



Andrew Cuomo admitted openly, that this would force the bank to make loans to people who otherwise would not qualify. Meaning, people who did not qualify for prime rate mortgages.... AND Cuomo equally admitted that the default rate would be higher.

Again, government forced banks to make bad loans, and rewarded sub-prime loans, and encourages sub-prime loans by giving them a AAA rating. This is well documented.

You are distracted...
Simple question...Start off with Yes/No and then we'll discuss if this ever happened and it's short and long effect on the economy where it happened.
Should legislation allow this to occur?

In a free market, can companies suddenly leave a nation in droves leaving millions of people who cannot afford to start their own unemployed?
Should legislation allow this to occur?

In a free market, can companies suddenly and simply lay off millions of employees and replace them with foreigners?
Should legislation allow this to occur?

That is a dumb question though. You are implying that somehow you can force people to hire other people?

That's tyranny. You are talking about Stalinism now.

Say I run a company.... what law are you going to pass, that is going to stop me from closing down the company? It's my company. I own it.

Are you going to do what Hugo Chavez did, and have soldiers forcibly remove owners from their companies, if they don't hire people?

Venezuelans Despair as Companies Flee

Irish packaging giant Smurfit left Venezuela amid a spat with the socialist government, joining other multinationals abandoning the sinking economy.

www.wsj.com

If you try and force companies to do what you want, they will leave completely.

This idea that "well if we just have a policy that says companies can't do stuff"... no, they'll just leave the country completely.

Then you won't have to worry about them hiring foreigners, because they wont' be hiring anyone in the US.

So to answer your question directly... Yeah I believe in freedom. And we are not a dictatorship, and no there should not be totalitarian rules on who companies hire.

You know that India tried that, right? India had rules on outsourcing, and rules on exactly who could be hired by any company.

The result was that companies that were created in India, moved all their operations out of India.

I believe Tata Motors was a huge one, that had all their operations spread out across the world, with virtually nothing in their home country of India. And they interviewed the CEO, and his answer was, because of all the regulations and laws.

So if you think you are going to somehow FORCE companies to act in a way you want... it's not going to happen. Whether you have the regulations "allowing" it or not, doesn't matter. If you pass all the regulations you want, they'll just not employ people in the US.

Excellent!
Guess what?
From a legal standpoint you are incredibly incorrect.
Every piece of Congressional legislation regarding the US economy requires an assay describing why it's good for the US economy.
And guess what, Free Market legislation caused the 2 biggest Global Crashes in the last century.
But the elite who endorsed the legislation become even wealthier.

But they'll leave!
Who 's the world biggest consumer?
Huh?
They'll leave?
Do you ever look around?
THEY LEFT!
And our economy crashed!

I wouldn't use India as a paradigm of how to run a nation as almost 100% of their population lives in unimaginable poverty.

They won't leave.

And guess what, Free Market legislation caused the 2 biggest Global Crashes in the last century.

Factually wrong, and I proved it with evidence already.

Who 's the world biggest consumer?
Huh?
They'll leave?
Do you ever look around?
THEY LEFT!
And our economy crashed!

Also factually wrong. Apple Computer, and numerous others, make more money outside the US, than inside.

Apple Computer still has 90,000 employees in the US. If they had left, it would be zero. Exxon has zero employees in Venezuela today.

Many companies still have tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, and likely collectively have millions of employees in the US. If you want that to be zero.... you can achieve that by trying to regulate the crap out of them.

And no, our economy did not crash because they left.

I wouldn't use India as a paradigm of how to run a nation as almost 100% of their population lives in unimaginable poverty.
They won't leave.

Right, they live in poverty, because in the past they were following your ideology in economics. By the way, as they have left your ideology in economics, and embraced more free-market capitalism, they have far fewer today in unimaginable poverty, as they did before.

Yes, they will leave. I guarantee you they will leave.

By the way, you are talking in circles.

You just said they all left, and we had a crash. Now you are saying they won't leave. Those are mutually exclusive statements.

Regardless.... the rules of economic fundamentals are true, no matter the culture, nation, or time frame.

Economic fundamentals don't change because one nation is poor, and another is rich.

Saying they won't leave is ridiculous. Of course they will leave. When France instituted a wealth tax, thousands packed up and left. When Jamaica put in place capital controls, companies simply closed, and reopened in Miami.

You can see this just within the states. Why do you think Amazon opened another HQ outside Seattle?

1,800 Companies Left California In a Year - With Most Bound for Texas

A record number of companies are leaving California for states with a better business climate, and a new report shows that Texas remains their No. 1 destination. See why they are being urged to leave the state, and what is bringing them to Texas.

www.southstarcommunities.com

Why have over 1800 companies moved from California to Texas? Texas is largely free-market capitalist, and California is more regulation and control.

If you put enough regulations, that companies have a hard time, they'll leave. I promise you they'll leave.

I usually respect your posts but you are being so willfully ignorant it's almost surreal.
I read your reason why the Free Market didn't cause two crashes and I'm beginning to think you are...selectively stupid?

I understand why companies move within our borders because that does not destroy the national economy.
You completely ignored what happens to the US economy when 25K companies leave withing 4 years and get a tax break on the relocation costs.

India's religion causes their mass poverty...out of 1,000 castes, only the top 2 or 3 are even allowed to work in a profession that requires an education.
Step out of bounds and you are executed.
It has nothing to do with economics; their Priests live very well despite their rampant lack of intelligence.
If they were so brilliant they wouldn't have to come to the US.
Your ignorance of what goes in India is insulting to the billions who are doomed to live in poverty.

The problem with people such as yourself is you're are 98% book knowledge and almost 0% looking at what's happening on the ground.
You sound like the guys I know who get their "real" news from The Wall Street Journal, which, by the way, along with 100% of your Conservative heroes, predicted a Global Market Crash would occur if Trump won.
So much for your "heroes".

I know, I know...you didn't read that about Trump anywhere!

Oh, I almost forgot!
Remember when Wall Street hated Apple?
Of course you don't.
Only about 2-3 years ago...Apple wasn't releasing a new phone every 6 months because Tim Cook didn't want to be a whore to Wall Street.

Remember when Wall Street hated Amazon?
Of course you don't.
Only about 3-4 years ago...Amazon invested millions into local Warehouses and Wall Street gave them the boot.
Bezos was right and now Wall Street kisses his ass all day long.

 

[Indeependent]

I can tell you from professional experience that "GW's" Housing Bubble and Crash are going to occur again.

I can tell you the dregs of society , god's 'special children' ie corn-struction workers are all expecting a crash Indeep

I know for a fact that these people earn in the lower 20-30Ks and I am convinced that the Lenders are Rubber Stamping these Loans "Approved".
Just as in the GW years, there is no way the Tables in the software provided by the Municipalities, States and Federal levels of Government are allowing people who work in Pizza Shops to take out Home Equity Loads in the 600K range.

a recipe for another housing disaster

Everybody loves a great economy, but everyone wants to jump aboard before they're capable of earning and paying their own way.

true, but don't you sense the constant revaluation via fiscals such as the derivatives market a factor InDeep?

~S~

Institutional Trading should be Illegal.
I'm tired of egotistical assholes with a bullshit degree in Finance from a "prestigious" University that their daddy's bribe got them into, determining from thin air how a much a given piece of a MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATION, with an almost infinite amount of physical Assets & Liabilities alone, is worth at any given second.
HOW THE FUCK DO THEY KNOW????
It's a fucking game that they never lose at!

I explained it last week to a naive person here who wants to believe all people on Wall Street are honest.

I will now calm down...nah!

how a much a given piece of a MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATION, with an almost infinite amount of physical Assets & Liabilities alone, is worth at any given second.

If they're overpricing it, don't buy from them.
If they're underpricing it, don't sell to them.

I get the impression you were on the up and up.
Not so the Institutional Traders who are baiting the small guy.

The Market rides like a roller coaster all day long...there's no way that would happen if the data being fed to the masses were honest.
Are investors really pulling in and out of the same deal all day long?
No way.

It's like a big flashing advertisement, but when it fails, it destroys an entire economy.

In fact, with today's technology, crashes should never happen because we found out something that happened last year was suddenly discovered.

Just look at the Housing Crash...who didn't really know the Loans were BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD!
But everybody's got a dream.

Not so the Institutional Traders who are baiting the small guy.

Again... as I pointed out before, your 401K is run by institutional traders. Union pension funds, are run by institutional traders. The trust fund of schools like Yale and Harvard, are run by institutional traders. Annuities for old people retiring, are run by institutional traders.

Basically every single retirement, or investment program in the world, is run by institutional traders.

The small guy.... benefits specifically from institutional traders. I've doubled my money in the stock market, through an IRA..... run by institutional traders.

The Market rides like a roller coaster all day long...there's no way that would happen if the data being fed to the masses were honest.

Of course it would go up and down, with or without accurate information.

Just like there are hundreds of factors involved in the value of a stock, there are also hundreds of factors involved in investor choices.

Simple example: Had an idiot years ago, who during the sub-prime crash, sold all his stocks. He was convinced, the market was going to completely tank, and he was going to magically lose all his money.

So he sold all his stocks.

I on the other hand, I bought every single stock I could buy. Every single spare dollar I could grab, I purchased stocks with it.

The information we had was identical. He didn't have any more information than I did, and I didn't have any more information than him. Yet both of us had completely opposite reactions to the market.

Warren Buffet supposedly said (I've heard this from multiple sources, but I still can't confirm it), when he was asked by a reporter how much money he lost in the Sub-prime stock market crash, responded "None. I didn't sell my stocks".

So you have 3 different people, and each had different reactions to the same exact information. One guy sold all his stocks (which would drive prices down), one guy bought every stock he could be (which would drive prices up), and one guy did absolutely nothing.

Do you see the problem with your logic? You act like if everyone had perfect information, that we'd all do the exact same thing, and the market would be completely static.

Not so. People react differently to perfect information all the time.

So.... No. The market should naturally go up and down, constantly. It would be ridiculous to think otherwise.

It's like a big flashing advertisement, but when it fails, it destroys an entire economy.

Um... no. The stock market reflects the economy. Not the other way around. A stock market crash, can't somehow magically cause the economy to crash.

Just think about that logically for a moment. Say you are a company, like oh.... Apple Computer. Say the stock market hits a bump and crashes.

How does that affect you?

It doesn't. If people are still buying iPhones, you are still going to sell them. If people are still buying your computers, you are still going to sell them. If products are still being sold, you are still going to have them made.

How does the dropping of your stock price, cause Apple computer, or any other company you might work for, have any problems? It doesn't.

Let's take the 1929 Crash. Did that crash cause any companies to go under? No. In fact, the unemployment rate in 1929, even after the stock market crash, was still just 3%.

But why did the stock market crash? Because investors saw that Smoot Hawley tariffs were going to cash business to crash. In 1930, the Smoot Hawley tariff was imposed, and unemployment from all those businesses forced back into the US (that was sarcasm) jumped up to 8.7%. Then you had the dust bowl, unemployment hit 15%, and the Hoover tax increases to pay for all the government programs, and unemployment hit 23%, and then FDR's new deal, and unemployment hit 24%.

Historical US Unemployment Rate by Year

The unemployment rate has fluctuated greatly since 1929. Learn how GDP, inflation, economic events, and other policies have historically impacted unemployment.

www.thebalance.com

Again, did the crash in 1929 cause businesses to close? No. It was the Smoot-Hawley protectionism that caused businesses to close. The investors saw that coming, that's why the stock crash happened in 1929, when the bill to impose protectionism was introduced.

But none of the economic decline happened after the stock market crash. It happened as tariffs and retaliatory tariffs were placed against the US, which killed the economy, and people lost their jobs.

The stock market reacted to future implications. It didn't cause anything. Stock markets do not "cause" the economy to fail. The future information that the economy would fail, caused the markets to crash.

You are trying to put the cart in front of the horse.

Just look at the Housing Crash...who didn't really know the Loans were BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD!
But everybody's got a dream.

Who didn't know the loans were bad? Government. You want me to post videos of Maxine Waters, and Barnie Frank saying that everything was great? You want me to post the news articles where Freddie Mac signed a deal with First Union (wachovia) and Bear Stearns, two of the largest crashes.... to make bad sub-prime loans?

Or how about Obama who said openly, that sub-prime loans were a good idea?

Government didn't know the loans were bad. They pushed bad loans, throughout the entire sub-prime bubble.

Uh huh...Yeah.
By the way, The Great Depression, as defined by Milton Freidman in one of his last videos, was caused by excessive off-shoring of assets and the lack of technology to know those assets were wasted on parties. Yep, MF says it and every Conservative who hears that sentence blocks it out because Conservatives are just as mentally ill as Liberals.

The rest of your comments are pure nonsense as you have not spent any time in any Wall Street firm at a meeting attended and run by 20 MBAs who didn't care about anything else other than selling an idea or an actual product, regardless of the viability of the product.

Who didn't know the loans were bad? Government. You want me to post videos of Maxine Waters, and Barnie Frank saying that everything was great? You want me to post the news articles where Freddie Mac signed a deal with First Union (wachovia) and Bear Stearns, two of the largest crashes.... to make bad sub-prime loans?
Grow up already; every Loan Officer Rubber Stamped Loans. You really do live in Kansas, don't you?
Half of the Lenders in my community were hired by the Obama Administration to investigate these Papers stamped "Approved" because they were among the few Lenders who followed the Government provided software that Rejected the Loan; these Lenders lost their careers because there weren't enough Borrowers who listened to their advice and buy a less expensive home.

"The stock market reacted to future implications. It didn't cause anything. Stock markets do not "cause" the economy to fail. The future information that the economy would fail, caused the markets to crash."
I hope you're kidding...Stock markets can, and have, turned wealthy people into paupers in mere moments.
In fact, this happened a few months before Trump's tax cuts.

Or how about Obama who said openly, that sub-prime loans were a good idea?
You didn't listen to Rush back then, did you?
Rush loved sub-prime Loans and claimed the GW was a genius!
The Loans themselves were only a fraction of the issue as nobody cares if minorities lose their home and wind up homeless.
After all, there were no Smart Devices back then to storm Wall Street and hand the MBAs.
The Rubber Stamped Loans were packed into other projects, almost all doomed to fail, and then sold to Financial Firms in the Eastern Hemisphere.
Why? Because no firm here cared if a Bank in Asia could collect on the loan because the bankers here would conjure up another scheme to raise that money.

But Whitey made a mistake which I understood because I was taking Karate and understood the Asian mentality...
You owe me $1.00 this month, I'm not accepting $.99.
Sounds funny, doesn't it, but Asians back then, before we tainted them, work on real numbers, not American vapor.

I could go on but you already bought the Rush Limbaugh horse crap.

GW, The Rs and the Ds and every Financial Firm in the US caused a deficit that will never be paid off.
But Obama!..Saved you from starving by borrowing against the future.
You're so Lilly White...
Send your bank account and every check you get to the Fed.
But I work for my check!
You know why your boss has a business?
Obama borrowed against the future.
I was there, I saw business owners begging the banks for a penny!

I could write a book on your delusions, but what the heck, every RWer in my community still denies this GW farce.

Look, you're a really smart guy but so damned Yankee Doodle.
Stop responding to what you consider nonsense (since you weren't there and can only rely on Fox and The Wall Street Journal of Bullshit for your knowledge base).

By the way, The Great Depression, as defined by Milton Freidman in one of his last videos, was caused by excessive off-shoring of assets and the lack of technology to know those assets were wasted on parties. Yep, MF says it and every Conservative who hears that sentence blocks it out because Conservatives are just as mentally ill as Liberals.

Thomas Rustici on Smoot-Hawley and the Great Depression - Econlib

Thomas Rustici of George Mason University and author of Lessons from the Great Depression talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the impact of the Smoot-Hawley Act on the economy. The standard view is that the decrease in trade that followed Smoot-Hawley was not big enough to be a...

www.econtalk.org

Economist Rustici, clearly documents the effects of the Smoot Hawley tariff, and how it caused the crash. One clear example, is the Pittsburgh steel industry. The Smoot Hawley tariff, drastically increased the cost of raw iron ore from Canada. Of course Canada equally put in place a retaliatory tariff against steel imported from the US.

Do tell sparky... if you were a steel company, which would cause you more problems: A drop in your company stock price, or the price of your raw steel going up dramatically at the exact same time the price of your finished product steel dropping dramatically?

The rest of your comments are pure nonsense as you have not spent any time in any Wall Street firm at a meeting attended and run by 20 MBAs who didn't care about anything else other than selling an idea or an actual product, regardless of the viability of the product.

That is not a counter argument to anything I said.

Grow up already; every Loan Officer Rubber Stamped Loans.

Does not change anything I said. Not a counter argument to anything.
Again, if you want me to post the videos of Maxine Waters, and Barnie Frank both praising sub-prime loans, and Obama calling it a good idea, and Andrew Cuomo suing banks to make bad loans.... I will do so. But your statement, changes nothing.

Lenders who followed the Government provided software that Rejected the Loan; these Lenders lost their careers because there weren't enough Borrowers who listened to their advice and buy a less expensive home.

Robot Check

John A. Allison was CEO of BB&T bank, when regulators under the Clinton administration showed up, and required that they lower lending standards.

This is well documented.

But Obama!..Saved you from starving by borrowing against the future.

Bull crap. A number of countries did not bailout out their banks, and were just fine.

Plus, Obama was part of the group pushing sub-prime loans to being with. Only a brainless idiot, sees someone create a problem, and then present themselves as a solution to a problem they created, and claim they saved us.

You are dumbest moron on the face of the planet, if you honestly believe that.

You know why your boss has a business?
Obama borrowed against the future.
I was there, I saw business owners begging the banks for a penny!

My boss was not there. Nor did anything that created that company, or the products that company sold, ever come from Obama.

I could write a book on your delusions, but what the heck, every RWer in my community still denies this GW farce.

My delusions? Which one of us right now, is sitting around justifying government taking your tax money, and giving it to wealthy people?

Stop responding to what you consider nonsense (since you weren't there and can only rely on Fox and The Wall Street Journal of Bullshit for your knowledge base).

Well because I'm right. I know I'm right. You are wrong, and I can prove it. So why should I stop responding, when you are the one making insane claims?

Just out of curiosity, do you realize you didn't directly address anything I posted?

Why do you mention Europe when the I stated Obama had to bail out the world.

Why are you referencing some other video when MFs video is on YouTube?

Why are you blaming sub-primer loans alone when they were less than 3% of the crash?

Not to mention that the men who engineered the entire Lending Bubble, Alan Greenspan, Dick Cheney and Warren Buffet, made billions off the crash.

To be honest, you are so honest I wish you would run for office.

Yes, because you did not make any real points.

Because Obama didn't have to bail out the world. That is opinion. That is not a fact. It's opinion. We didn't bail out Lehman Brothers. It didn't doom the world.

Now I get it that banks claimed Obama had to bail out the world.... well of course they did. Those CEOs jobs are to save the company. If the only way to save the company is to get money from government, they are going to go to government ask for money.

And if the only way to convince government to give you money, is to claim that if you don't bail them out, that the world will end... then they are going to say you have to bail us out or the world will end.

But it's not true. That's just a bunch of rich people, saying whatever they have to say, to get cash.

No, Obama didn't have to bail out the world. The world would have been just fine, with zero bailouts. Iceland didn't bailout a single bank, and their big three banks that all failed, were a far larger percentage of their economy, then our banks were.

Iceland not only did not implode, but they recovered faster, and were recording great economic growth, while we were still in a recession.

Estonia years ago, also refused to bailout their banks, and their banks all went bankrupt and closed, and they recovered just fine, no problem.

Why are you referencing some other video when MFs video is on YouTube?

Because my videos are directly relevant to the topic at hand. Milton Friedman was not relevant to the topic at hand.

Why are you blaming sub-primer loans alone when they were less than 3% of the crash?

Because that is not true?

Sub-prime loans were almost 25% of the market by the end. And you'll notice, as I said before, that sub-prime loans were a niche market before 1997, when Bill Clinton, and his administration pushed Sub-prime loans into the main stream.

Not to mention that the men who engineered the entire Lending Bubble, Alan Greenspan, Dick Cheney and Warren Buffet, made billions off the crash.

People are always going to invest in ways that make a profit. People are going to invest in ways to make a profit, whether the economy is good, or the economy is bad.

Complaining that people made a profit, is pointless. They are always going to make a profit. That's like complaining it's sunny in Arizona, during a depression. Yeah, that's going to happen.

The question isn't "did people make a profit during....." We always answer that with.... yeah. That's what investors do. Investors make wise investments, that return a profit. They would not be investors, if they didn't make investments that returned a profit.

I myself, am an investor. In 2009, I was buying stocks even while the market was crashing. That's what wise investors do.

Even this year. When the market crashed back on Feb 20th, I started buying stocks. I've been buying stocks on the market since the beginning of this crash too. Because that's how you make wise investments, is by buying up stocks that are on sale.

So that is not a valid point. Pointing out that wise investors were investing wisely during the sub-prime crash, is not a valid point of anything. That's like saying "duh". Yeah, investors invested. Duh.

The only valid question is, why did sub-prime loans go from being a niche market, where they should have stayed... to being mainstream and taking up almost 1/4th of the market?

The answer is.... government. Freddie Mac in 1997, signed a deal with First Union (wachovia) and Bear Stearns, to give Sub-prime mortgages a AAA rating.

Bear Stearns, the CRA, and Freddie Mac - Cafe Hayek

I keep hearing that the subprime crisis was caused by people willing to buy stuff they couldn't evaluate. Why would smart people do that? One answer is that they were stupid. In an era of rising home prices, it's hard...

cafehayek.com

CHARLOTTE – First Union Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment​

Act (CRA) loans – marking the industry’s first public securitization of​

CRA loans.​

​

The affordable mortgages were originated or acquired by First Union​

Corporation and subsidiaries. Customers will experience no impact –​

they will continue to make payments to and be serviced by First Union​

Mortgage Corp. CRA loans are loans targeted to low and moderate income​

borrowers and neighborhoods under the Community Reinvestment Act of​

1977.​

​

"The securitization of these affordable mortgages allows us to redeploy​

capital back into our communities and to expand our ability to provide​

credit to low and moderate income individuals," said Jane Henderson,​

managing director of First Union’s Community Reinvestment and Fair​

Lending Programs. "First Union is committed to promoting home ownership​

in traditionally underserved markets through a comprehensive line of​

competitive and flexible affordable mortgage products. This transaction​

enables us to continue to aggressively serve those markets."​

​

The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and​

have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the​

investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation.​

Again, this is well documented.

And at the same time, Andrew Cuomo was suing banks to force them to make bad loans.



Andrew Cuomo admitted openly, that this would force the bank to make loans to people who otherwise would not qualify. Meaning, people who did not qualify for prime rate mortgages.... AND Cuomo equally admitted that the default rate would be higher.

Again, government forced banks to make bad loans, and rewarded sub-prime loans, and encourages sub-prime loans by giving them a AAA rating. This is well documented.

You are distracted...
Simple question...Start off with Yes/No and then we'll discuss if this ever happened and it's short and long effect on the economy where it happened.
Should legislation allow this to occur?

In a free market, can companies suddenly leave a nation in droves leaving millions of people who cannot afford to start their own unemployed?
Should legislation allow this to occur?

In a free market, can companies suddenly and simply lay off millions of employees and replace them with foreigners?
Should legislation allow this to occur?

That is a dumb question though. You are implying that somehow you can force people to hire other people?

That's tyranny. You are talking about Stalinism now.

Say I run a company.... what law are you going to pass, that is going to stop me from closing down the company? It's my company. I own it.

Are you going to do what Hugo Chavez did, and have soldiers forcibly remove owners from their companies, if they don't hire people?

Venezuelans Despair as Companies Flee

Irish packaging giant Smurfit left Venezuela amid a spat with the socialist government, joining other multinationals abandoning the sinking economy.

www.wsj.com

If you try and force companies to do what you want, they will leave completely.

This idea that "well if we just have a policy that says companies can't do stuff"... no, they'll just leave the country completely.

Then you won't have to worry about them hiring foreigners, because they wont' be hiring anyone in the US.

So to answer your question directly... Yeah I believe in freedom. And we are not a dictatorship, and no there should not be totalitarian rules on who companies hire.

You know that India tried that, right? India had rules on outsourcing, and rules on exactly who could be hired by any company.

The result was that companies that were created in India, moved all their operations out of India.

I believe Tata Motors was a huge one, that had all their operations spread out across the world, with virtually nothing in their home country of India. And they interviewed the CEO, and his answer was, because of all the regulations and laws.

So if you think you are going to somehow FORCE companies to act in a way you want... it's not going to happen. Whether you have the regulations "allowing" it or not, doesn't matter. If you pass all the regulations you want, they'll just not employ people in the US.

Excellent!
Guess what?
From a legal standpoint you are incredibly incorrect.
Every piece of Congressional legislation regarding the US economy requires an assay describing why it's good for the US economy.
And guess what, Free Market legislation caused the 2 biggest Global Crashes in the last century.
But the elite who endorsed the legislation become even wealthier.

But they'll leave!
Who 's the world biggest consumer?
Huh?
They'll leave?
Do you ever look around?
THEY LEFT!
And our economy crashed!

I wouldn't use India as a paradigm of how to run a nation as almost 100% of their population lives in unimaginable poverty.

They won't leave.

And guess what, Free Market legislation caused the 2 biggest Global Crashes in the last century.

Factually wrong, and I proved it with evidence already.

Who 's the world biggest consumer?
Huh?
They'll leave?
Do you ever look around?
THEY LEFT!
And our economy crashed!

Also factually wrong. Apple Computer, and numerous others, make more money outside the US, than inside.

Apple Computer still has 90,000 employees in the US. If they had left, it would be zero. Exxon has zero employees in Venezuela today.

Many companies still have tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, and likely collectively have millions of employees in the US. If you want that to be zero.... you can achieve that by trying to regulate the crap out of them.

And no, our economy did not crash because they left.

I wouldn't use India as a paradigm of how to run a nation as almost 100% of their population lives in unimaginable poverty.
They won't leave.

Right, they live in poverty, because in the past they were following your ideology in economics. By the way, as they have left your ideology in economics, and embraced more free-market capitalism, they have far fewer today in unimaginable poverty, as they did before.

Yes, they will leave. I guarantee you they will leave.

By the way, you are talking in circles.

You just said they all left, and we had a crash. Now you are saying they won't leave. Those are mutually exclusive statements.

Regardless.... the rules of economic fundamentals are true, no matter the culture, nation, or time frame.

Economic fundamentals don't change because one nation is poor, and another is rich.

Saying they won't leave is ridiculous. Of course they will leave. When France instituted a wealth tax, thousands packed up and left. When Jamaica put in place capital controls, companies simply closed, and reopened in Miami.

You can see this just within the states. Why do you think Amazon opened another HQ outside Seattle?

1,800 Companies Left California In a Year - With Most Bound for Texas

A record number of companies are leaving California for states with a better business climate, and a new report shows that Texas remains their No. 1 destination. See why they are being urged to leave the state, and what is bringing them to Texas.

www.southstarcommunities.com

Why have over 1800 companies moved from California to Texas? Texas is largely free-market capitalist, and California is more regulation and control.

If you put enough regulations, that companies have a hard time, they'll leave. I promise you they'll leave.

Apple only hires the best, unlike MS, Oracle, IBM, etc,..
I spend some time on Quora and Apple guys post their a lot.
They love working at Apple.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In his system, dissenters are shot

In your system, the innocent are guilty.

Compared to the gulag.......we're slackers, eh comrade?

 

[Andylusion]

I can tell you from professional experience that "GW's" Housing Bubble and Crash are going to occur again.

I can tell you the dregs of society , god's 'special children' ie corn-struction workers are all expecting a crash Indeep

I know for a fact that these people earn in the lower 20-30Ks and I am convinced that the Lenders are Rubber Stamping these Loans "Approved".
Just as in the GW years, there is no way the Tables in the software provided by the Municipalities, States and Federal levels of Government are allowing people who work in Pizza Shops to take out Home Equity Loads in the 600K range.

a recipe for another housing disaster

Everybody loves a great economy, but everyone wants to jump aboard before they're capable of earning and paying their own way.

true, but don't you sense the constant revaluation via fiscals such as the derivatives market a factor InDeep?

~S~

Institutional Trading should be Illegal.
I'm tired of egotistical assholes with a bullshit degree in Finance from a "prestigious" University that their daddy's bribe got them into, determining from thin air how a much a given piece of a MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATION, with an almost infinite amount of physical Assets & Liabilities alone, is worth at any given second.
HOW THE FUCK DO THEY KNOW????
It's a fucking game that they never lose at!

I explained it last week to a naive person here who wants to believe all people on Wall Street are honest.

I will now calm down...nah!

how a much a given piece of a MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATION, with an almost infinite amount of physical Assets & Liabilities alone, is worth at any given second.

If they're overpricing it, don't buy from them.
If they're underpricing it, don't sell to them.

I get the impression you were on the up and up.
Not so the Institutional Traders who are baiting the small guy.

The Market rides like a roller coaster all day long...there's no way that would happen if the data being fed to the masses were honest.
Are investors really pulling in and out of the same deal all day long?
No way.

It's like a big flashing advertisement, but when it fails, it destroys an entire economy.

In fact, with today's technology, crashes should never happen because we found out something that happened last year was suddenly discovered.

Just look at the Housing Crash...who didn't really know the Loans were BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD!
But everybody's got a dream.

Not so the Institutional Traders who are baiting the small guy.

Again... as I pointed out before, your 401K is run by institutional traders. Union pension funds, are run by institutional traders. The trust fund of schools like Yale and Harvard, are run by institutional traders. Annuities for old people retiring, are run by institutional traders.

Basically every single retirement, or investment program in the world, is run by institutional traders.

The small guy.... benefits specifically from institutional traders. I've doubled my money in the stock market, through an IRA..... run by institutional traders.

The Market rides like a roller coaster all day long...there's no way that would happen if the data being fed to the masses were honest.

Of course it would go up and down, with or without accurate information.

Just like there are hundreds of factors involved in the value of a stock, there are also hundreds of factors involved in investor choices.

Simple example: Had an idiot years ago, who during the sub-prime crash, sold all his stocks. He was convinced, the market was going to completely tank, and he was going to magically lose all his money.

So he sold all his stocks.

I on the other hand, I bought every single stock I could buy. Every single spare dollar I could grab, I purchased stocks with it.

The information we had was identical. He didn't have any more information than I did, and I didn't have any more information than him. Yet both of us had completely opposite reactions to the market.

Warren Buffet supposedly said (I've heard this from multiple sources, but I still can't confirm it), when he was asked by a reporter how much money he lost in the Sub-prime stock market crash, responded "None. I didn't sell my stocks".

So you have 3 different people, and each had different reactions to the same exact information. One guy sold all his stocks (which would drive prices down), one guy bought every stock he could be (which would drive prices up), and one guy did absolutely nothing.

Do you see the problem with your logic? You act like if everyone had perfect information, that we'd all do the exact same thing, and the market would be completely static.

Not so. People react differently to perfect information all the time.

So.... No. The market should naturally go up and down, constantly. It would be ridiculous to think otherwise.

It's like a big flashing advertisement, but when it fails, it destroys an entire economy.

Um... no. The stock market reflects the economy. Not the other way around. A stock market crash, can't somehow magically cause the economy to crash.

Just think about that logically for a moment. Say you are a company, like oh.... Apple Computer. Say the stock market hits a bump and crashes.

How does that affect you?

It doesn't. If people are still buying iPhones, you are still going to sell them. If people are still buying your computers, you are still going to sell them. If products are still being sold, you are still going to have them made.

How does the dropping of your stock price, cause Apple computer, or any other company you might work for, have any problems? It doesn't.

Let's take the 1929 Crash. Did that crash cause any companies to go under? No. In fact, the unemployment rate in 1929, even after the stock market crash, was still just 3%.

But why did the stock market crash? Because investors saw that Smoot Hawley tariffs were going to cash business to crash. In 1930, the Smoot Hawley tariff was imposed, and unemployment from all those businesses forced back into the US (that was sarcasm) jumped up to 8.7%. Then you had the dust bowl, unemployment hit 15%, and the Hoover tax increases to pay for all the government programs, and unemployment hit 23%, and then FDR's new deal, and unemployment hit 24%.

Historical US Unemployment Rate by Year

The unemployment rate has fluctuated greatly since 1929. Learn how GDP, inflation, economic events, and other policies have historically impacted unemployment.

www.thebalance.com

Again, did the crash in 1929 cause businesses to close? No. It was the Smoot-Hawley protectionism that caused businesses to close. The investors saw that coming, that's why the stock crash happened in 1929, when the bill to impose protectionism was introduced.

But none of the economic decline happened after the stock market crash. It happened as tariffs and retaliatory tariffs were placed against the US, which killed the economy, and people lost their jobs.

The stock market reacted to future implications. It didn't cause anything. Stock markets do not "cause" the economy to fail. The future information that the economy would fail, caused the markets to crash.

You are trying to put the cart in front of the horse.

Just look at the Housing Crash...who didn't really know the Loans were BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD!
But everybody's got a dream.

Who didn't know the loans were bad? Government. You want me to post videos of Maxine Waters, and Barnie Frank saying that everything was great? You want me to post the news articles where Freddie Mac signed a deal with First Union (wachovia) and Bear Stearns, two of the largest crashes.... to make bad sub-prime loans?

Or how about Obama who said openly, that sub-prime loans were a good idea?

Government didn't know the loans were bad. They pushed bad loans, throughout the entire sub-prime bubble.

Uh huh...Yeah.
By the way, The Great Depression, as defined by Milton Freidman in one of his last videos, was caused by excessive off-shoring of assets and the lack of technology to know those assets were wasted on parties. Yep, MF says it and every Conservative who hears that sentence blocks it out because Conservatives are just as mentally ill as Liberals.

The rest of your comments are pure nonsense as you have not spent any time in any Wall Street firm at a meeting attended and run by 20 MBAs who didn't care about anything else other than selling an idea or an actual product, regardless of the viability of the product.

Who didn't know the loans were bad? Government. You want me to post videos of Maxine Waters, and Barnie Frank saying that everything was great? You want me to post the news articles where Freddie Mac signed a deal with First Union (wachovia) and Bear Stearns, two of the largest crashes.... to make bad sub-prime loans?
Grow up already; every Loan Officer Rubber Stamped Loans. You really do live in Kansas, don't you?
Half of the Lenders in my community were hired by the Obama Administration to investigate these Papers stamped "Approved" because they were among the few Lenders who followed the Government provided software that Rejected the Loan; these Lenders lost their careers because there weren't enough Borrowers who listened to their advice and buy a less expensive home.

"The stock market reacted to future implications. It didn't cause anything. Stock markets do not "cause" the economy to fail. The future information that the economy would fail, caused the markets to crash."
I hope you're kidding...Stock markets can, and have, turned wealthy people into paupers in mere moments.
In fact, this happened a few months before Trump's tax cuts.

Or how about Obama who said openly, that sub-prime loans were a good idea?
You didn't listen to Rush back then, did you?
Rush loved sub-prime Loans and claimed the GW was a genius!
The Loans themselves were only a fraction of the issue as nobody cares if minorities lose their home and wind up homeless.
After all, there were no Smart Devices back then to storm Wall Street and hand the MBAs.
The Rubber Stamped Loans were packed into other projects, almost all doomed to fail, and then sold to Financial Firms in the Eastern Hemisphere.
Why? Because no firm here cared if a Bank in Asia could collect on the loan because the bankers here would conjure up another scheme to raise that money.

But Whitey made a mistake which I understood because I was taking Karate and understood the Asian mentality...
You owe me $1.00 this month, I'm not accepting $.99.
Sounds funny, doesn't it, but Asians back then, before we tainted them, work on real numbers, not American vapor.

I could go on but you already bought the Rush Limbaugh horse crap.

GW, The Rs and the Ds and every Financial Firm in the US caused a deficit that will never be paid off.
But Obama!..Saved you from starving by borrowing against the future.
You're so Lilly White...
Send your bank account and every check you get to the Fed.
But I work for my check!
You know why your boss has a business?
Obama borrowed against the future.
I was there, I saw business owners begging the banks for a penny!

I could write a book on your delusions, but what the heck, every RWer in my community still denies this GW farce.

Look, you're a really smart guy but so damned Yankee Doodle.
Stop responding to what you consider nonsense (since you weren't there and can only rely on Fox and The Wall Street Journal of Bullshit for your knowledge base).

By the way, The Great Depression, as defined by Milton Freidman in one of his last videos, was caused by excessive off-shoring of assets and the lack of technology to know those assets were wasted on parties. Yep, MF says it and every Conservative who hears that sentence blocks it out because Conservatives are just as mentally ill as Liberals.

Thomas Rustici on Smoot-Hawley and the Great Depression - Econlib

Thomas Rustici of George Mason University and author of Lessons from the Great Depression talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the impact of the Smoot-Hawley Act on the economy. The standard view is that the decrease in trade that followed Smoot-Hawley was not big enough to be a...

www.econtalk.org

Economist Rustici, clearly documents the effects of the Smoot Hawley tariff, and how it caused the crash. One clear example, is the Pittsburgh steel industry. The Smoot Hawley tariff, drastically increased the cost of raw iron ore from Canada. Of course Canada equally put in place a retaliatory tariff against steel imported from the US.

Do tell sparky... if you were a steel company, which would cause you more problems: A drop in your company stock price, or the price of your raw steel going up dramatically at the exact same time the price of your finished product steel dropping dramatically?

The rest of your comments are pure nonsense as you have not spent any time in any Wall Street firm at a meeting attended and run by 20 MBAs who didn't care about anything else other than selling an idea or an actual product, regardless of the viability of the product.

That is not a counter argument to anything I said.

Grow up already; every Loan Officer Rubber Stamped Loans.

Does not change anything I said. Not a counter argument to anything.
Again, if you want me to post the videos of Maxine Waters, and Barnie Frank both praising sub-prime loans, and Obama calling it a good idea, and Andrew Cuomo suing banks to make bad loans.... I will do so. But your statement, changes nothing.

Lenders who followed the Government provided software that Rejected the Loan; these Lenders lost their careers because there weren't enough Borrowers who listened to their advice and buy a less expensive home.

Robot Check

John A. Allison was CEO of BB&T bank, when regulators under the Clinton administration showed up, and required that they lower lending standards.

This is well documented.

But Obama!..Saved you from starving by borrowing against the future.

Bull crap. A number of countries did not bailout out their banks, and were just fine.

Plus, Obama was part of the group pushing sub-prime loans to being with. Only a brainless idiot, sees someone create a problem, and then present themselves as a solution to a problem they created, and claim they saved us.

You are dumbest moron on the face of the planet, if you honestly believe that.

You know why your boss has a business?
Obama borrowed against the future.
I was there, I saw business owners begging the banks for a penny!

My boss was not there. Nor did anything that created that company, or the products that company sold, ever come from Obama.

I could write a book on your delusions, but what the heck, every RWer in my community still denies this GW farce.

My delusions? Which one of us right now, is sitting around justifying government taking your tax money, and giving it to wealthy people?

Stop responding to what you consider nonsense (since you weren't there and can only rely on Fox and The Wall Street Journal of Bullshit for your knowledge base).

Well because I'm right. I know I'm right. You are wrong, and I can prove it. So why should I stop responding, when you are the one making insane claims?

Just out of curiosity, do you realize you didn't directly address anything I posted?

Why do you mention Europe when the I stated Obama had to bail out the world.

Why are you referencing some other video when MFs video is on YouTube?

Why are you blaming sub-primer loans alone when they were less than 3% of the crash?

Not to mention that the men who engineered the entire Lending Bubble, Alan Greenspan, Dick Cheney and Warren Buffet, made billions off the crash.

To be honest, you are so honest I wish you would run for office.

Yes, because you did not make any real points.

Because Obama didn't have to bail out the world. That is opinion. That is not a fact. It's opinion. We didn't bail out Lehman Brothers. It didn't doom the world.

Now I get it that banks claimed Obama had to bail out the world.... well of course they did. Those CEOs jobs are to save the company. If the only way to save the company is to get money from government, they are going to go to government ask for money.

And if the only way to convince government to give you money, is to claim that if you don't bail them out, that the world will end... then they are going to say you have to bail us out or the world will end.

But it's not true. That's just a bunch of rich people, saying whatever they have to say, to get cash.

No, Obama didn't have to bail out the world. The world would have been just fine, with zero bailouts. Iceland didn't bailout a single bank, and their big three banks that all failed, were a far larger percentage of their economy, then our banks were.

Iceland not only did not implode, but they recovered faster, and were recording great economic growth, while we were still in a recession.

Estonia years ago, also refused to bailout their banks, and their banks all went bankrupt and closed, and they recovered just fine, no problem.

Why are you referencing some other video when MFs video is on YouTube?

Because my videos are directly relevant to the topic at hand. Milton Friedman was not relevant to the topic at hand.

Why are you blaming sub-primer loans alone when they were less than 3% of the crash?

Because that is not true?

Sub-prime loans were almost 25% of the market by the end. And you'll notice, as I said before, that sub-prime loans were a niche market before 1997, when Bill Clinton, and his administration pushed Sub-prime loans into the main stream.

Not to mention that the men who engineered the entire Lending Bubble, Alan Greenspan, Dick Cheney and Warren Buffet, made billions off the crash.

People are always going to invest in ways that make a profit. People are going to invest in ways to make a profit, whether the economy is good, or the economy is bad.

Complaining that people made a profit, is pointless. They are always going to make a profit. That's like complaining it's sunny in Arizona, during a depression. Yeah, that's going to happen.

The question isn't "did people make a profit during....." We always answer that with.... yeah. That's what investors do. Investors make wise investments, that return a profit. They would not be investors, if they didn't make investments that returned a profit.

I myself, am an investor. In 2009, I was buying stocks even while the market was crashing. That's what wise investors do.

Even this year. When the market crashed back on Feb 20th, I started buying stocks. I've been buying stocks on the market since the beginning of this crash too. Because that's how you make wise investments, is by buying up stocks that are on sale.

So that is not a valid point. Pointing out that wise investors were investing wisely during the sub-prime crash, is not a valid point of anything. That's like saying "duh". Yeah, investors invested. Duh.

The only valid question is, why did sub-prime loans go from being a niche market, where they should have stayed... to being mainstream and taking up almost 1/4th of the market?

The answer is.... government. Freddie Mac in 1997, signed a deal with First Union (wachovia) and Bear Stearns, to give Sub-prime mortgages a AAA rating.

Bear Stearns, the CRA, and Freddie Mac - Cafe Hayek

I keep hearing that the subprime crisis was caused by people willing to buy stuff they couldn't evaluate. Why would smart people do that? One answer is that they were stupid. In an era of rising home prices, it's hard...

cafehayek.com

CHARLOTTE – First Union Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment​

Act (CRA) loans – marking the industry’s first public securitization of​

CRA loans.​

​

The affordable mortgages were originated or acquired by First Union​

Corporation and subsidiaries. Customers will experience no impact –​

they will continue to make payments to and be serviced by First Union​

Mortgage Corp. CRA loans are loans targeted to low and moderate income​

borrowers and neighborhoods under the Community Reinvestment Act of​

1977.​

​

"The securitization of these affordable mortgages allows us to redeploy​

capital back into our communities and to expand our ability to provide​

credit to low and moderate income individuals," said Jane Henderson,​

managing director of First Union’s Community Reinvestment and Fair​

Lending Programs. "First Union is committed to promoting home ownership​

in traditionally underserved markets through a comprehensive line of​

competitive and flexible affordable mortgage products. This transaction​

enables us to continue to aggressively serve those markets."​

​

The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and​

have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the​

investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation.​

Again, this is well documented.

And at the same time, Andrew Cuomo was suing banks to force them to make bad loans.



Andrew Cuomo admitted openly, that this would force the bank to make loans to people who otherwise would not qualify. Meaning, people who did not qualify for prime rate mortgages.... AND Cuomo equally admitted that the default rate would be higher.

Again, government forced banks to make bad loans, and rewarded sub-prime loans, and encourages sub-prime loans by giving them a AAA rating. This is well documented.

You are distracted...
Simple question...Start off with Yes/No and then we'll discuss if this ever happened and it's short and long effect on the economy where it happened.
Should legislation allow this to occur?

In a free market, can companies suddenly leave a nation in droves leaving millions of people who cannot afford to start their own unemployed?
Should legislation allow this to occur?

In a free market, can companies suddenly and simply lay off millions of employees and replace them with foreigners?
Should legislation allow this to occur?

That is a dumb question though. You are implying that somehow you can force people to hire other people?

That's tyranny. You are talking about Stalinism now.

Say I run a company.... what law are you going to pass, that is going to stop me from closing down the company? It's my company. I own it.

Are you going to do what Hugo Chavez did, and have soldiers forcibly remove owners from their companies, if they don't hire people?

Venezuelans Despair as Companies Flee

Irish packaging giant Smurfit left Venezuela amid a spat with the socialist government, joining other multinationals abandoning the sinking economy.

www.wsj.com

If you try and force companies to do what you want, they will leave completely.

This idea that "well if we just have a policy that says companies can't do stuff"... no, they'll just leave the country completely.

Then you won't have to worry about them hiring foreigners, because they wont' be hiring anyone in the US.

So to answer your question directly... Yeah I believe in freedom. And we are not a dictatorship, and no there should not be totalitarian rules on who companies hire.

You know that India tried that, right? India had rules on outsourcing, and rules on exactly who could be hired by any company.

The result was that companies that were created in India, moved all their operations out of India.

I believe Tata Motors was a huge one, that had all their operations spread out across the world, with virtually nothing in their home country of India. And they interviewed the CEO, and his answer was, because of all the regulations and laws.

So if you think you are going to somehow FORCE companies to act in a way you want... it's not going to happen. Whether you have the regulations "allowing" it or not, doesn't matter. If you pass all the regulations you want, they'll just not employ people in the US.

Excellent!
Guess what?
From a legal standpoint you are incredibly incorrect.
Every piece of Congressional legislation regarding the US economy requires an assay describing why it's good for the US economy.
And guess what, Free Market legislation caused the 2 biggest Global Crashes in the last century.
But the elite who endorsed the legislation become even wealthier.

But they'll leave!
Who 's the world biggest consumer?
Huh?
They'll leave?
Do you ever look around?
THEY LEFT!
And our economy crashed!

I wouldn't use India as a paradigm of how to run a nation as almost 100% of their population lives in unimaginable poverty.

They won't leave.

And guess what, Free Market legislation caused the 2 biggest Global Crashes in the last century.

Factually wrong, and I proved it with evidence already.

Who 's the world biggest consumer?
Huh?
They'll leave?
Do you ever look around?
THEY LEFT!
And our economy crashed!

Also factually wrong. Apple Computer, and numerous others, make more money outside the US, than inside.

Apple Computer still has 90,000 employees in the US. If they had left, it would be zero. Exxon has zero employees in Venezuela today.

Many companies still have tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, and likely collectively have millions of employees in the US. If you want that to be zero.... you can achieve that by trying to regulate the crap out of them.

And no, our economy did not crash because they left.

I wouldn't use India as a paradigm of how to run a nation as almost 100% of their population lives in unimaginable poverty.
They won't leave.

Right, they live in poverty, because in the past they were following your ideology in economics. By the way, as they have left your ideology in economics, and embraced more free-market capitalism, they have far fewer today in unimaginable poverty, as they did before.

Yes, they will leave. I guarantee you they will leave.

By the way, you are talking in circles.

You just said they all left, and we had a crash. Now you are saying they won't leave. Those are mutually exclusive statements.

Regardless.... the rules of economic fundamentals are true, no matter the culture, nation, or time frame.

Economic fundamentals don't change because one nation is poor, and another is rich.

Saying they won't leave is ridiculous. Of course they will leave. When France instituted a wealth tax, thousands packed up and left. When Jamaica put in place capital controls, companies simply closed, and reopened in Miami.

You can see this just within the states. Why do you think Amazon opened another HQ outside Seattle?

1,800 Companies Left California In a Year - With Most Bound for Texas

A record number of companies are leaving California for states with a better business climate, and a new report shows that Texas remains their No. 1 destination. See why they are being urged to leave the state, and what is bringing them to Texas.

www.southstarcommunities.com

Why have over 1800 companies moved from California to Texas? Texas is largely free-market capitalist, and California is more regulation and control.

If you put enough regulations, that companies have a hard time, they'll leave. I promise you they'll leave.

I usually respect your posts but you are being so willfully ignorant it's almost surreal.
I read your reason why the Free Market didn't cause two crashes and I'm beginning to think you are...selectively stupid?

I understand why companies move within our borders because that does not destroy the national economy.
You completely ignored what happens to the US economy when 25K companies leave withing 4 years and get a tax break on the relocation costs.

India's religion causes their mass poverty...out of 1,000 castes, only the top 2 or 3 are even allowed to work in a profession that requires an education.
Step out of bounds and you are executed.
It has nothing to do with economics; their Priests live very well despite their rampant lack of intelligence.
If they were so brilliant they wouldn't have to come to the US.
Your ignorance of what goes in India is insulting to the billions who are doomed to live in poverty.

The problem with people such as yourself is you're are 98% book knowledge and almost 0% looking at what's happening on the ground.
You sound like the guys I know who get their "real" news from The Wall Street Journal, which, by the way, along with 100% of your Conservative heroes, predicted a Global Market Crash would occur if Trump won.
So much for your "heroes".

I know, I know...you didn't read that about Trump anywhere!

Oh, I almost forgot!
Remember when Wall Street hated Apple?
Of course you don't.
Only about 2-3 years ago...Apple wasn't releasing a new phone every 6 months because Tim Cook didn't want to be a whore to Wall Street.

Remember when Wall Street hated Amazon?
Of course you don't.
Only about 3-4 years ago...Amazon invested millions into local Warehouses and Wall Street gave them the boot.
Bezos was right and now Wall Street kisses his ass all day long.

think you are...selectively stupid?

You are an idiot. Keep your mouth shut, if you have nothing of value to say.

Your ignorance of what goes in India is insulting to the billions who are doomed to live in poverty.

You are proving to me, that I know far more about it than you. Moron.

The problem with people such as yourself

I already know. It is that we spend too much time talking to complete useless trash like you. You added nothing but insults and trash to this discussion. Do the world a favor, and shut up.

Oh, I almost forgot!

The only thing you forgot, was whatever manors your parents should have taught you. You are pathetic, childish and worthless as a human being.

Hey, if you want to crap out insults non-stop, and have nothing of value to say, then I can play that game. Get lost trash. You have not provided one single valid argument, or one single bit of evidence in this thread yet.

Go back to whatever rock you crawled out of, and die there. Do the world of favor, because you certainly are not doing any of us any favors, spewing your non-stop trash here.

No one has learned anything from you, except disgusting trash looks like, when it posts on a forum. Remove yourself from society, if you really want to improve it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nah. Commie shitholes are shitholes.

How many children has your country killed?

Hint: more than Cuba and Venezuela combined.

Hint: more than Cuba and Venezuela combined.

Hint: you're full of shit.

 

[Andylusion]

I can tell you from professional experience that "GW's" Housing Bubble and Crash are going to occur again.

I can tell you the dregs of society , god's 'special children' ie corn-struction workers are all expecting a crash Indeep

I know for a fact that these people earn in the lower 20-30Ks and I am convinced that the Lenders are Rubber Stamping these Loans "Approved".
Just as in the GW years, there is no way the Tables in the software provided by the Municipalities, States and Federal levels of Government are allowing people who work in Pizza Shops to take out Home Equity Loads in the 600K range.

a recipe for another housing disaster

Everybody loves a great economy, but everyone wants to jump aboard before they're capable of earning and paying their own way.

true, but don't you sense the constant revaluation via fiscals such as the derivatives market a factor InDeep?

~S~

Institutional Trading should be Illegal.
I'm tired of egotistical assholes with a bullshit degree in Finance from a "prestigious" University that their daddy's bribe got them into, determining from thin air how a much a given piece of a MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATION, with an almost infinite amount of physical Assets & Liabilities alone, is worth at any given second.
HOW THE FUCK DO THEY KNOW????
It's a fucking game that they never lose at!

I explained it last week to a naive person here who wants to believe all people on Wall Street are honest.

I will now calm down...nah!

how a much a given piece of a MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATION, with an almost infinite amount of physical Assets & Liabilities alone, is worth at any given second.

If they're overpricing it, don't buy from them.
If they're underpricing it, don't sell to them.

I get the impression you were on the up and up.
Not so the Institutional Traders who are baiting the small guy.

The Market rides like a roller coaster all day long...there's no way that would happen if the data being fed to the masses were honest.
Are investors really pulling in and out of the same deal all day long?
No way.

It's like a big flashing advertisement, but when it fails, it destroys an entire economy.

In fact, with today's technology, crashes should never happen because we found out something that happened last year was suddenly discovered.

Just look at the Housing Crash...who didn't really know the Loans were BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD!
But everybody's got a dream.

Not so the Institutional Traders who are baiting the small guy.

Again... as I pointed out before, your 401K is run by institutional traders. Union pension funds, are run by institutional traders. The trust fund of schools like Yale and Harvard, are run by institutional traders. Annuities for old people retiring, are run by institutional traders.

Basically every single retirement, or investment program in the world, is run by institutional traders.

The small guy.... benefits specifically from institutional traders. I've doubled my money in the stock market, through an IRA..... run by institutional traders.

The Market rides like a roller coaster all day long...there's no way that would happen if the data being fed to the masses were honest.

Of course it would go up and down, with or without accurate information.

Just like there are hundreds of factors involved in the value of a stock, there are also hundreds of factors involved in investor choices.

Simple example: Had an idiot years ago, who during the sub-prime crash, sold all his stocks. He was convinced, the market was going to completely tank, and he was going to magically lose all his money.

So he sold all his stocks.

I on the other hand, I bought every single stock I could buy. Every single spare dollar I could grab, I purchased stocks with it.

The information we had was identical. He didn't have any more information than I did, and I didn't have any more information than him. Yet both of us had completely opposite reactions to the market.

Warren Buffet supposedly said (I've heard this from multiple sources, but I still can't confirm it), when he was asked by a reporter how much money he lost in the Sub-prime stock market crash, responded "None. I didn't sell my stocks".

So you have 3 different people, and each had different reactions to the same exact information. One guy sold all his stocks (which would drive prices down), one guy bought every stock he could be (which would drive prices up), and one guy did absolutely nothing.

Do you see the problem with your logic? You act like if everyone had perfect information, that we'd all do the exact same thing, and the market would be completely static.

Not so. People react differently to perfect information all the time.

So.... No. The market should naturally go up and down, constantly. It would be ridiculous to think otherwise.

It's like a big flashing advertisement, but when it fails, it destroys an entire economy.

Um... no. The stock market reflects the economy. Not the other way around. A stock market crash, can't somehow magically cause the economy to crash.

Just think about that logically for a moment. Say you are a company, like oh.... Apple Computer. Say the stock market hits a bump and crashes.

How does that affect you?

It doesn't. If people are still buying iPhones, you are still going to sell them. If people are still buying your computers, you are still going to sell them. If products are still being sold, you are still going to have them made.

How does the dropping of your stock price, cause Apple computer, or any other company you might work for, have any problems? It doesn't.

Let's take the 1929 Crash. Did that crash cause any companies to go under? No. In fact, the unemployment rate in 1929, even after the stock market crash, was still just 3%.

But why did the stock market crash? Because investors saw that Smoot Hawley tariffs were going to cash business to crash. In 1930, the Smoot Hawley tariff was imposed, and unemployment from all those businesses forced back into the US (that was sarcasm) jumped up to 8.7%. Then you had the dust bowl, unemployment hit 15%, and the Hoover tax increases to pay for all the government programs, and unemployment hit 23%, and then FDR's new deal, and unemployment hit 24%.

Historical US Unemployment Rate by Year

The unemployment rate has fluctuated greatly since 1929. Learn how GDP, inflation, economic events, and other policies have historically impacted unemployment.

www.thebalance.com

Again, did the crash in 1929 cause businesses to close? No. It was the Smoot-Hawley protectionism that caused businesses to close. The investors saw that coming, that's why the stock crash happened in 1929, when the bill to impose protectionism was introduced.

But none of the economic decline happened after the stock market crash. It happened as tariffs and retaliatory tariffs were placed against the US, which killed the economy, and people lost their jobs.

The stock market reacted to future implications. It didn't cause anything. Stock markets do not "cause" the economy to fail. The future information that the economy would fail, caused the markets to crash.

You are trying to put the cart in front of the horse.

Just look at the Housing Crash...who didn't really know the Loans were BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD!
But everybody's got a dream.

Who didn't know the loans were bad? Government. You want me to post videos of Maxine Waters, and Barnie Frank saying that everything was great? You want me to post the news articles where Freddie Mac signed a deal with First Union (wachovia) and Bear Stearns, two of the largest crashes.... to make bad sub-prime loans?

Or how about Obama who said openly, that sub-prime loans were a good idea?

Government didn't know the loans were bad. They pushed bad loans, throughout the entire sub-prime bubble.

Uh huh...Yeah.
By the way, The Great Depression, as defined by Milton Freidman in one of his last videos, was caused by excessive off-shoring of assets and the lack of technology to know those assets were wasted on parties. Yep, MF says it and every Conservative who hears that sentence blocks it out because Conservatives are just as mentally ill as Liberals.

The rest of your comments are pure nonsense as you have not spent any time in any Wall Street firm at a meeting attended and run by 20 MBAs who didn't care about anything else other than selling an idea or an actual product, regardless of the viability of the product.

Who didn't know the loans were bad? Government. You want me to post videos of Maxine Waters, and Barnie Frank saying that everything was great? You want me to post the news articles where Freddie Mac signed a deal with First Union (wachovia) and Bear Stearns, two of the largest crashes.... to make bad sub-prime loans?
Grow up already; every Loan Officer Rubber Stamped Loans. You really do live in Kansas, don't you?
Half of the Lenders in my community were hired by the Obama Administration to investigate these Papers stamped "Approved" because they were among the few Lenders who followed the Government provided software that Rejected the Loan; these Lenders lost their careers because there weren't enough Borrowers who listened to their advice and buy a less expensive home.

"The stock market reacted to future implications. It didn't cause anything. Stock markets do not "cause" the economy to fail. The future information that the economy would fail, caused the markets to crash."
I hope you're kidding...Stock markets can, and have, turned wealthy people into paupers in mere moments.
In fact, this happened a few months before Trump's tax cuts.

Or how about Obama who said openly, that sub-prime loans were a good idea?
You didn't listen to Rush back then, did you?
Rush loved sub-prime Loans and claimed the GW was a genius!
The Loans themselves were only a fraction of the issue as nobody cares if minorities lose their home and wind up homeless.
After all, there were no Smart Devices back then to storm Wall Street and hand the MBAs.
The Rubber Stamped Loans were packed into other projects, almost all doomed to fail, and then sold to Financial Firms in the Eastern Hemisphere.
Why? Because no firm here cared if a Bank in Asia could collect on the loan because the bankers here would conjure up another scheme to raise that money.

But Whitey made a mistake which I understood because I was taking Karate and understood the Asian mentality...
You owe me $1.00 this month, I'm not accepting $.99.
Sounds funny, doesn't it, but Asians back then, before we tainted them, work on real numbers, not American vapor.

I could go on but you already bought the Rush Limbaugh horse crap.

GW, The Rs and the Ds and every Financial Firm in the US caused a deficit that will never be paid off.
But Obama!..Saved you from starving by borrowing against the future.
You're so Lilly White...
Send your bank account and every check you get to the Fed.
But I work for my check!
You know why your boss has a business?
Obama borrowed against the future.
I was there, I saw business owners begging the banks for a penny!

I could write a book on your delusions, but what the heck, every RWer in my community still denies this GW farce.

Look, you're a really smart guy but so damned Yankee Doodle.
Stop responding to what you consider nonsense (since you weren't there and can only rely on Fox and The Wall Street Journal of Bullshit for your knowledge base).

By the way, The Great Depression, as defined by Milton Freidman in one of his last videos, was caused by excessive off-shoring of assets and the lack of technology to know those assets were wasted on parties. Yep, MF says it and every Conservative who hears that sentence blocks it out because Conservatives are just as mentally ill as Liberals.

Thomas Rustici on Smoot-Hawley and the Great Depression - Econlib

Thomas Rustici of George Mason University and author of Lessons from the Great Depression talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the impact of the Smoot-Hawley Act on the economy. The standard view is that the decrease in trade that followed Smoot-Hawley was not big enough to be a...

www.econtalk.org

Economist Rustici, clearly documents the effects of the Smoot Hawley tariff, and how it caused the crash. One clear example, is the Pittsburgh steel industry. The Smoot Hawley tariff, drastically increased the cost of raw iron ore from Canada. Of course Canada equally put in place a retaliatory tariff against steel imported from the US.

Do tell sparky... if you were a steel company, which would cause you more problems: A drop in your company stock price, or the price of your raw steel going up dramatically at the exact same time the price of your finished product steel dropping dramatically?

The rest of your comments are pure nonsense as you have not spent any time in any Wall Street firm at a meeting attended and run by 20 MBAs who didn't care about anything else other than selling an idea or an actual product, regardless of the viability of the product.

That is not a counter argument to anything I said.

Grow up already; every Loan Officer Rubber Stamped Loans.

Does not change anything I said. Not a counter argument to anything.
Again, if you want me to post the videos of Maxine Waters, and Barnie Frank both praising sub-prime loans, and Obama calling it a good idea, and Andrew Cuomo suing banks to make bad loans.... I will do so. But your statement, changes nothing.

Lenders who followed the Government provided software that Rejected the Loan; these Lenders lost their careers because there weren't enough Borrowers who listened to their advice and buy a less expensive home.

Robot Check

John A. Allison was CEO of BB&T bank, when regulators under the Clinton administration showed up, and required that they lower lending standards.

This is well documented.

But Obama!..Saved you from starving by borrowing against the future.

Bull crap. A number of countries did not bailout out their banks, and were just fine.

Plus, Obama was part of the group pushing sub-prime loans to being with. Only a brainless idiot, sees someone create a problem, and then present themselves as a solution to a problem they created, and claim they saved us.

You are dumbest moron on the face of the planet, if you honestly believe that.

You know why your boss has a business?
Obama borrowed against the future.
I was there, I saw business owners begging the banks for a penny!

My boss was not there. Nor did anything that created that company, or the products that company sold, ever come from Obama.

I could write a book on your delusions, but what the heck, every RWer in my community still denies this GW farce.

My delusions? Which one of us right now, is sitting around justifying government taking your tax money, and giving it to wealthy people?

Stop responding to what you consider nonsense (since you weren't there and can only rely on Fox and The Wall Street Journal of Bullshit for your knowledge base).

Well because I'm right. I know I'm right. You are wrong, and I can prove it. So why should I stop responding, when you are the one making insane claims?

Just out of curiosity, do you realize you didn't directly address anything I posted?

Why do you mention Europe when the I stated Obama had to bail out the world.

Why are you referencing some other video when MFs video is on YouTube?

Why are you blaming sub-primer loans alone when they were less than 3% of the crash?

Not to mention that the men who engineered the entire Lending Bubble, Alan Greenspan, Dick Cheney and Warren Buffet, made billions off the crash.

To be honest, you are so honest I wish you would run for office.

Yes, because you did not make any real points.

Because Obama didn't have to bail out the world. That is opinion. That is not a fact. It's opinion. We didn't bail out Lehman Brothers. It didn't doom the world.

Now I get it that banks claimed Obama had to bail out the world.... well of course they did. Those CEOs jobs are to save the company. If the only way to save the company is to get money from government, they are going to go to government ask for money.

And if the only way to convince government to give you money, is to claim that if you don't bail them out, that the world will end... then they are going to say you have to bail us out or the world will end.

But it's not true. That's just a bunch of rich people, saying whatever they have to say, to get cash.

No, Obama didn't have to bail out the world. The world would have been just fine, with zero bailouts. Iceland didn't bailout a single bank, and their big three banks that all failed, were a far larger percentage of their economy, then our banks were.

Iceland not only did not implode, but they recovered faster, and were recording great economic growth, while we were still in a recession.

Estonia years ago, also refused to bailout their banks, and their banks all went bankrupt and closed, and they recovered just fine, no problem.

Why are you referencing some other video when MFs video is on YouTube?

Because my videos are directly relevant to the topic at hand. Milton Friedman was not relevant to the topic at hand.

Why are you blaming sub-primer loans alone when they were less than 3% of the crash?

Because that is not true?

Sub-prime loans were almost 25% of the market by the end. And you'll notice, as I said before, that sub-prime loans were a niche market before 1997, when Bill Clinton, and his administration pushed Sub-prime loans into the main stream.

Not to mention that the men who engineered the entire Lending Bubble, Alan Greenspan, Dick Cheney and Warren Buffet, made billions off the crash.

People are always going to invest in ways that make a profit. People are going to invest in ways to make a profit, whether the economy is good, or the economy is bad.

Complaining that people made a profit, is pointless. They are always going to make a profit. That's like complaining it's sunny in Arizona, during a depression. Yeah, that's going to happen.

The question isn't "did people make a profit during....." We always answer that with.... yeah. That's what investors do. Investors make wise investments, that return a profit. They would not be investors, if they didn't make investments that returned a profit.

I myself, am an investor. In 2009, I was buying stocks even while the market was crashing. That's what wise investors do.

Even this year. When the market crashed back on Feb 20th, I started buying stocks. I've been buying stocks on the market since the beginning of this crash too. Because that's how you make wise investments, is by buying up stocks that are on sale.

So that is not a valid point. Pointing out that wise investors were investing wisely during the sub-prime crash, is not a valid point of anything. That's like saying "duh". Yeah, investors invested. Duh.

The only valid question is, why did sub-prime loans go from being a niche market, where they should have stayed... to being mainstream and taking up almost 1/4th of the market?

The answer is.... government. Freddie Mac in 1997, signed a deal with First Union (wachovia) and Bear Stearns, to give Sub-prime mortgages a AAA rating.

Bear Stearns, the CRA, and Freddie Mac - Cafe Hayek

I keep hearing that the subprime crisis was caused by people willing to buy stuff they couldn't evaluate. Why would smart people do that? One answer is that they were stupid. In an era of rising home prices, it's hard...

cafehayek.com

CHARLOTTE – First Union Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment​

Act (CRA) loans – marking the industry’s first public securitization of​

CRA loans.​

​

The affordable mortgages were originated or acquired by First Union​

Corporation and subsidiaries. Customers will experience no impact –​

they will continue to make payments to and be serviced by First Union​

Mortgage Corp. CRA loans are loans targeted to low and moderate income​

borrowers and neighborhoods under the Community Reinvestment Act of​

1977.​

​

"The securitization of these affordable mortgages allows us to redeploy​

capital back into our communities and to expand our ability to provide​

credit to low and moderate income individuals," said Jane Henderson,​

managing director of First Union’s Community Reinvestment and Fair​

Lending Programs. "First Union is committed to promoting home ownership​

in traditionally underserved markets through a comprehensive line of​

competitive and flexible affordable mortgage products. This transaction​

enables us to continue to aggressively serve those markets."​

​

The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and​

have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the​

investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation.​

Again, this is well documented.

And at the same time, Andrew Cuomo was suing banks to force them to make bad loans.



Andrew Cuomo admitted openly, that this would force the bank to make loans to people who otherwise would not qualify. Meaning, people who did not qualify for prime rate mortgages.... AND Cuomo equally admitted that the default rate would be higher.

Again, government forced banks to make bad loans, and rewarded sub-prime loans, and encourages sub-prime loans by giving them a AAA rating. This is well documented.

You are distracted...
Simple question...Start off with Yes/No and then we'll discuss if this ever happened and it's short and long effect on the economy where it happened.
Should legislation allow this to occur?

In a free market, can companies suddenly leave a nation in droves leaving millions of people who cannot afford to start their own unemployed?
Should legislation allow this to occur?

In a free market, can companies suddenly and simply lay off millions of employees and replace them with foreigners?
Should legislation allow this to occur?

That is a dumb question though. You are implying that somehow you can force people to hire other people?

That's tyranny. You are talking about Stalinism now.

Say I run a company.... what law are you going to pass, that is going to stop me from closing down the company? It's my company. I own it.

Are you going to do what Hugo Chavez did, and have soldiers forcibly remove owners from their companies, if they don't hire people?

Venezuelans Despair as Companies Flee

Irish packaging giant Smurfit left Venezuela amid a spat with the socialist government, joining other multinationals abandoning the sinking economy.

www.wsj.com

If you try and force companies to do what you want, they will leave completely.

This idea that "well if we just have a policy that says companies can't do stuff"... no, they'll just leave the country completely.

Then you won't have to worry about them hiring foreigners, because they wont' be hiring anyone in the US.

So to answer your question directly... Yeah I believe in freedom. And we are not a dictatorship, and no there should not be totalitarian rules on who companies hire.

You know that India tried that, right? India had rules on outsourcing, and rules on exactly who could be hired by any company.

The result was that companies that were created in India, moved all their operations out of India.

I believe Tata Motors was a huge one, that had all their operations spread out across the world, with virtually nothing in their home country of India. And they interviewed the CEO, and his answer was, because of all the regulations and laws.

So if you think you are going to somehow FORCE companies to act in a way you want... it's not going to happen. Whether you have the regulations "allowing" it or not, doesn't matter. If you pass all the regulations you want, they'll just not employ people in the US.

Excellent!
Guess what?
From a legal standpoint you are incredibly incorrect.
Every piece of Congressional legislation regarding the US economy requires an assay describing why it's good for the US economy.
And guess what, Free Market legislation caused the 2 biggest Global Crashes in the last century.
But the elite who endorsed the legislation become even wealthier.

But they'll leave!
Who 's the world biggest consumer?
Huh?
They'll leave?
Do you ever look around?
THEY LEFT!
And our economy crashed!

I wouldn't use India as a paradigm of how to run a nation as almost 100% of their population lives in unimaginable poverty.

They won't leave.

And guess what, Free Market legislation caused the 2 biggest Global Crashes in the last century.

Factually wrong, and I proved it with evidence already.

Who 's the world biggest consumer?
Huh?
They'll leave?
Do you ever look around?
THEY LEFT!
And our economy crashed!

Also factually wrong. Apple Computer, and numerous others, make more money outside the US, than inside.

Apple Computer still has 90,000 employees in the US. If they had left, it would be zero. Exxon has zero employees in Venezuela today.

Many companies still have tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, and likely collectively have millions of employees in the US. If you want that to be zero.... you can achieve that by trying to regulate the crap out of them.

And no, our economy did not crash because they left.

I wouldn't use India as a paradigm of how to run a nation as almost 100% of their population lives in unimaginable poverty.
They won't leave.

Right, they live in poverty, because in the past they were following your ideology in economics. By the way, as they have left your ideology in economics, and embraced more free-market capitalism, they have far fewer today in unimaginable poverty, as they did before.

Yes, they will leave. I guarantee you they will leave.

By the way, you are talking in circles.

You just said they all left, and we had a crash. Now you are saying they won't leave. Those are mutually exclusive statements.

Regardless.... the rules of economic fundamentals are true, no matter the culture, nation, or time frame.

Economic fundamentals don't change because one nation is poor, and another is rich.

Saying they won't leave is ridiculous. Of course they will leave. When France instituted a wealth tax, thousands packed up and left. When Jamaica put in place capital controls, companies simply closed, and reopened in Miami.

You can see this just within the states. Why do you think Amazon opened another HQ outside Seattle?

1,800 Companies Left California In a Year - With Most Bound for Texas

A record number of companies are leaving California for states with a better business climate, and a new report shows that Texas remains their No. 1 destination. See why they are being urged to leave the state, and what is bringing them to Texas.

www.southstarcommunities.com

Why have over 1800 companies moved from California to Texas? Texas is largely free-market capitalist, and California is more regulation and control.

If you put enough regulations, that companies have a hard time, they'll leave. I promise you they'll leave.

Apple only hires the best, unlike MS, Oracle, IBM, etc,..
I spend some time on Quora and Apple guys post their a lot.
They love working at Apple.

Apple has over 6,000 employees in Ireland alone. Apple can very easily leave the country, if you impose ridiculous regulations on them.

IBM has 400,000 US employees. Would you rather them leave, and have zero US employees?

 

[Andylusion]

Nah. Commie shitholes are shitholes.

How many children has your country killed?

Hint: more than Cuba and Venezuela combined.

Hint: more than Cuba and Venezuela combined.

Hint: you're full of shit.

Yeah, out of all the stupid things he's posted.... the idea that Cuba and Venezuela have had fewer dead children than the US, when right now we have kids literally starving to death in Venezuela, and Elian Gonzalez nearly died trying to swim to Miami from Cuba in the 1990s....

That is really.... it must be one of the top 5 dumbest most idiotic comments Georgy has ever made.

 

[Indeependent]

I can tell you from professional experience that "GW's" Housing Bubble and Crash are going to occur again.

I can tell you the dregs of society , god's 'special children' ie corn-struction workers are all expecting a crash Indeep

I know for a fact that these people earn in the lower 20-30Ks and I am convinced that the Lenders are Rubber Stamping these Loans "Approved".
Just as in the GW years, there is no way the Tables in the software provided by the Municipalities, States and Federal levels of Government are allowing people who work in Pizza Shops to take out Home Equity Loads in the 600K range.

a recipe for another housing disaster

Everybody loves a great economy, but everyone wants to jump aboard before they're capable of earning and paying their own way.

true, but don't you sense the constant revaluation via fiscals such as the derivatives market a factor InDeep?

~S~

Institutional Trading should be Illegal.
I'm tired of egotistical assholes with a bullshit degree in Finance from a "prestigious" University that their daddy's bribe got them into, determining from thin air how a much a given piece of a MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATION, with an almost infinite amount of physical Assets & Liabilities alone, is worth at any given second.
HOW THE FUCK DO THEY KNOW????
It's a fucking game that they never lose at!

I explained it last week to a naive person here who wants to believe all people on Wall Street are honest.

I will now calm down...nah!

how a much a given piece of a MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATION, with an almost infinite amount of physical Assets & Liabilities alone, is worth at any given second.

If they're overpricing it, don't buy from them.
If they're underpricing it, don't sell to them.

I get the impression you were on the up and up.
Not so the Institutional Traders who are baiting the small guy.

The Market rides like a roller coaster all day long...there's no way that would happen if the data being fed to the masses were honest.
Are investors really pulling in and out of the same deal all day long?
No way.

It's like a big flashing advertisement, but when it fails, it destroys an entire economy.

In fact, with today's technology, crashes should never happen because we found out something that happened last year was suddenly discovered.

Just look at the Housing Crash...who didn't really know the Loans were BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD!
But everybody's got a dream.

Not so the Institutional Traders who are baiting the small guy.

Again... as I pointed out before, your 401K is run by institutional traders. Union pension funds, are run by institutional traders. The trust fund of schools like Yale and Harvard, are run by institutional traders. Annuities for old people retiring, are run by institutional traders.

Basically every single retirement, or investment program in the world, is run by institutional traders.

The small guy.... benefits specifically from institutional traders. I've doubled my money in the stock market, through an IRA..... run by institutional traders.

The Market rides like a roller coaster all day long...there's no way that would happen if the data being fed to the masses were honest.

Of course it would go up and down, with or without accurate information.

Just like there are hundreds of factors involved in the value of a stock, there are also hundreds of factors involved in investor choices.

Simple example: Had an idiot years ago, who during the sub-prime crash, sold all his stocks. He was convinced, the market was going to completely tank, and he was going to magically lose all his money.

So he sold all his stocks.

I on the other hand, I bought every single stock I could buy. Every single spare dollar I could grab, I purchased stocks with it.

The information we had was identical. He didn't have any more information than I did, and I didn't have any more information than him. Yet both of us had completely opposite reactions to the market.

Warren Buffet supposedly said (I've heard this from multiple sources, but I still can't confirm it), when he was asked by a reporter how much money he lost in the Sub-prime stock market crash, responded "None. I didn't sell my stocks".

So you have 3 different people, and each had different reactions to the same exact information. One guy sold all his stocks (which would drive prices down), one guy bought every stock he could be (which would drive prices up), and one guy did absolutely nothing.

Do you see the problem with your logic? You act like if everyone had perfect information, that we'd all do the exact same thing, and the market would be completely static.

Not so. People react differently to perfect information all the time.

So.... No. The market should naturally go up and down, constantly. It would be ridiculous to think otherwise.

It's like a big flashing advertisement, but when it fails, it destroys an entire economy.

Um... no. The stock market reflects the economy. Not the other way around. A stock market crash, can't somehow magically cause the economy to crash.

Just think about that logically for a moment. Say you are a company, like oh.... Apple Computer. Say the stock market hits a bump and crashes.

How does that affect you?

It doesn't. If people are still buying iPhones, you are still going to sell them. If people are still buying your computers, you are still going to sell them. If products are still being sold, you are still going to have them made.

How does the dropping of your stock price, cause Apple computer, or any other company you might work for, have any problems? It doesn't.

Let's take the 1929 Crash. Did that crash cause any companies to go under? No. In fact, the unemployment rate in 1929, even after the stock market crash, was still just 3%.

But why did the stock market crash? Because investors saw that Smoot Hawley tariffs were going to cash business to crash. In 1930, the Smoot Hawley tariff was imposed, and unemployment from all those businesses forced back into the US (that was sarcasm) jumped up to 8.7%. Then you had the dust bowl, unemployment hit 15%, and the Hoover tax increases to pay for all the government programs, and unemployment hit 23%, and then FDR's new deal, and unemployment hit 24%.

Historical US Unemployment Rate by Year

The unemployment rate has fluctuated greatly since 1929. Learn how GDP, inflation, economic events, and other policies have historically impacted unemployment.

www.thebalance.com

Again, did the crash in 1929 cause businesses to close? No. It was the Smoot-Hawley protectionism that caused businesses to close. The investors saw that coming, that's why the stock crash happened in 1929, when the bill to impose protectionism was introduced.

But none of the economic decline happened after the stock market crash. It happened as tariffs and retaliatory tariffs were placed against the US, which killed the economy, and people lost their jobs.

The stock market reacted to future implications. It didn't cause anything. Stock markets do not "cause" the economy to fail. The future information that the economy would fail, caused the markets to crash.

You are trying to put the cart in front of the horse.

Just look at the Housing Crash...who didn't really know the Loans were BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD!
But everybody's got a dream.

Who didn't know the loans were bad? Government. You want me to post videos of Maxine Waters, and Barnie Frank saying that everything was great? You want me to post the news articles where Freddie Mac signed a deal with First Union (wachovia) and Bear Stearns, two of the largest crashes.... to make bad sub-prime loans?

Or how about Obama who said openly, that sub-prime loans were a good idea?

Government didn't know the loans were bad. They pushed bad loans, throughout the entire sub-prime bubble.

Uh huh...Yeah.
By the way, The Great Depression, as defined by Milton Freidman in one of his last videos, was caused by excessive off-shoring of assets and the lack of technology to know those assets were wasted on parties. Yep, MF says it and every Conservative who hears that sentence blocks it out because Conservatives are just as mentally ill as Liberals.

The rest of your comments are pure nonsense as you have not spent any time in any Wall Street firm at a meeting attended and run by 20 MBAs who didn't care about anything else other than selling an idea or an actual product, regardless of the viability of the product.

Who didn't know the loans were bad? Government. You want me to post videos of Maxine Waters, and Barnie Frank saying that everything was great? You want me to post the news articles where Freddie Mac signed a deal with First Union (wachovia) and Bear Stearns, two of the largest crashes.... to make bad sub-prime loans?
Grow up already; every Loan Officer Rubber Stamped Loans. You really do live in Kansas, don't you?
Half of the Lenders in my community were hired by the Obama Administration to investigate these Papers stamped "Approved" because they were among the few Lenders who followed the Government provided software that Rejected the Loan; these Lenders lost their careers because there weren't enough Borrowers who listened to their advice and buy a less expensive home.

"The stock market reacted to future implications. It didn't cause anything. Stock markets do not "cause" the economy to fail. The future information that the economy would fail, caused the markets to crash."
I hope you're kidding...Stock markets can, and have, turned wealthy people into paupers in mere moments.
In fact, this happened a few months before Trump's tax cuts.

Or how about Obama who said openly, that sub-prime loans were a good idea?
You didn't listen to Rush back then, did you?
Rush loved sub-prime Loans and claimed the GW was a genius!
The Loans themselves were only a fraction of the issue as nobody cares if minorities lose their home and wind up homeless.
After all, there were no Smart Devices back then to storm Wall Street and hand the MBAs.
The Rubber Stamped Loans were packed into other projects, almost all doomed to fail, and then sold to Financial Firms in the Eastern Hemisphere.
Why? Because no firm here cared if a Bank in Asia could collect on the loan because the bankers here would conjure up another scheme to raise that money.

But Whitey made a mistake which I understood because I was taking Karate and understood the Asian mentality...
You owe me $1.00 this month, I'm not accepting $.99.
Sounds funny, doesn't it, but Asians back then, before we tainted them, work on real numbers, not American vapor.

I could go on but you already bought the Rush Limbaugh horse crap.

GW, The Rs and the Ds and every Financial Firm in the US caused a deficit that will never be paid off.
But Obama!..Saved you from starving by borrowing against the future.
You're so Lilly White...
Send your bank account and every check you get to the Fed.
But I work for my check!
You know why your boss has a business?
Obama borrowed against the future.
I was there, I saw business owners begging the banks for a penny!

I could write a book on your delusions, but what the heck, every RWer in my community still denies this GW farce.

Look, you're a really smart guy but so damned Yankee Doodle.
Stop responding to what you consider nonsense (since you weren't there and can only rely on Fox and The Wall Street Journal of Bullshit for your knowledge base).

By the way, The Great Depression, as defined by Milton Freidman in one of his last videos, was caused by excessive off-shoring of assets and the lack of technology to know those assets were wasted on parties. Yep, MF says it and every Conservative who hears that sentence blocks it out because Conservatives are just as mentally ill as Liberals.

Thomas Rustici on Smoot-Hawley and the Great Depression - Econlib

Thomas Rustici of George Mason University and author of Lessons from the Great Depression talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the impact of the Smoot-Hawley Act on the economy. The standard view is that the decrease in trade that followed Smoot-Hawley was not big enough to be a...

www.econtalk.org

Economist Rustici, clearly documents the effects of the Smoot Hawley tariff, and how it caused the crash. One clear example, is the Pittsburgh steel industry. The Smoot Hawley tariff, drastically increased the cost of raw iron ore from Canada. Of course Canada equally put in place a retaliatory tariff against steel imported from the US.

Do tell sparky... if you were a steel company, which would cause you more problems: A drop in your company stock price, or the price of your raw steel going up dramatically at the exact same time the price of your finished product steel dropping dramatically?

The rest of your comments are pure nonsense as you have not spent any time in any Wall Street firm at a meeting attended and run by 20 MBAs who didn't care about anything else other than selling an idea or an actual product, regardless of the viability of the product.

That is not a counter argument to anything I said.

Grow up already; every Loan Officer Rubber Stamped Loans.

Does not change anything I said. Not a counter argument to anything.
Again, if you want me to post the videos of Maxine Waters, and Barnie Frank both praising sub-prime loans, and Obama calling it a good idea, and Andrew Cuomo suing banks to make bad loans.... I will do so. But your statement, changes nothing.

Lenders who followed the Government provided software that Rejected the Loan; these Lenders lost their careers because there weren't enough Borrowers who listened to their advice and buy a less expensive home.

Robot Check

John A. Allison was CEO of BB&T bank, when regulators under the Clinton administration showed up, and required that they lower lending standards.

This is well documented.

But Obama!..Saved you from starving by borrowing against the future.

Bull crap. A number of countries did not bailout out their banks, and were just fine.

Plus, Obama was part of the group pushing sub-prime loans to being with. Only a brainless idiot, sees someone create a problem, and then present themselves as a solution to a problem they created, and claim they saved us.

You are dumbest moron on the face of the planet, if you honestly believe that.

You know why your boss has a business?
Obama borrowed against the future.
I was there, I saw business owners begging the banks for a penny!

My boss was not there. Nor did anything that created that company, or the products that company sold, ever come from Obama.

I could write a book on your delusions, but what the heck, every RWer in my community still denies this GW farce.

My delusions? Which one of us right now, is sitting around justifying government taking your tax money, and giving it to wealthy people?

Stop responding to what you consider nonsense (since you weren't there and can only rely on Fox and The Wall Street Journal of Bullshit for your knowledge base).

Well because I'm right. I know I'm right. You are wrong, and I can prove it. So why should I stop responding, when you are the one making insane claims?

Just out of curiosity, do you realize you didn't directly address anything I posted?

Why do you mention Europe when the I stated Obama had to bail out the world.

Why are you referencing some other video when MFs video is on YouTube?

Why are you blaming sub-primer loans alone when they were less than 3% of the crash?

Not to mention that the men who engineered the entire Lending Bubble, Alan Greenspan, Dick Cheney and Warren Buffet, made billions off the crash.

To be honest, you are so honest I wish you would run for office.

Yes, because you did not make any real points.

Because Obama didn't have to bail out the world. That is opinion. That is not a fact. It's opinion. We didn't bail out Lehman Brothers. It didn't doom the world.

Now I get it that banks claimed Obama had to bail out the world.... well of course they did. Those CEOs jobs are to save the company. If the only way to save the company is to get money from government, they are going to go to government ask for money.

And if the only way to convince government to give you money, is to claim that if you don't bail them out, that the world will end... then they are going to say you have to bail us out or the world will end.

But it's not true. That's just a bunch of rich people, saying whatever they have to say, to get cash.

No, Obama didn't have to bail out the world. The world would have been just fine, with zero bailouts. Iceland didn't bailout a single bank, and their big three banks that all failed, were a far larger percentage of their economy, then our banks were.

Iceland not only did not implode, but they recovered faster, and were recording great economic growth, while we were still in a recession.

Estonia years ago, also refused to bailout their banks, and their banks all went bankrupt and closed, and they recovered just fine, no problem.

Why are you referencing some other video when MFs video is on YouTube?

Because my videos are directly relevant to the topic at hand. Milton Friedman was not relevant to the topic at hand.

Why are you blaming sub-primer loans alone when they were less than 3% of the crash?

Because that is not true?

Sub-prime loans were almost 25% of the market by the end. And you'll notice, as I said before, that sub-prime loans were a niche market before 1997, when Bill Clinton, and his administration pushed Sub-prime loans into the main stream.

Not to mention that the men who engineered the entire Lending Bubble, Alan Greenspan, Dick Cheney and Warren Buffet, made billions off the crash.

People are always going to invest in ways that make a profit. People are going to invest in ways to make a profit, whether the economy is good, or the economy is bad.

Complaining that people made a profit, is pointless. They are always going to make a profit. That's like complaining it's sunny in Arizona, during a depression. Yeah, that's going to happen.

The question isn't "did people make a profit during....." We always answer that with.... yeah. That's what investors do. Investors make wise investments, that return a profit. They would not be investors, if they didn't make investments that returned a profit.

I myself, am an investor. In 2009, I was buying stocks even while the market was crashing. That's what wise investors do.

Even this year. When the market crashed back on Feb 20th, I started buying stocks. I've been buying stocks on the market since the beginning of this crash too. Because that's how you make wise investments, is by buying up stocks that are on sale.

So that is not a valid point. Pointing out that wise investors were investing wisely during the sub-prime crash, is not a valid point of anything. That's like saying "duh". Yeah, investors invested. Duh.

The only valid question is, why did sub-prime loans go from being a niche market, where they should have stayed... to being mainstream and taking up almost 1/4th of the market?

The answer is.... government. Freddie Mac in 1997, signed a deal with First Union (wachovia) and Bear Stearns, to give Sub-prime mortgages a AAA rating.

Bear Stearns, the CRA, and Freddie Mac - Cafe Hayek

I keep hearing that the subprime crisis was caused by people willing to buy stuff they couldn't evaluate. Why would smart people do that? One answer is that they were stupid. In an era of rising home prices, it's hard...

cafehayek.com

CHARLOTTE – First Union Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment​

Act (CRA) loans – marking the industry’s first public securitization of​

CRA loans.​

​

The affordable mortgages were originated or acquired by First Union​

Corporation and subsidiaries. Customers will experience no impact –​

they will continue to make payments to and be serviced by First Union​

Mortgage Corp. CRA loans are loans targeted to low and moderate income​

borrowers and neighborhoods under the Community Reinvestment Act of​

1977.​

​

"The securitization of these affordable mortgages allows us to redeploy​

capital back into our communities and to expand our ability to provide​

credit to low and moderate income individuals," said Jane Henderson,​

managing director of First Union’s Community Reinvestment and Fair​

Lending Programs. "First Union is committed to promoting home ownership​

in traditionally underserved markets through a comprehensive line of​

competitive and flexible affordable mortgage products. This transaction​

enables us to continue to aggressively serve those markets."​

​

The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and​

have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the​

investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation.​

Again, this is well documented.

And at the same time, Andrew Cuomo was suing banks to force them to make bad loans.



Andrew Cuomo admitted openly, that this would force the bank to make loans to people who otherwise would not qualify. Meaning, people who did not qualify for prime rate mortgages.... AND Cuomo equally admitted that the default rate would be higher.

Again, government forced banks to make bad loans, and rewarded sub-prime loans, and encourages sub-prime loans by giving them a AAA rating. This is well documented.

You are distracted...
Simple question...Start off with Yes/No and then we'll discuss if this ever happened and it's short and long effect on the economy where it happened.
Should legislation allow this to occur?

In a free market, can companies suddenly leave a nation in droves leaving millions of people who cannot afford to start their own unemployed?
Should legislation allow this to occur?

In a free market, can companies suddenly and simply lay off millions of employees and replace them with foreigners?
Should legislation allow this to occur?

That is a dumb question though. You are implying that somehow you can force people to hire other people?

That's tyranny. You are talking about Stalinism now.

Say I run a company.... what law are you going to pass, that is going to stop me from closing down the company? It's my company. I own it.

Are you going to do what Hugo Chavez did, and have soldiers forcibly remove owners from their companies, if they don't hire people?

Venezuelans Despair as Companies Flee

Irish packaging giant Smurfit left Venezuela amid a spat with the socialist government, joining other multinationals abandoning the sinking economy.

www.wsj.com

If you try and force companies to do what you want, they will leave completely.

This idea that "well if we just have a policy that says companies can't do stuff"... no, they'll just leave the country completely.

Then you won't have to worry about them hiring foreigners, because they wont' be hiring anyone in the US.

So to answer your question directly... Yeah I believe in freedom. And we are not a dictatorship, and no there should not be totalitarian rules on who companies hire.

You know that India tried that, right? India had rules on outsourcing, and rules on exactly who could be hired by any company.

The result was that companies that were created in India, moved all their operations out of India.

I believe Tata Motors was a huge one, that had all their operations spread out across the world, with virtually nothing in their home country of India. And they interviewed the CEO, and his answer was, because of all the regulations and laws.

So if you think you are going to somehow FORCE companies to act in a way you want... it's not going to happen. Whether you have the regulations "allowing" it or not, doesn't matter. If you pass all the regulations you want, they'll just not employ people in the US.

Excellent!
Guess what?
From a legal standpoint you are incredibly incorrect.
Every piece of Congressional legislation regarding the US economy requires an assay describing why it's good for the US economy.
And guess what, Free Market legislation caused the 2 biggest Global Crashes in the last century.
But the elite who endorsed the legislation become even wealthier.

But they'll leave!
Who 's the world biggest consumer?
Huh?
They'll leave?
Do you ever look around?
THEY LEFT!
And our economy crashed!

I wouldn't use India as a paradigm of how to run a nation as almost 100% of their population lives in unimaginable poverty.

They won't leave.

And guess what, Free Market legislation caused the 2 biggest Global Crashes in the last century.

Factually wrong, and I proved it with evidence already.

Who 's the world biggest consumer?
Huh?
They'll leave?
Do you ever look around?
THEY LEFT!
And our economy crashed!

Also factually wrong. Apple Computer, and numerous others, make more money outside the US, than inside.

Apple Computer still has 90,000 employees in the US. If they had left, it would be zero. Exxon has zero employees in Venezuela today.

Many companies still have tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, and likely collectively have millions of employees in the US. If you want that to be zero.... you can achieve that by trying to regulate the crap out of them.

And no, our economy did not crash because they left.

I wouldn't use India as a paradigm of how to run a nation as almost 100% of their population lives in unimaginable poverty.
They won't leave.

Right, they live in poverty, because in the past they were following your ideology in economics. By the way, as they have left your ideology in economics, and embraced more free-market capitalism, they have far fewer today in unimaginable poverty, as they did before.

Yes, they will leave. I guarantee you they will leave.

By the way, you are talking in circles.

You just said they all left, and we had a crash. Now you are saying they won't leave. Those are mutually exclusive statements.

Regardless.... the rules of economic fundamentals are true, no matter the culture, nation, or time frame.

Economic fundamentals don't change because one nation is poor, and another is rich.

Saying they won't leave is ridiculous. Of course they will leave. When France instituted a wealth tax, thousands packed up and left. When Jamaica put in place capital controls, companies simply closed, and reopened in Miami.

You can see this just within the states. Why do you think Amazon opened another HQ outside Seattle?

1,800 Companies Left California In a Year - With Most Bound for Texas

A record number of companies are leaving California for states with a better business climate, and a new report shows that Texas remains their No. 1 destination. See why they are being urged to leave the state, and what is bringing them to Texas.

www.southstarcommunities.com

Why have over 1800 companies moved from California to Texas? Texas is largely free-market capitalist, and California is more regulation and control.

If you put enough regulations, that companies have a hard time, they'll leave. I promise you they'll leave.

I usually respect your posts but you are being so willfully ignorant it's almost surreal.
I read your reason why the Free Market didn't cause two crashes and I'm beginning to think you are...selectively stupid?

I understand why companies move within our borders because that does not destroy the national economy.
You completely ignored what happens to the US economy when 25K companies leave withing 4 years and get a tax break on the relocation costs.

India's religion causes their mass poverty...out of 1,000 castes, only the top 2 or 3 are even allowed to work in a profession that requires an education.
Step out of bounds and you are executed.
It has nothing to do with economics; their Priests live very well despite their rampant lack of intelligence.
If they were so brilliant they wouldn't have to come to the US.
Your ignorance of what goes in India is insulting to the billions who are doomed to live in poverty.

The problem with people such as yourself is you're are 98% book knowledge and almost 0% looking at what's happening on the ground.
You sound like the guys I know who get their "real" news from The Wall Street Journal, which, by the way, along with 100% of your Conservative heroes, predicted a Global Market Crash would occur if Trump won.
So much for your "heroes".

I know, I know...you didn't read that about Trump anywhere!

Oh, I almost forgot!
Remember when Wall Street hated Apple?
Of course you don't.
Only about 2-3 years ago...Apple wasn't releasing a new phone every 6 months because Tim Cook didn't want to be a whore to Wall Street.

Remember when Wall Street hated Amazon?
Of course you don't.
Only about 3-4 years ago...Amazon invested millions into local Warehouses and Wall Street gave them the boot.
Bezos was right and now Wall Street kisses his ass all day long.

think you are...selectively stupid?

You are an idiot. Keep your mouth shut, if you have nothing of value to say.

Your ignorance of what goes in India is insulting to the billions who are doomed to live in poverty.

You are proving to me, that I know far more about it than you. Moron.

The problem with people such as yourself

I already know. It's we spend too much time talking to complete useless trash like you. You added nothing but insults and trash to this discussion. Do the world a favor, and shut up.

Oh, I almost forgot!

The only thing you forgot, was whatever manors your parents should have taught you. You are pathetic, childish and worthless as a human being.

Hey, if you want to crap out insults non-stop, and have nothing of value to say, then I can play that game. Get lost trash. You have not provided one single valid argument, or one single bit of evidence in this thread yet.

Go back to whatever rock you crawled out of, and die there. Do the world of favor, because you certainly are not doing any of us any favors, spewing your non-stop trash here.

I know lots of people from India...If you're not in the top 2 castes, you're screwed for life.

Have fun living with you "books".

Your ad hominems belie your contempt for anyone who doesn't subscribe to what your books tell you.
Don't worry. almost every Conservative I know has had their economic asses kicked at least once in their life.

Please detail all of my ad hominems...
Oh yeah, besides the selectively stupid comment, I didn't post any at all.
I only posted what actually goes on as opposed to theory.

I know from your posting history here that you don't mind people screwing you in business.
You are in the minority.

 

[Indeependent]

I can tell you from professional experience that "GW's" Housing Bubble and Crash are going to occur again.

I can tell you the dregs of society , god's 'special children' ie corn-struction workers are all expecting a crash Indeep

I know for a fact that these people earn in the lower 20-30Ks and I am convinced that the Lenders are Rubber Stamping these Loans "Approved".
Just as in the GW years, there is no way the Tables in the software provided by the Municipalities, States and Federal levels of Government are allowing people who work in Pizza Shops to take out Home Equity Loads in the 600K range.

a recipe for another housing disaster

Everybody loves a great economy, but everyone wants to jump aboard before they're capable of earning and paying their own way.

true, but don't you sense the constant revaluation via fiscals such as the derivatives market a factor InDeep?

~S~

Institutional Trading should be Illegal.
I'm tired of egotistical assholes with a bullshit degree in Finance from a "prestigious" University that their daddy's bribe got them into, determining from thin air how a much a given piece of a MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATION, with an almost infinite amount of physical Assets & Liabilities alone, is worth at any given second.
HOW THE FUCK DO THEY KNOW????
It's a fucking game that they never lose at!

I explained it last week to a naive person here who wants to believe all people on Wall Street are honest.

I will now calm down...nah!

how a much a given piece of a MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATION, with an almost infinite amount of physical Assets & Liabilities alone, is worth at any given second.

If they're overpricing it, don't buy from them.
If they're underpricing it, don't sell to them.

I get the impression you were on the up and up.
Not so the Institutional Traders who are baiting the small guy.

The Market rides like a roller coaster all day long...there's no way that would happen if the data being fed to the masses were honest.
Are investors really pulling in and out of the same deal all day long?
No way.

It's like a big flashing advertisement, but when it fails, it destroys an entire economy.

In fact, with today's technology, crashes should never happen because we found out something that happened last year was suddenly discovered.

Just look at the Housing Crash...who didn't really know the Loans were BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD!
But everybody's got a dream.

Not so the Institutional Traders who are baiting the small guy.

Again... as I pointed out before, your 401K is run by institutional traders. Union pension funds, are run by institutional traders. The trust fund of schools like Yale and Harvard, are run by institutional traders. Annuities for old people retiring, are run by institutional traders.

Basically every single retirement, or investment program in the world, is run by institutional traders.

The small guy.... benefits specifically from institutional traders. I've doubled my money in the stock market, through an IRA..... run by institutional traders.

The Market rides like a roller coaster all day long...there's no way that would happen if the data being fed to the masses were honest.

Of course it would go up and down, with or without accurate information.

Just like there are hundreds of factors involved in the value of a stock, there are also hundreds of factors involved in investor choices.

Simple example: Had an idiot years ago, who during the sub-prime crash, sold all his stocks. He was convinced, the market was going to completely tank, and he was going to magically lose all his money.

So he sold all his stocks.

I on the other hand, I bought every single stock I could buy. Every single spare dollar I could grab, I purchased stocks with it.

The information we had was identical. He didn't have any more information than I did, and I didn't have any more information than him. Yet both of us had completely opposite reactions to the market.

Warren Buffet supposedly said (I've heard this from multiple sources, but I still can't confirm it), when he was asked by a reporter how much money he lost in the Sub-prime stock market crash, responded "None. I didn't sell my stocks".

So you have 3 different people, and each had different reactions to the same exact information. One guy sold all his stocks (which would drive prices down), one guy bought every stock he could be (which would drive prices up), and one guy did absolutely nothing.

Do you see the problem with your logic? You act like if everyone had perfect information, that we'd all do the exact same thing, and the market would be completely static.

Not so. People react differently to perfect information all the time.

So.... No. The market should naturally go up and down, constantly. It would be ridiculous to think otherwise.

It's like a big flashing advertisement, but when it fails, it destroys an entire economy.

Um... no. The stock market reflects the economy. Not the other way around. A stock market crash, can't somehow magically cause the economy to crash.

Just think about that logically for a moment. Say you are a company, like oh.... Apple Computer. Say the stock market hits a bump and crashes.

How does that affect you?

It doesn't. If people are still buying iPhones, you are still going to sell them. If people are still buying your computers, you are still going to sell them. If products are still being sold, you are still going to have them made.

How does the dropping of your stock price, cause Apple computer, or any other company you might work for, have any problems? It doesn't.

Let's take the 1929 Crash. Did that crash cause any companies to go under? No. In fact, the unemployment rate in 1929, even after the stock market crash, was still just 3%.

But why did the stock market crash? Because investors saw that Smoot Hawley tariffs were going to cash business to crash. In 1930, the Smoot Hawley tariff was imposed, and unemployment from all those businesses forced back into the US (that was sarcasm) jumped up to 8.7%. Then you had the dust bowl, unemployment hit 15%, and the Hoover tax increases to pay for all the government programs, and unemployment hit 23%, and then FDR's new deal, and unemployment hit 24%.

Historical US Unemployment Rate by Year

The unemployment rate has fluctuated greatly since 1929. Learn how GDP, inflation, economic events, and other policies have historically impacted unemployment.

www.thebalance.com

Again, did the crash in 1929 cause businesses to close? No. It was the Smoot-Hawley protectionism that caused businesses to close. The investors saw that coming, that's why the stock crash happened in 1929, when the bill to impose protectionism was introduced.

But none of the economic decline happened after the stock market crash. It happened as tariffs and retaliatory tariffs were placed against the US, which killed the economy, and people lost their jobs.

The stock market reacted to future implications. It didn't cause anything. Stock markets do not "cause" the economy to fail. The future information that the economy would fail, caused the markets to crash.

You are trying to put the cart in front of the horse.

Just look at the Housing Crash...who didn't really know the Loans were BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD!
But everybody's got a dream.

Who didn't know the loans were bad? Government. You want me to post videos of Maxine Waters, and Barnie Frank saying that everything was great? You want me to post the news articles where Freddie Mac signed a deal with First Union (wachovia) and Bear Stearns, two of the largest crashes.... to make bad sub-prime loans?

Or how about Obama who said openly, that sub-prime loans were a good idea?

Government didn't know the loans were bad. They pushed bad loans, throughout the entire sub-prime bubble.

Uh huh...Yeah.
By the way, The Great Depression, as defined by Milton Freidman in one of his last videos, was caused by excessive off-shoring of assets and the lack of technology to know those assets were wasted on parties. Yep, MF says it and every Conservative who hears that sentence blocks it out because Conservatives are just as mentally ill as Liberals.

The rest of your comments are pure nonsense as you have not spent any time in any Wall Street firm at a meeting attended and run by 20 MBAs who didn't care about anything else other than selling an idea or an actual product, regardless of the viability of the product.

Who didn't know the loans were bad? Government. You want me to post videos of Maxine Waters, and Barnie Frank saying that everything was great? You want me to post the news articles where Freddie Mac signed a deal with First Union (wachovia) and Bear Stearns, two of the largest crashes.... to make bad sub-prime loans?
Grow up already; every Loan Officer Rubber Stamped Loans. You really do live in Kansas, don't you?
Half of the Lenders in my community were hired by the Obama Administration to investigate these Papers stamped "Approved" because they were among the few Lenders who followed the Government provided software that Rejected the Loan; these Lenders lost their careers because there weren't enough Borrowers who listened to their advice and buy a less expensive home.

"The stock market reacted to future implications. It didn't cause anything. Stock markets do not "cause" the economy to fail. The future information that the economy would fail, caused the markets to crash."
I hope you're kidding...Stock markets can, and have, turned wealthy people into paupers in mere moments.
In fact, this happened a few months before Trump's tax cuts.

Or how about Obama who said openly, that sub-prime loans were a good idea?
You didn't listen to Rush back then, did you?
Rush loved sub-prime Loans and claimed the GW was a genius!
The Loans themselves were only a fraction of the issue as nobody cares if minorities lose their home and wind up homeless.
After all, there were no Smart Devices back then to storm Wall Street and hand the MBAs.
The Rubber Stamped Loans were packed into other projects, almost all doomed to fail, and then sold to Financial Firms in the Eastern Hemisphere.
Why? Because no firm here cared if a Bank in Asia could collect on the loan because the bankers here would conjure up another scheme to raise that money.

But Whitey made a mistake which I understood because I was taking Karate and understood the Asian mentality...
You owe me $1.00 this month, I'm not accepting $.99.
Sounds funny, doesn't it, but Asians back then, before we tainted them, work on real numbers, not American vapor.

I could go on but you already bought the Rush Limbaugh horse crap.

GW, The Rs and the Ds and every Financial Firm in the US caused a deficit that will never be paid off.
But Obama!..Saved you from starving by borrowing against the future.
You're so Lilly White...
Send your bank account and every check you get to the Fed.
But I work for my check!
You know why your boss has a business?
Obama borrowed against the future.
I was there, I saw business owners begging the banks for a penny!

I could write a book on your delusions, but what the heck, every RWer in my community still denies this GW farce.

Look, you're a really smart guy but so damned Yankee Doodle.
Stop responding to what you consider nonsense (since you weren't there and can only rely on Fox and The Wall Street Journal of Bullshit for your knowledge base).

By the way, The Great Depression, as defined by Milton Freidman in one of his last videos, was caused by excessive off-shoring of assets and the lack of technology to know those assets were wasted on parties. Yep, MF says it and every Conservative who hears that sentence blocks it out because Conservatives are just as mentally ill as Liberals.

Thomas Rustici on Smoot-Hawley and the Great Depression - Econlib

Thomas Rustici of George Mason University and author of Lessons from the Great Depression talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the impact of the Smoot-Hawley Act on the economy. The standard view is that the decrease in trade that followed Smoot-Hawley was not big enough to be a...

www.econtalk.org

Economist Rustici, clearly documents the effects of the Smoot Hawley tariff, and how it caused the crash. One clear example, is the Pittsburgh steel industry. The Smoot Hawley tariff, drastically increased the cost of raw iron ore from Canada. Of course Canada equally put in place a retaliatory tariff against steel imported from the US.

Do tell sparky... if you were a steel company, which would cause you more problems: A drop in your company stock price, or the price of your raw steel going up dramatically at the exact same time the price of your finished product steel dropping dramatically?

The rest of your comments are pure nonsense as you have not spent any time in any Wall Street firm at a meeting attended and run by 20 MBAs who didn't care about anything else other than selling an idea or an actual product, regardless of the viability of the product.

That is not a counter argument to anything I said.

Grow up already; every Loan Officer Rubber Stamped Loans.

Does not change anything I said. Not a counter argument to anything.
Again, if you want me to post the videos of Maxine Waters, and Barnie Frank both praising sub-prime loans, and Obama calling it a good idea, and Andrew Cuomo suing banks to make bad loans.... I will do so. But your statement, changes nothing.

Lenders who followed the Government provided software that Rejected the Loan; these Lenders lost their careers because there weren't enough Borrowers who listened to their advice and buy a less expensive home.

Robot Check

John A. Allison was CEO of BB&T bank, when regulators under the Clinton administration showed up, and required that they lower lending standards.

This is well documented.

But Obama!..Saved you from starving by borrowing against the future.

Bull crap. A number of countries did not bailout out their banks, and were just fine.

Plus, Obama was part of the group pushing sub-prime loans to being with. Only a brainless idiot, sees someone create a problem, and then present themselves as a solution to a problem they created, and claim they saved us.

You are dumbest moron on the face of the planet, if you honestly believe that.

You know why your boss has a business?
Obama borrowed against the future.
I was there, I saw business owners begging the banks for a penny!

My boss was not there. Nor did anything that created that company, or the products that company sold, ever come from Obama.

I could write a book on your delusions, but what the heck, every RWer in my community still denies this GW farce.

My delusions? Which one of us right now, is sitting around justifying government taking your tax money, and giving it to wealthy people?

Stop responding to what you consider nonsense (since you weren't there and can only rely on Fox and The Wall Street Journal of Bullshit for your knowledge base).

Well because I'm right. I know I'm right. You are wrong, and I can prove it. So why should I stop responding, when you are the one making insane claims?

Just out of curiosity, do you realize you didn't directly address anything I posted?

Why do you mention Europe when the I stated Obama had to bail out the world.

Why are you referencing some other video when MFs video is on YouTube?

Why are you blaming sub-primer loans alone when they were less than 3% of the crash?

Not to mention that the men who engineered the entire Lending Bubble, Alan Greenspan, Dick Cheney and Warren Buffet, made billions off the crash.

To be honest, you are so honest I wish you would run for office.

Yes, because you did not make any real points.

Because Obama didn't have to bail out the world. That is opinion. That is not a fact. It's opinion. We didn't bail out Lehman Brothers. It didn't doom the world.

Now I get it that banks claimed Obama had to bail out the world.... well of course they did. Those CEOs jobs are to save the company. If the only way to save the company is to get money from government, they are going to go to government ask for money.

And if the only way to convince government to give you money, is to claim that if you don't bail them out, that the world will end... then they are going to say you have to bail us out or the world will end.

But it's not true. That's just a bunch of rich people, saying whatever they have to say, to get cash.

No, Obama didn't have to bail out the world. The world would have been just fine, with zero bailouts. Iceland didn't bailout a single bank, and their big three banks that all failed, were a far larger percentage of their economy, then our banks were.

Iceland not only did not implode, but they recovered faster, and were recording great economic growth, while we were still in a recession.

Estonia years ago, also refused to bailout their banks, and their banks all went bankrupt and closed, and they recovered just fine, no problem.

Why are you referencing some other video when MFs video is on YouTube?

Because my videos are directly relevant to the topic at hand. Milton Friedman was not relevant to the topic at hand.

Why are you blaming sub-primer loans alone when they were less than 3% of the crash?

Because that is not true?

Sub-prime loans were almost 25% of the market by the end. And you'll notice, as I said before, that sub-prime loans were a niche market before 1997, when Bill Clinton, and his administration pushed Sub-prime loans into the main stream.

Not to mention that the men who engineered the entire Lending Bubble, Alan Greenspan, Dick Cheney and Warren Buffet, made billions off the crash.

People are always going to invest in ways that make a profit. People are going to invest in ways to make a profit, whether the economy is good, or the economy is bad.

Complaining that people made a profit, is pointless. They are always going to make a profit. That's like complaining it's sunny in Arizona, during a depression. Yeah, that's going to happen.

The question isn't "did people make a profit during....." We always answer that with.... yeah. That's what investors do. Investors make wise investments, that return a profit. They would not be investors, if they didn't make investments that returned a profit.

I myself, am an investor. In 2009, I was buying stocks even while the market was crashing. That's what wise investors do.

Even this year. When the market crashed back on Feb 20th, I started buying stocks. I've been buying stocks on the market since the beginning of this crash too. Because that's how you make wise investments, is by buying up stocks that are on sale.

So that is not a valid point. Pointing out that wise investors were investing wisely during the sub-prime crash, is not a valid point of anything. That's like saying "duh". Yeah, investors invested. Duh.

The only valid question is, why did sub-prime loans go from being a niche market, where they should have stayed... to being mainstream and taking up almost 1/4th of the market?

The answer is.... government. Freddie Mac in 1997, signed a deal with First Union (wachovia) and Bear Stearns, to give Sub-prime mortgages a AAA rating.

Bear Stearns, the CRA, and Freddie Mac - Cafe Hayek

I keep hearing that the subprime crisis was caused by people willing to buy stuff they couldn't evaluate. Why would smart people do that? One answer is that they were stupid. In an era of rising home prices, it's hard...

cafehayek.com

CHARLOTTE – First Union Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment​

Act (CRA) loans – marking the industry’s first public securitization of​

CRA loans.​

​

The affordable mortgages were originated or acquired by First Union​

Corporation and subsidiaries. Customers will experience no impact –​

they will continue to make payments to and be serviced by First Union​

Mortgage Corp. CRA loans are loans targeted to low and moderate income​

borrowers and neighborhoods under the Community Reinvestment Act of​

1977.​

​

"The securitization of these affordable mortgages allows us to redeploy​

capital back into our communities and to expand our ability to provide​

credit to low and moderate income individuals," said Jane Henderson,​

managing director of First Union’s Community Reinvestment and Fair​

Lending Programs. "First Union is committed to promoting home ownership​

in traditionally underserved markets through a comprehensive line of​

competitive and flexible affordable mortgage products. This transaction​

enables us to continue to aggressively serve those markets."​

​

The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and​

have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the​

investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation.​

Again, this is well documented.

And at the same time, Andrew Cuomo was suing banks to force them to make bad loans.



Andrew Cuomo admitted openly, that this would force the bank to make loans to people who otherwise would not qualify. Meaning, people who did not qualify for prime rate mortgages.... AND Cuomo equally admitted that the default rate would be higher.

Again, government forced banks to make bad loans, and rewarded sub-prime loans, and encourages sub-prime loans by giving them a AAA rating. This is well documented.

You are distracted...
Simple question...Start off with Yes/No and then we'll discuss if this ever happened and it's short and long effect on the economy where it happened.
Should legislation allow this to occur?

In a free market, can companies suddenly leave a nation in droves leaving millions of people who cannot afford to start their own unemployed?
Should legislation allow this to occur?

In a free market, can companies suddenly and simply lay off millions of employees and replace them with foreigners?
Should legislation allow this to occur?

That is a dumb question though. You are implying that somehow you can force people to hire other people?

That's tyranny. You are talking about Stalinism now.

Say I run a company.... what law are you going to pass, that is going to stop me from closing down the company? It's my company. I own it.

Are you going to do what Hugo Chavez did, and have soldiers forcibly remove owners from their companies, if they don't hire people?

Venezuelans Despair as Companies Flee

Irish packaging giant Smurfit left Venezuela amid a spat with the socialist government, joining other multinationals abandoning the sinking economy.

www.wsj.com

If you try and force companies to do what you want, they will leave completely.

This idea that "well if we just have a policy that says companies can't do stuff"... no, they'll just leave the country completely.

Then you won't have to worry about them hiring foreigners, because they wont' be hiring anyone in the US.

So to answer your question directly... Yeah I believe in freedom. And we are not a dictatorship, and no there should not be totalitarian rules on who companies hire.

You know that India tried that, right? India had rules on outsourcing, and rules on exactly who could be hired by any company.

The result was that companies that were created in India, moved all their operations out of India.

I believe Tata Motors was a huge one, that had all their operations spread out across the world, with virtually nothing in their home country of India. And they interviewed the CEO, and his answer was, because of all the regulations and laws.

So if you think you are going to somehow FORCE companies to act in a way you want... it's not going to happen. Whether you have the regulations "allowing" it or not, doesn't matter. If you pass all the regulations you want, they'll just not employ people in the US.

Excellent!
Guess what?
From a legal standpoint you are incredibly incorrect.
Every piece of Congressional legislation regarding the US economy requires an assay describing why it's good for the US economy.
And guess what, Free Market legislation caused the 2 biggest Global Crashes in the last century.
But the elite who endorsed the legislation become even wealthier.

But they'll leave!
Who 's the world biggest consumer?
Huh?
They'll leave?
Do you ever look around?
THEY LEFT!
And our economy crashed!

I wouldn't use India as a paradigm of how to run a nation as almost 100% of their population lives in unimaginable poverty.

They won't leave.

And guess what, Free Market legislation caused the 2 biggest Global Crashes in the last century.

Factually wrong, and I proved it with evidence already.

Who 's the world biggest consumer?
Huh?
They'll leave?
Do you ever look around?
THEY LEFT!
And our economy crashed!

Also factually wrong. Apple Computer, and numerous others, make more money outside the US, than inside.

Apple Computer still has 90,000 employees in the US. If they had left, it would be zero. Exxon has zero employees in Venezuela today.

Many companies still have tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, and likely collectively have millions of employees in the US. If you want that to be zero.... you can achieve that by trying to regulate the crap out of them.

And no, our economy did not crash because they left.

I wouldn't use India as a paradigm of how to run a nation as almost 100% of their population lives in unimaginable poverty.
They won't leave.

Right, they live in poverty, because in the past they were following your ideology in economics. By the way, as they have left your ideology in economics, and embraced more free-market capitalism, they have far fewer today in unimaginable poverty, as they did before.

Yes, they will leave. I guarantee you they will leave.

By the way, you are talking in circles.

You just said they all left, and we had a crash. Now you are saying they won't leave. Those are mutually exclusive statements.

Regardless.... the rules of economic fundamentals are true, no matter the culture, nation, or time frame.

Economic fundamentals don't change because one nation is poor, and another is rich.

Saying they won't leave is ridiculous. Of course they will leave. When France instituted a wealth tax, thousands packed up and left. When Jamaica put in place capital controls, companies simply closed, and reopened in Miami.

You can see this just within the states. Why do you think Amazon opened another HQ outside Seattle?

1,800 Companies Left California In a Year - With Most Bound for Texas

A record number of companies are leaving California for states with a better business climate, and a new report shows that Texas remains their No. 1 destination. See why they are being urged to leave the state, and what is bringing them to Texas.

www.southstarcommunities.com

Why have over 1800 companies moved from California to Texas? Texas is largely free-market capitalist, and California is more regulation and control.

If you put enough regulations, that companies have a hard time, they'll leave. I promise you they'll leave.

Apple only hires the best, unlike MS, Oracle, IBM, etc,..
I spend some time on Quora and Apple guys post their a lot.
They love working at Apple.

Apple has over 6,000 employees in Ireland alone. Apple can very easily leave the country, if you impose ridiculous regulations on them.

IBM has 400,000 US employees. Would you rather them leave, and have zero US employees?

Apple has the best.
I'd rather see Apple using the best all over the world, including India, than having to use the MS shit produced exclusively in India or by Indian BVs here.
The coolest thing is that I have posted this more than once and your Neo-Con mind edits it out because you can only think in B&W.

 

[Andylusion]

I can tell you from professional experience that "GW's" Housing Bubble and Crash are going to occur again.

I can tell you the dregs of society , god's 'special children' ie corn-struction workers are all expecting a crash Indeep

I know for a fact that these people earn in the lower 20-30Ks and I am convinced that the Lenders are Rubber Stamping these Loans "Approved".
Just as in the GW years, there is no way the Tables in the software provided by the Municipalities, States and Federal levels of Government are allowing people who work in Pizza Shops to take out Home Equity Loads in the 600K range.

a recipe for another housing disaster

Everybody loves a great economy, but everyone wants to jump aboard before they're capable of earning and paying their own way.

true, but don't you sense the constant revaluation via fiscals such as the derivatives market a factor InDeep?

~S~

Institutional Trading should be Illegal.
I'm tired of egotistical assholes with a bullshit degree in Finance from a "prestigious" University that their daddy's bribe got them into, determining from thin air how a much a given piece of a MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATION, with an almost infinite amount of physical Assets & Liabilities alone, is worth at any given second.
HOW THE FUCK DO THEY KNOW????
It's a fucking game that they never lose at!

I explained it last week to a naive person here who wants to believe all people on Wall Street are honest.

I will now calm down...nah!

how a much a given piece of a MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATION, with an almost infinite amount of physical Assets & Liabilities alone, is worth at any given second.

If they're overpricing it, don't buy from them.
If they're underpricing it, don't sell to them.

I get the impression you were on the up and up.
Not so the Institutional Traders who are baiting the small guy.

The Market rides like a roller coaster all day long...there's no way that would happen if the data being fed to the masses were honest.
Are investors really pulling in and out of the same deal all day long?
No way.

It's like a big flashing advertisement, but when it fails, it destroys an entire economy.

In fact, with today's technology, crashes should never happen because we found out something that happened last year was suddenly discovered.

Just look at the Housing Crash...who didn't really know the Loans were BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD!
But everybody's got a dream.

Not so the Institutional Traders who are baiting the small guy.

Again... as I pointed out before, your 401K is run by institutional traders. Union pension funds, are run by institutional traders. The trust fund of schools like Yale and Harvard, are run by institutional traders. Annuities for old people retiring, are run by institutional traders.

Basically every single retirement, or investment program in the world, is run by institutional traders.

The small guy.... benefits specifically from institutional traders. I've doubled my money in the stock market, through an IRA..... run by institutional traders.

The Market rides like a roller coaster all day long...there's no way that would happen if the data being fed to the masses were honest.

Of course it would go up and down, with or without accurate information.

Just like there are hundreds of factors involved in the value of a stock, there are also hundreds of factors involved in investor choices.

Simple example: Had an idiot years ago, who during the sub-prime crash, sold all his stocks. He was convinced, the market was going to completely tank, and he was going to magically lose all his money.

So he sold all his stocks.

I on the other hand, I bought every single stock I could buy. Every single spare dollar I could grab, I purchased stocks with it.

The information we had was identical. He didn't have any more information than I did, and I didn't have any more information than him. Yet both of us had completely opposite reactions to the market.

Warren Buffet supposedly said (I've heard this from multiple sources, but I still can't confirm it), when he was asked by a reporter how much money he lost in the Sub-prime stock market crash, responded "None. I didn't sell my stocks".

So you have 3 different people, and each had different reactions to the same exact information. One guy sold all his stocks (which would drive prices down), one guy bought every stock he could be (which would drive prices up), and one guy did absolutely nothing.

Do you see the problem with your logic? You act like if everyone had perfect information, that we'd all do the exact same thing, and the market would be completely static.

Not so. People react differently to perfect information all the time.

So.... No. The market should naturally go up and down, constantly. It would be ridiculous to think otherwise.

It's like a big flashing advertisement, but when it fails, it destroys an entire economy.

Um... no. The stock market reflects the economy. Not the other way around. A stock market crash, can't somehow magically cause the economy to crash.

Just think about that logically for a moment. Say you are a company, like oh.... Apple Computer. Say the stock market hits a bump and crashes.

How does that affect you?

It doesn't. If people are still buying iPhones, you are still going to sell them. If people are still buying your computers, you are still going to sell them. If products are still being sold, you are still going to have them made.

How does the dropping of your stock price, cause Apple computer, or any other company you might work for, have any problems? It doesn't.

Let's take the 1929 Crash. Did that crash cause any companies to go under? No. In fact, the unemployment rate in 1929, even after the stock market crash, was still just 3%.

But why did the stock market crash? Because investors saw that Smoot Hawley tariffs were going to cash business to crash. In 1930, the Smoot Hawley tariff was imposed, and unemployment from all those businesses forced back into the US (that was sarcasm) jumped up to 8.7%. Then you had the dust bowl, unemployment hit 15%, and the Hoover tax increases to pay for all the government programs, and unemployment hit 23%, and then FDR's new deal, and unemployment hit 24%.

Historical US Unemployment Rate by Year

The unemployment rate has fluctuated greatly since 1929. Learn how GDP, inflation, economic events, and other policies have historically impacted unemployment.

www.thebalance.com

Again, did the crash in 1929 cause businesses to close? No. It was the Smoot-Hawley protectionism that caused businesses to close. The investors saw that coming, that's why the stock crash happened in 1929, when the bill to impose protectionism was introduced.

But none of the economic decline happened after the stock market crash. It happened as tariffs and retaliatory tariffs were placed against the US, which killed the economy, and people lost their jobs.

The stock market reacted to future implications. It didn't cause anything. Stock markets do not "cause" the economy to fail. The future information that the economy would fail, caused the markets to crash.

You are trying to put the cart in front of the horse.

Just look at the Housing Crash...who didn't really know the Loans were BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD!
But everybody's got a dream.

Who didn't know the loans were bad? Government. You want me to post videos of Maxine Waters, and Barnie Frank saying that everything was great? You want me to post the news articles where Freddie Mac signed a deal with First Union (wachovia) and Bear Stearns, two of the largest crashes.... to make bad sub-prime loans?

Or how about Obama who said openly, that sub-prime loans were a good idea?

Government didn't know the loans were bad. They pushed bad loans, throughout the entire sub-prime bubble.

Uh huh...Yeah.
By the way, The Great Depression, as defined by Milton Freidman in one of his last videos, was caused by excessive off-shoring of assets and the lack of technology to know those assets were wasted on parties. Yep, MF says it and every Conservative who hears that sentence blocks it out because Conservatives are just as mentally ill as Liberals.

The rest of your comments are pure nonsense as you have not spent any time in any Wall Street firm at a meeting attended and run by 20 MBAs who didn't care about anything else other than selling an idea or an actual product, regardless of the viability of the product.

Who didn't know the loans were bad? Government. You want me to post videos of Maxine Waters, and Barnie Frank saying that everything was great? You want me to post the news articles where Freddie Mac signed a deal with First Union (wachovia) and Bear Stearns, two of the largest crashes.... to make bad sub-prime loans?
Grow up already; every Loan Officer Rubber Stamped Loans. You really do live in Kansas, don't you?
Half of the Lenders in my community were hired by the Obama Administration to investigate these Papers stamped "Approved" because they were among the few Lenders who followed the Government provided software that Rejected the Loan; these Lenders lost their careers because there weren't enough Borrowers who listened to their advice and buy a less expensive home.

"The stock market reacted to future implications. It didn't cause anything. Stock markets do not "cause" the economy to fail. The future information that the economy would fail, caused the markets to crash."
I hope you're kidding...Stock markets can, and have, turned wealthy people into paupers in mere moments.
In fact, this happened a few months before Trump's tax cuts.

Or how about Obama who said openly, that sub-prime loans were a good idea?
You didn't listen to Rush back then, did you?
Rush loved sub-prime Loans and claimed the GW was a genius!
The Loans themselves were only a fraction of the issue as nobody cares if minorities lose their home and wind up homeless.
After all, there were no Smart Devices back then to storm Wall Street and hand the MBAs.
The Rubber Stamped Loans were packed into other projects, almost all doomed to fail, and then sold to Financial Firms in the Eastern Hemisphere.
Why? Because no firm here cared if a Bank in Asia could collect on the loan because the bankers here would conjure up another scheme to raise that money.

But Whitey made a mistake which I understood because I was taking Karate and understood the Asian mentality...
You owe me $1.00 this month, I'm not accepting $.99.
Sounds funny, doesn't it, but Asians back then, before we tainted them, work on real numbers, not American vapor.

I could go on but you already bought the Rush Limbaugh horse crap.

GW, The Rs and the Ds and every Financial Firm in the US caused a deficit that will never be paid off.
But Obama!..Saved you from starving by borrowing against the future.
You're so Lilly White...
Send your bank account and every check you get to the Fed.
But I work for my check!
You know why your boss has a business?
Obama borrowed against the future.
I was there, I saw business owners begging the banks for a penny!

I could write a book on your delusions, but what the heck, every RWer in my community still denies this GW farce.

Look, you're a really smart guy but so damned Yankee Doodle.
Stop responding to what you consider nonsense (since you weren't there and can only rely on Fox and The Wall Street Journal of Bullshit for your knowledge base).

By the way, The Great Depression, as defined by Milton Freidman in one of his last videos, was caused by excessive off-shoring of assets and the lack of technology to know those assets were wasted on parties. Yep, MF says it and every Conservative who hears that sentence blocks it out because Conservatives are just as mentally ill as Liberals.

Thomas Rustici on Smoot-Hawley and the Great Depression - Econlib

Thomas Rustici of George Mason University and author of Lessons from the Great Depression talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the impact of the Smoot-Hawley Act on the economy. The standard view is that the decrease in trade that followed Smoot-Hawley was not big enough to be a...

www.econtalk.org

Economist Rustici, clearly documents the effects of the Smoot Hawley tariff, and how it caused the crash. One clear example, is the Pittsburgh steel industry. The Smoot Hawley tariff, drastically increased the cost of raw iron ore from Canada. Of course Canada equally put in place a retaliatory tariff against steel imported from the US.

Do tell sparky... if you were a steel company, which would cause you more problems: A drop in your company stock price, or the price of your raw steel going up dramatically at the exact same time the price of your finished product steel dropping dramatically?

The rest of your comments are pure nonsense as you have not spent any time in any Wall Street firm at a meeting attended and run by 20 MBAs who didn't care about anything else other than selling an idea or an actual product, regardless of the viability of the product.

That is not a counter argument to anything I said.

Grow up already; every Loan Officer Rubber Stamped Loans.

Does not change anything I said. Not a counter argument to anything.
Again, if you want me to post the videos of Maxine Waters, and Barnie Frank both praising sub-prime loans, and Obama calling it a good idea, and Andrew Cuomo suing banks to make bad loans.... I will do so. But your statement, changes nothing.

Lenders who followed the Government provided software that Rejected the Loan; these Lenders lost their careers because there weren't enough Borrowers who listened to their advice and buy a less expensive home.

Robot Check

John A. Allison was CEO of BB&T bank, when regulators under the Clinton administration showed up, and required that they lower lending standards.

This is well documented.

But Obama!..Saved you from starving by borrowing against the future.

Bull crap. A number of countries did not bailout out their banks, and were just fine.

Plus, Obama was part of the group pushing sub-prime loans to being with. Only a brainless idiot, sees someone create a problem, and then present themselves as a solution to a problem they created, and claim they saved us.

You are dumbest moron on the face of the planet, if you honestly believe that.

You know why your boss has a business?
Obama borrowed against the future.
I was there, I saw business owners begging the banks for a penny!

My boss was not there. Nor did anything that created that company, or the products that company sold, ever come from Obama.

I could write a book on your delusions, but what the heck, every RWer in my community still denies this GW farce.

My delusions? Which one of us right now, is sitting around justifying government taking your tax money, and giving it to wealthy people?

Stop responding to what you consider nonsense (since you weren't there and can only rely on Fox and The Wall Street Journal of Bullshit for your knowledge base).

Well because I'm right. I know I'm right. You are wrong, and I can prove it. So why should I stop responding, when you are the one making insane claims?

Just out of curiosity, do you realize you didn't directly address anything I posted?

Why do you mention Europe when the I stated Obama had to bail out the world.

Why are you referencing some other video when MFs video is on YouTube?

Why are you blaming sub-primer loans alone when they were less than 3% of the crash?

Not to mention that the men who engineered the entire Lending Bubble, Alan Greenspan, Dick Cheney and Warren Buffet, made billions off the crash.

To be honest, you are so honest I wish you would run for office.

Yes, because you did not make any real points.

Because Obama didn't have to bail out the world. That is opinion. That is not a fact. It's opinion. We didn't bail out Lehman Brothers. It didn't doom the world.

Now I get it that banks claimed Obama had to bail out the world.... well of course they did. Those CEOs jobs are to save the company. If the only way to save the company is to get money from government, they are going to go to government ask for money.

And if the only way to convince government to give you money, is to claim that if you don't bail them out, that the world will end... then they are going to say you have to bail us out or the world will end.

But it's not true. That's just a bunch of rich people, saying whatever they have to say, to get cash.

No, Obama didn't have to bail out the world. The world would have been just fine, with zero bailouts. Iceland didn't bailout a single bank, and their big three banks that all failed, were a far larger percentage of their economy, then our banks were.

Iceland not only did not implode, but they recovered faster, and were recording great economic growth, while we were still in a recession.

Estonia years ago, also refused to bailout their banks, and their banks all went bankrupt and closed, and they recovered just fine, no problem.

Why are you referencing some other video when MFs video is on YouTube?

Because my videos are directly relevant to the topic at hand. Milton Friedman was not relevant to the topic at hand.

Why are you blaming sub-primer loans alone when they were less than 3% of the crash?

Because that is not true?

Sub-prime loans were almost 25% of the market by the end. And you'll notice, as I said before, that sub-prime loans were a niche market before 1997, when Bill Clinton, and his administration pushed Sub-prime loans into the main stream.

Not to mention that the men who engineered the entire Lending Bubble, Alan Greenspan, Dick Cheney and Warren Buffet, made billions off the crash.

People are always going to invest in ways that make a profit. People are going to invest in ways to make a profit, whether the economy is good, or the economy is bad.

Complaining that people made a profit, is pointless. They are always going to make a profit. That's like complaining it's sunny in Arizona, during a depression. Yeah, that's going to happen.

The question isn't "did people make a profit during....." We always answer that with.... yeah. That's what investors do. Investors make wise investments, that return a profit. They would not be investors, if they didn't make investments that returned a profit.

I myself, am an investor. In 2009, I was buying stocks even while the market was crashing. That's what wise investors do.

Even this year. When the market crashed back on Feb 20th, I started buying stocks. I've been buying stocks on the market since the beginning of this crash too. Because that's how you make wise investments, is by buying up stocks that are on sale.

So that is not a valid point. Pointing out that wise investors were investing wisely during the sub-prime crash, is not a valid point of anything. That's like saying "duh". Yeah, investors invested. Duh.

The only valid question is, why did sub-prime loans go from being a niche market, where they should have stayed... to being mainstream and taking up almost 1/4th of the market?

The answer is.... government. Freddie Mac in 1997, signed a deal with First Union (wachovia) and Bear Stearns, to give Sub-prime mortgages a AAA rating.

Bear Stearns, the CRA, and Freddie Mac - Cafe Hayek

I keep hearing that the subprime crisis was caused by people willing to buy stuff they couldn't evaluate. Why would smart people do that? One answer is that they were stupid. In an era of rising home prices, it's hard...

cafehayek.com

CHARLOTTE – First Union Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment​

Act (CRA) loans – marking the industry’s first public securitization of​

CRA loans.​

​

The affordable mortgages were originated or acquired by First Union​

Corporation and subsidiaries. Customers will experience no impact –​

they will continue to make payments to and be serviced by First Union​

Mortgage Corp. CRA loans are loans targeted to low and moderate income​

borrowers and neighborhoods under the Community Reinvestment Act of​

1977.​

​

"The securitization of these affordable mortgages allows us to redeploy​

capital back into our communities and to expand our ability to provide​

credit to low and moderate income individuals," said Jane Henderson,​

managing director of First Union’s Community Reinvestment and Fair​

Lending Programs. "First Union is committed to promoting home ownership​

in traditionally underserved markets through a comprehensive line of​

competitive and flexible affordable mortgage products. This transaction​

enables us to continue to aggressively serve those markets."​

​

The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and​

have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the​

investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation.​

Again, this is well documented.

And at the same time, Andrew Cuomo was suing banks to force them to make bad loans.



Andrew Cuomo admitted openly, that this would force the bank to make loans to people who otherwise would not qualify. Meaning, people who did not qualify for prime rate mortgages.... AND Cuomo equally admitted that the default rate would be higher.

Again, government forced banks to make bad loans, and rewarded sub-prime loans, and encourages sub-prime loans by giving them a AAA rating. This is well documented.

You are distracted...
Simple question...Start off with Yes/No and then we'll discuss if this ever happened and it's short and long effect on the economy where it happened.
Should legislation allow this to occur?

In a free market, can companies suddenly leave a nation in droves leaving millions of people who cannot afford to start their own unemployed?
Should legislation allow this to occur?

In a free market, can companies suddenly and simply lay off millions of employees and replace them with foreigners?
Should legislation allow this to occur?

That is a dumb question though. You are implying that somehow you can force people to hire other people?

That's tyranny. You are talking about Stalinism now.

Say I run a company.... what law are you going to pass, that is going to stop me from closing down the company? It's my company. I own it.

Are you going to do what Hugo Chavez did, and have soldiers forcibly remove owners from their companies, if they don't hire people?

Venezuelans Despair as Companies Flee

Irish packaging giant Smurfit left Venezuela amid a spat with the socialist government, joining other multinationals abandoning the sinking economy.

www.wsj.com

If you try and force companies to do what you want, they will leave completely.

This idea that "well if we just have a policy that says companies can't do stuff"... no, they'll just leave the country completely.

Then you won't have to worry about them hiring foreigners, because they wont' be hiring anyone in the US.

So to answer your question directly... Yeah I believe in freedom. And we are not a dictatorship, and no there should not be totalitarian rules on who companies hire.

You know that India tried that, right? India had rules on outsourcing, and rules on exactly who could be hired by any company.

The result was that companies that were created in India, moved all their operations out of India.

I believe Tata Motors was a huge one, that had all their operations spread out across the world, with virtually nothing in their home country of India. And they interviewed the CEO, and his answer was, because of all the regulations and laws.

So if you think you are going to somehow FORCE companies to act in a way you want... it's not going to happen. Whether you have the regulations "allowing" it or not, doesn't matter. If you pass all the regulations you want, they'll just not employ people in the US.

Excellent!
Guess what?
From a legal standpoint you are incredibly incorrect.
Every piece of Congressional legislation regarding the US economy requires an assay describing why it's good for the US economy.
And guess what, Free Market legislation caused the 2 biggest Global Crashes in the last century.
But the elite who endorsed the legislation become even wealthier.

But they'll leave!
Who 's the world biggest consumer?
Huh?
They'll leave?
Do you ever look around?
THEY LEFT!
And our economy crashed!

I wouldn't use India as a paradigm of how to run a nation as almost 100% of their population lives in unimaginable poverty.

They won't leave.

And guess what, Free Market legislation caused the 2 biggest Global Crashes in the last century.

Factually wrong, and I proved it with evidence already.

Who 's the world biggest consumer?
Huh?
They'll leave?
Do you ever look around?
THEY LEFT!
And our economy crashed!

Also factually wrong. Apple Computer, and numerous others, make more money outside the US, than inside.

Apple Computer still has 90,000 employees in the US. If they had left, it would be zero. Exxon has zero employees in Venezuela today.

Many companies still have tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, and likely collectively have millions of employees in the US. If you want that to be zero.... you can achieve that by trying to regulate the crap out of them.

And no, our economy did not crash because they left.

I wouldn't use India as a paradigm of how to run a nation as almost 100% of their population lives in unimaginable poverty.
They won't leave.

Right, they live in poverty, because in the past they were following your ideology in economics. By the way, as they have left your ideology in economics, and embraced more free-market capitalism, they have far fewer today in unimaginable poverty, as they did before.

Yes, they will leave. I guarantee you they will leave.

By the way, you are talking in circles.

You just said they all left, and we had a crash. Now you are saying they won't leave. Those are mutually exclusive statements.

Regardless.... the rules of economic fundamentals are true, no matter the culture, nation, or time frame.

Economic fundamentals don't change because one nation is poor, and another is rich.

Saying they won't leave is ridiculous. Of course they will leave. When France instituted a wealth tax, thousands packed up and left. When Jamaica put in place capital controls, companies simply closed, and reopened in Miami.

You can see this just within the states. Why do you think Amazon opened another HQ outside Seattle?

1,800 Companies Left California In a Year - With Most Bound for Texas

A record number of companies are leaving California for states with a better business climate, and a new report shows that Texas remains their No. 1 destination. See why they are being urged to leave the state, and what is bringing them to Texas.

www.southstarcommunities.com

Why have over 1800 companies moved from California to Texas? Texas is largely free-market capitalist, and California is more regulation and control.

If you put enough regulations, that companies have a hard time, they'll leave. I promise you they'll leave.

I usually respect your posts but you are being so willfully ignorant it's almost surreal.
I read your reason why the Free Market didn't cause two crashes and I'm beginning to think you are...selectively stupid?

I understand why companies move within our borders because that does not destroy the national economy.
You completely ignored what happens to the US economy when 25K companies leave withing 4 years and get a tax break on the relocation costs.

India's religion causes their mass poverty...out of 1,000 castes, only the top 2 or 3 are even allowed to work in a profession that requires an education.
Step out of bounds and you are executed.
It has nothing to do with economics; their Priests live very well despite their rampant lack of intelligence.
If they were so brilliant they wouldn't have to come to the US.
Your ignorance of what goes in India is insulting to the billions who are doomed to live in poverty.

The problem with people such as yourself is you're are 98% book knowledge and almost 0% looking at what's happening on the ground.
You sound like the guys I know who get their "real" news from The Wall Street Journal, which, by the way, along with 100% of your Conservative heroes, predicted a Global Market Crash would occur if Trump won.
So much for your "heroes".

I know, I know...you didn't read that about Trump anywhere!

Oh, I almost forgot!
Remember when Wall Street hated Apple?
Of course you don't.
Only about 2-3 years ago...Apple wasn't releasing a new phone every 6 months because Tim Cook didn't want to be a whore to Wall Street.

Remember when Wall Street hated Amazon?
Of course you don't.
Only about 3-4 years ago...Amazon invested millions into local Warehouses and Wall Street gave them the boot.
Bezos was right and now Wall Street kisses his ass all day long.

think you are...selectively stupid?

You are an idiot. Keep your mouth shut, if you have nothing of value to say.

Your ignorance of what goes in India is insulting to the billions who are doomed to live in poverty.

You are proving to me, that I know far more about it than you. Moron.

The problem with people such as yourself

I already know. It's we spend too much time talking to complete useless trash like you. You added nothing but insults and trash to this discussion. Do the world a favor, and shut up.

Oh, I almost forgot!

The only thing you forgot, was whatever manors your parents should have taught you. You are pathetic, childish and worthless as a human being.

Hey, if you want to crap out insults non-stop, and have nothing of value to say, then I can play that game. Get lost trash. You have not provided one single valid argument, or one single bit of evidence in this thread yet.

Go back to whatever rock you crawled out of, and die there. Do the world of favor, because you certainly are not doing any of us any favors, spewing your non-stop trash here.

I know lots of people from India...If you're not in the top 2 castes, you're screwed for life.

Have fun living with you "books".

Your ad hominems belie your contempt for anyone who doesn't subscribe to what your books tell you.
Don't worry. almost every Conservative I know has had their economic asses kicked at least once in their life.

Please detail all of my ad hominems...
Oh yeah, besides the selectively stupid comment, I didn't post any at all.
I only posted what actually goes on as opposed to theory.

I know from your posting history here that you don't mind people screwing you in business.
You are in the minority.

Your ad hominems belie

You spent two dozens posts make ad hominem insults, and then cry like a child when someone throws them back in your face? You ball-less pathetic excuse for a man. Grow up you childish trash. Come back when you are not a mindless hypocritical ape.

Please detail all of my ad hominems...

I did you scum sucking bit crap. Flush yourself. Maybe after you have been through the sewer a few times, you actually be cleaner than you are now.

The problem with people such as yourself (insult)
think you are...selectively stupid? (insult)
I could write a book on your delusions (insult)

Ad hominem after ad hominem, and now you want to bitch like the whine pathetic trash child that you are?
Grow up, you pathetic excuse for a human being. Go find someone to teach you some manors.

 

[Indeependent]

I can tell you from professional experience that "GW's" Housing Bubble and Crash are going to occur again.

I can tell you the dregs of society , god's 'special children' ie corn-struction workers are all expecting a crash Indeep

I know for a fact that these people earn in the lower 20-30Ks and I am convinced that the Lenders are Rubber Stamping these Loans "Approved".
Just as in the GW years, there is no way the Tables in the software provided by the Municipalities, States and Federal levels of Government are allowing people who work in Pizza Shops to take out Home Equity Loads in the 600K range.

a recipe for another housing disaster

Everybody loves a great economy, but everyone wants to jump aboard before they're capable of earning and paying their own way.

true, but don't you sense the constant revaluation via fiscals such as the derivatives market a factor InDeep?

~S~

Institutional Trading should be Illegal.
I'm tired of egotistical assholes with a bullshit degree in Finance from a "prestigious" University that their daddy's bribe got them into, determining from thin air how a much a given piece of a MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATION, with an almost infinite amount of physical Assets & Liabilities alone, is worth at any given second.
HOW THE FUCK DO THEY KNOW????
It's a fucking game that they never lose at!

I explained it last week to a naive person here who wants to believe all people on Wall Street are honest.

I will now calm down...nah!

how a much a given piece of a MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATION, with an almost infinite amount of physical Assets & Liabilities alone, is worth at any given second.

If they're overpricing it, don't buy from them.
If they're underpricing it, don't sell to them.

I get the impression you were on the up and up.
Not so the Institutional Traders who are baiting the small guy.

The Market rides like a roller coaster all day long...there's no way that would happen if the data being fed to the masses were honest.
Are investors really pulling in and out of the same deal all day long?
No way.

It's like a big flashing advertisement, but when it fails, it destroys an entire economy.

In fact, with today's technology, crashes should never happen because we found out something that happened last year was suddenly discovered.

Just look at the Housing Crash...who didn't really know the Loans were BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD!
But everybody's got a dream.

Not so the Institutional Traders who are baiting the small guy.

Again... as I pointed out before, your 401K is run by institutional traders. Union pension funds, are run by institutional traders. The trust fund of schools like Yale and Harvard, are run by institutional traders. Annuities for old people retiring, are run by institutional traders.

Basically every single retirement, or investment program in the world, is run by institutional traders.

The small guy.... benefits specifically from institutional traders. I've doubled my money in the stock market, through an IRA..... run by institutional traders.

The Market rides like a roller coaster all day long...there's no way that would happen if the data being fed to the masses were honest.

Of course it would go up and down, with or without accurate information.

Just like there are hundreds of factors involved in the value of a stock, there are also hundreds of factors involved in investor choices.

Simple example: Had an idiot years ago, who during the sub-prime crash, sold all his stocks. He was convinced, the market was going to completely tank, and he was going to magically lose all his money.

So he sold all his stocks.

I on the other hand, I bought every single stock I could buy. Every single spare dollar I could grab, I purchased stocks with it.

The information we had was identical. He didn't have any more information than I did, and I didn't have any more information than him. Yet both of us had completely opposite reactions to the market.

Warren Buffet supposedly said (I've heard this from multiple sources, but I still can't confirm it), when he was asked by a reporter how much money he lost in the Sub-prime stock market crash, responded "None. I didn't sell my stocks".

So you have 3 different people, and each had different reactions to the same exact information. One guy sold all his stocks (which would drive prices down), one guy bought every stock he could be (which would drive prices up), and one guy did absolutely nothing.

Do you see the problem with your logic? You act like if everyone had perfect information, that we'd all do the exact same thing, and the market would be completely static.

Not so. People react differently to perfect information all the time.

So.... No. The market should naturally go up and down, constantly. It would be ridiculous to think otherwise.

It's like a big flashing advertisement, but when it fails, it destroys an entire economy.

Um... no. The stock market reflects the economy. Not the other way around. A stock market crash, can't somehow magically cause the economy to crash.

Just think about that logically for a moment. Say you are a company, like oh.... Apple Computer. Say the stock market hits a bump and crashes.

How does that affect you?

It doesn't. If people are still buying iPhones, you are still going to sell them. If people are still buying your computers, you are still going to sell them. If products are still being sold, you are still going to have them made.

How does the dropping of your stock price, cause Apple computer, or any other company you might work for, have any problems? It doesn't.

Let's take the 1929 Crash. Did that crash cause any companies to go under? No. In fact, the unemployment rate in 1929, even after the stock market crash, was still just 3%.

But why did the stock market crash? Because investors saw that Smoot Hawley tariffs were going to cash business to crash. In 1930, the Smoot Hawley tariff was imposed, and unemployment from all those businesses forced back into the US (that was sarcasm) jumped up to 8.7%. Then you had the dust bowl, unemployment hit 15%, and the Hoover tax increases to pay for all the government programs, and unemployment hit 23%, and then FDR's new deal, and unemployment hit 24%.

Historical US Unemployment Rate by Year

The unemployment rate has fluctuated greatly since 1929. Learn how GDP, inflation, economic events, and other policies have historically impacted unemployment.

www.thebalance.com

Again, did the crash in 1929 cause businesses to close? No. It was the Smoot-Hawley protectionism that caused businesses to close. The investors saw that coming, that's why the stock crash happened in 1929, when the bill to impose protectionism was introduced.

But none of the economic decline happened after the stock market crash. It happened as tariffs and retaliatory tariffs were placed against the US, which killed the economy, and people lost their jobs.

The stock market reacted to future implications. It didn't cause anything. Stock markets do not "cause" the economy to fail. The future information that the economy would fail, caused the markets to crash.

You are trying to put the cart in front of the horse.

Just look at the Housing Crash...who didn't really know the Loans were BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD!
But everybody's got a dream.

Who didn't know the loans were bad? Government. You want me to post videos of Maxine Waters, and Barnie Frank saying that everything was great? You want me to post the news articles where Freddie Mac signed a deal with First Union (wachovia) and Bear Stearns, two of the largest crashes.... to make bad sub-prime loans?

Or how about Obama who said openly, that sub-prime loans were a good idea?

Government didn't know the loans were bad. They pushed bad loans, throughout the entire sub-prime bubble.

Uh huh...Yeah.
By the way, The Great Depression, as defined by Milton Freidman in one of his last videos, was caused by excessive off-shoring of assets and the lack of technology to know those assets were wasted on parties. Yep, MF says it and every Conservative who hears that sentence blocks it out because Conservatives are just as mentally ill as Liberals.

The rest of your comments are pure nonsense as you have not spent any time in any Wall Street firm at a meeting attended and run by 20 MBAs who didn't care about anything else other than selling an idea or an actual product, regardless of the viability of the product.

Who didn't know the loans were bad? Government. You want me to post videos of Maxine Waters, and Barnie Frank saying that everything was great? You want me to post the news articles where Freddie Mac signed a deal with First Union (wachovia) and Bear Stearns, two of the largest crashes.... to make bad sub-prime loans?
Grow up already; every Loan Officer Rubber Stamped Loans. You really do live in Kansas, don't you?
Half of the Lenders in my community were hired by the Obama Administration to investigate these Papers stamped "Approved" because they were among the few Lenders who followed the Government provided software that Rejected the Loan; these Lenders lost their careers because there weren't enough Borrowers who listened to their advice and buy a less expensive home.

"The stock market reacted to future implications. It didn't cause anything. Stock markets do not "cause" the economy to fail. The future information that the economy would fail, caused the markets to crash."
I hope you're kidding...Stock markets can, and have, turned wealthy people into paupers in mere moments.
In fact, this happened a few months before Trump's tax cuts.

Or how about Obama who said openly, that sub-prime loans were a good idea?
You didn't listen to Rush back then, did you?
Rush loved sub-prime Loans and claimed the GW was a genius!
The Loans themselves were only a fraction of the issue as nobody cares if minorities lose their home and wind up homeless.
After all, there were no Smart Devices back then to storm Wall Street and hand the MBAs.
The Rubber Stamped Loans were packed into other projects, almost all doomed to fail, and then sold to Financial Firms in the Eastern Hemisphere.
Why? Because no firm here cared if a Bank in Asia could collect on the loan because the bankers here would conjure up another scheme to raise that money.

But Whitey made a mistake which I understood because I was taking Karate and understood the Asian mentality...
You owe me $1.00 this month, I'm not accepting $.99.
Sounds funny, doesn't it, but Asians back then, before we tainted them, work on real numbers, not American vapor.

I could go on but you already bought the Rush Limbaugh horse crap.

GW, The Rs and the Ds and every Financial Firm in the US caused a deficit that will never be paid off.
But Obama!..Saved you from starving by borrowing against the future.
You're so Lilly White...
Send your bank account and every check you get to the Fed.
But I work for my check!
You know why your boss has a business?
Obama borrowed against the future.
I was there, I saw business owners begging the banks for a penny!

I could write a book on your delusions, but what the heck, every RWer in my community still denies this GW farce.

Look, you're a really smart guy but so damned Yankee Doodle.
Stop responding to what you consider nonsense (since you weren't there and can only rely on Fox and The Wall Street Journal of Bullshit for your knowledge base).

By the way, The Great Depression, as defined by Milton Freidman in one of his last videos, was caused by excessive off-shoring of assets and the lack of technology to know those assets were wasted on parties. Yep, MF says it and every Conservative who hears that sentence blocks it out because Conservatives are just as mentally ill as Liberals.

Thomas Rustici on Smoot-Hawley and the Great Depression - Econlib

Thomas Rustici of George Mason University and author of Lessons from the Great Depression talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the impact of the Smoot-Hawley Act on the economy. The standard view is that the decrease in trade that followed Smoot-Hawley was not big enough to be a...

www.econtalk.org

Economist Rustici, clearly documents the effects of the Smoot Hawley tariff, and how it caused the crash. One clear example, is the Pittsburgh steel industry. The Smoot Hawley tariff, drastically increased the cost of raw iron ore from Canada. Of course Canada equally put in place a retaliatory tariff against steel imported from the US.

Do tell sparky... if you were a steel company, which would cause you more problems: A drop in your company stock price, or the price of your raw steel going up dramatically at the exact same time the price of your finished product steel dropping dramatically?

The rest of your comments are pure nonsense as you have not spent any time in any Wall Street firm at a meeting attended and run by 20 MBAs who didn't care about anything else other than selling an idea or an actual product, regardless of the viability of the product.

That is not a counter argument to anything I said.

Grow up already; every Loan Officer Rubber Stamped Loans.

Does not change anything I said. Not a counter argument to anything.
Again, if you want me to post the videos of Maxine Waters, and Barnie Frank both praising sub-prime loans, and Obama calling it a good idea, and Andrew Cuomo suing banks to make bad loans.... I will do so. But your statement, changes nothing.

Lenders who followed the Government provided software that Rejected the Loan; these Lenders lost their careers because there weren't enough Borrowers who listened to their advice and buy a less expensive home.

Robot Check

John A. Allison was CEO of BB&T bank, when regulators under the Clinton administration showed up, and required that they lower lending standards.

This is well documented.

But Obama!..Saved you from starving by borrowing against the future.

Bull crap. A number of countries did not bailout out their banks, and were just fine.

Plus, Obama was part of the group pushing sub-prime loans to being with. Only a brainless idiot, sees someone create a problem, and then present themselves as a solution to a problem they created, and claim they saved us.

You are dumbest moron on the face of the planet, if you honestly believe that.

You know why your boss has a business?
Obama borrowed against the future.
I was there, I saw business owners begging the banks for a penny!

My boss was not there. Nor did anything that created that company, or the products that company sold, ever come from Obama.

I could write a book on your delusions, but what the heck, every RWer in my community still denies this GW farce.

My delusions? Which one of us right now, is sitting around justifying government taking your tax money, and giving it to wealthy people?

Stop responding to what you consider nonsense (since you weren't there and can only rely on Fox and The Wall Street Journal of Bullshit for your knowledge base).

Well because I'm right. I know I'm right. You are wrong, and I can prove it. So why should I stop responding, when you are the one making insane claims?

Just out of curiosity, do you realize you didn't directly address anything I posted?

Why do you mention Europe when the I stated Obama had to bail out the world.

Why are you referencing some other video when MFs video is on YouTube?

Why are you blaming sub-primer loans alone when they were less than 3% of the crash?

Not to mention that the men who engineered the entire Lending Bubble, Alan Greenspan, Dick Cheney and Warren Buffet, made billions off the crash.

To be honest, you are so honest I wish you would run for office.

Yes, because you did not make any real points.

Because Obama didn't have to bail out the world. That is opinion. That is not a fact. It's opinion. We didn't bail out Lehman Brothers. It didn't doom the world.

Now I get it that banks claimed Obama had to bail out the world.... well of course they did. Those CEOs jobs are to save the company. If the only way to save the company is to get money from government, they are going to go to government ask for money.

And if the only way to convince government to give you money, is to claim that if you don't bail them out, that the world will end... then they are going to say you have to bail us out or the world will end.

But it's not true. That's just a bunch of rich people, saying whatever they have to say, to get cash.

No, Obama didn't have to bail out the world. The world would have been just fine, with zero bailouts. Iceland didn't bailout a single bank, and their big three banks that all failed, were a far larger percentage of their economy, then our banks were.

Iceland not only did not implode, but they recovered faster, and were recording great economic growth, while we were still in a recession.

Estonia years ago, also refused to bailout their banks, and their banks all went bankrupt and closed, and they recovered just fine, no problem.

Why are you referencing some other video when MFs video is on YouTube?

Because my videos are directly relevant to the topic at hand. Milton Friedman was not relevant to the topic at hand.

Why are you blaming sub-primer loans alone when they were less than 3% of the crash?

Because that is not true?

Sub-prime loans were almost 25% of the market by the end. And you'll notice, as I said before, that sub-prime loans were a niche market before 1997, when Bill Clinton, and his administration pushed Sub-prime loans into the main stream.

Not to mention that the men who engineered the entire Lending Bubble, Alan Greenspan, Dick Cheney and Warren Buffet, made billions off the crash.

People are always going to invest in ways that make a profit. People are going to invest in ways to make a profit, whether the economy is good, or the economy is bad.

Complaining that people made a profit, is pointless. They are always going to make a profit. That's like complaining it's sunny in Arizona, during a depression. Yeah, that's going to happen.

The question isn't "did people make a profit during....." We always answer that with.... yeah. That's what investors do. Investors make wise investments, that return a profit. They would not be investors, if they didn't make investments that returned a profit.

I myself, am an investor. In 2009, I was buying stocks even while the market was crashing. That's what wise investors do.

Even this year. When the market crashed back on Feb 20th, I started buying stocks. I've been buying stocks on the market since the beginning of this crash too. Because that's how you make wise investments, is by buying up stocks that are on sale.

So that is not a valid point. Pointing out that wise investors were investing wisely during the sub-prime crash, is not a valid point of anything. That's like saying "duh". Yeah, investors invested. Duh.

The only valid question is, why did sub-prime loans go from being a niche market, where they should have stayed... to being mainstream and taking up almost 1/4th of the market?

The answer is.... government. Freddie Mac in 1997, signed a deal with First Union (wachovia) and Bear Stearns, to give Sub-prime mortgages a AAA rating.

Bear Stearns, the CRA, and Freddie Mac - Cafe Hayek

I keep hearing that the subprime crisis was caused by people willing to buy stuff they couldn't evaluate. Why would smart people do that? One answer is that they were stupid. In an era of rising home prices, it's hard...

cafehayek.com

CHARLOTTE – First Union Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment​

Act (CRA) loans – marking the industry’s first public securitization of​

CRA loans.​

​

The affordable mortgages were originated or acquired by First Union​

Corporation and subsidiaries. Customers will experience no impact –​

they will continue to make payments to and be serviced by First Union​

Mortgage Corp. CRA loans are loans targeted to low and moderate income​

borrowers and neighborhoods under the Community Reinvestment Act of​

1977.​

​

"The securitization of these affordable mortgages allows us to redeploy​

capital back into our communities and to expand our ability to provide​

credit to low and moderate income individuals," said Jane Henderson,​

managing director of First Union’s Community Reinvestment and Fair​

Lending Programs. "First Union is committed to promoting home ownership​

in traditionally underserved markets through a comprehensive line of​

competitive and flexible affordable mortgage products. This transaction​

enables us to continue to aggressively serve those markets."​

​

The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and​

have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the​

investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation.​

Again, this is well documented.

And at the same time, Andrew Cuomo was suing banks to force them to make bad loans.



Andrew Cuomo admitted openly, that this would force the bank to make loans to people who otherwise would not qualify. Meaning, people who did not qualify for prime rate mortgages.... AND Cuomo equally admitted that the default rate would be higher.

Again, government forced banks to make bad loans, and rewarded sub-prime loans, and encourages sub-prime loans by giving them a AAA rating. This is well documented.

You are distracted...
Simple question...Start off with Yes/No and then we'll discuss if this ever happened and it's short and long effect on the economy where it happened.
Should legislation allow this to occur?

In a free market, can companies suddenly leave a nation in droves leaving millions of people who cannot afford to start their own unemployed?
Should legislation allow this to occur?

In a free market, can companies suddenly and simply lay off millions of employees and replace them with foreigners?
Should legislation allow this to occur?

That is a dumb question though. You are implying that somehow you can force people to hire other people?

That's tyranny. You are talking about Stalinism now.

Say I run a company.... what law are you going to pass, that is going to stop me from closing down the company? It's my company. I own it.

Are you going to do what Hugo Chavez did, and have soldiers forcibly remove owners from their companies, if they don't hire people?

Venezuelans Despair as Companies Flee

Irish packaging giant Smurfit left Venezuela amid a spat with the socialist government, joining other multinationals abandoning the sinking economy.

www.wsj.com

If you try and force companies to do what you want, they will leave completely.

This idea that "well if we just have a policy that says companies can't do stuff"... no, they'll just leave the country completely.

Then you won't have to worry about them hiring foreigners, because they wont' be hiring anyone in the US.

So to answer your question directly... Yeah I believe in freedom. And we are not a dictatorship, and no there should not be totalitarian rules on who companies hire.

You know that India tried that, right? India had rules on outsourcing, and rules on exactly who could be hired by any company.

The result was that companies that were created in India, moved all their operations out of India.

I believe Tata Motors was a huge one, that had all their operations spread out across the world, with virtually nothing in their home country of India. And they interviewed the CEO, and his answer was, because of all the regulations and laws.

So if you think you are going to somehow FORCE companies to act in a way you want... it's not going to happen. Whether you have the regulations "allowing" it or not, doesn't matter. If you pass all the regulations you want, they'll just not employ people in the US.

Excellent!
Guess what?
From a legal standpoint you are incredibly incorrect.
Every piece of Congressional legislation regarding the US economy requires an assay describing why it's good for the US economy.
And guess what, Free Market legislation caused the 2 biggest Global Crashes in the last century.
But the elite who endorsed the legislation become even wealthier.

But they'll leave!
Who 's the world biggest consumer?
Huh?
They'll leave?
Do you ever look around?
THEY LEFT!
And our economy crashed!

I wouldn't use India as a paradigm of how to run a nation as almost 100% of their population lives in unimaginable poverty.

They won't leave.

And guess what, Free Market legislation caused the 2 biggest Global Crashes in the last century.

Factually wrong, and I proved it with evidence already.

Who 's the world biggest consumer?
Huh?
They'll leave?
Do you ever look around?
THEY LEFT!
And our economy crashed!

Also factually wrong. Apple Computer, and numerous others, make more money outside the US, than inside.

Apple Computer still has 90,000 employees in the US. If they had left, it would be zero. Exxon has zero employees in Venezuela today.

Many companies still have tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, and likely collectively have millions of employees in the US. If you want that to be zero.... you can achieve that by trying to regulate the crap out of them.

And no, our economy did not crash because they left.

I wouldn't use India as a paradigm of how to run a nation as almost 100% of their population lives in unimaginable poverty.
They won't leave.

Right, they live in poverty, because in the past they were following your ideology in economics. By the way, as they have left your ideology in economics, and embraced more free-market capitalism, they have far fewer today in unimaginable poverty, as they did before.

Yes, they will leave. I guarantee you they will leave.

By the way, you are talking in circles.

You just said they all left, and we had a crash. Now you are saying they won't leave. Those are mutually exclusive statements.

Regardless.... the rules of economic fundamentals are true, no matter the culture, nation, or time frame.

Economic fundamentals don't change because one nation is poor, and another is rich.

Saying they won't leave is ridiculous. Of course they will leave. When France instituted a wealth tax, thousands packed up and left. When Jamaica put in place capital controls, companies simply closed, and reopened in Miami.

You can see this just within the states. Why do you think Amazon opened another HQ outside Seattle?

1,800 Companies Left California In a Year - With Most Bound for Texas

A record number of companies are leaving California for states with a better business climate, and a new report shows that Texas remains their No. 1 destination. See why they are being urged to leave the state, and what is bringing them to Texas.

www.southstarcommunities.com

Why have over 1800 companies moved from California to Texas? Texas is largely free-market capitalist, and California is more regulation and control.

If you put enough regulations, that companies have a hard time, they'll leave. I promise you they'll leave.

I usually respect your posts but you are being so willfully ignorant it's almost surreal.
I read your reason why the Free Market didn't cause two crashes and I'm beginning to think you are...selectively stupid?

I understand why companies move within our borders because that does not destroy the national economy.
You completely ignored what happens to the US economy when 25K companies leave withing 4 years and get a tax break on the relocation costs.

India's religion causes their mass poverty...out of 1,000 castes, only the top 2 or 3 are even allowed to work in a profession that requires an education.
Step out of bounds and you are executed.
It has nothing to do with economics; their Priests live very well despite their rampant lack of intelligence.
If they were so brilliant they wouldn't have to come to the US.
Your ignorance of what goes in India is insulting to the billions who are doomed to live in poverty.

The problem with people such as yourself is you're are 98% book knowledge and almost 0% looking at what's happening on the ground.
You sound like the guys I know who get their "real" news from The Wall Street Journal, which, by the way, along with 100% of your Conservative heroes, predicted a Global Market Crash would occur if Trump won.
So much for your "heroes".

I know, I know...you didn't read that about Trump anywhere!

Oh, I almost forgot!
Remember when Wall Street hated Apple?
Of course you don't.
Only about 2-3 years ago...Apple wasn't releasing a new phone every 6 months because Tim Cook didn't want to be a whore to Wall Street.

Remember when Wall Street hated Amazon?
Of course you don't.
Only about 3-4 years ago...Amazon invested millions into local Warehouses and Wall Street gave them the boot.
Bezos was right and now Wall Street kisses his ass all day long.

think you are...selectively stupid?

You are an idiot. Keep your mouth shut, if you have nothing of value to say.

Your ignorance of what goes in India is insulting to the billions who are doomed to live in poverty.

You are proving to me, that I know far more about it than you. Moron.

The problem with people such as yourself

I already know. It's we spend too much time talking to complete useless trash like you. You added nothing but insults and trash to this discussion. Do the world a favor, and shut up.

Oh, I almost forgot!

The only thing you forgot, was whatever manors your parents should have taught you. You are pathetic, childish and worthless as a human being.

Hey, if you want to crap out insults non-stop, and have nothing of value to say, then I can play that game. Get lost trash. You have not provided one single valid argument, or one single bit of evidence in this thread yet.

Go back to whatever rock you crawled out of, and die there. Do the world of favor, because you certainly are not doing any of us any favors, spewing your non-stop trash here.

I know lots of people from India...If you're not in the top 2 castes, you're screwed for life.

Have fun living with you "books".

Your ad hominems belie your contempt for anyone who doesn't subscribe to what your books tell you.
Don't worry. almost every Conservative I know has had their economic asses kicked at least once in their life.

Please detail all of my ad hominems...
Oh yeah, besides the selectively stupid comment, I didn't post any at all.
I only posted what actually goes on as opposed to theory.

I know from your posting history here that you don't mind people screwing you in business.
You are in the minority.

Your ad hominems belie

You spent two dozens posts make ad hominem insults, and then cry like a child when someone throws them back in your face? You ball-less pathetic excuse for a man. Grow up you childish trash. Come back when you are not a mindless hypocritical ape.

Please detail all of my ad hominems...

I did you scum sucking bit crap. Flush yourself. Maybe after you have been through the sewer a few times, you actually be cleaner than you are now.

The problem with people such as yourself (insult)
think you are...selectively stupid? (insult)
I could write a book on your delusions (insult)

Ad hominem after ad hominem, and now you want to bitch like the whine pathetic trash child that you are?
Grow up, you pathetic excuse for a human being. Go find someone to teach you some manors.

When people tell me I have a problem or I am being selectively stupid, I usually ask them to sit at a table and draw a flowchart.
Sometimes they are right, which is how I learned a lot about stuff in the last 10 years.
If the flowchart does not resemble how the world works, we have a discussion.
I am old enough to not take offense at the possibility people have experience I don't have.

Neo-Conservatism aka Ayn Rand, as opposed to Conservatism, does not produce a steady economy.
Neo-Conservatism is like cocaine.

 

[Indeependent]

I can tell you from professional experience that "GW's" Housing Bubble and Crash are going to occur again.

I can tell you the dregs of society , god's 'special children' ie corn-struction workers are all expecting a crash Indeep

I know for a fact that these people earn in the lower 20-30Ks and I am convinced that the Lenders are Rubber Stamping these Loans "Approved".
Just as in the GW years, there is no way the Tables in the software provided by the Municipalities, States and Federal levels of Government are allowing people who work in Pizza Shops to take out Home Equity Loads in the 600K range.

a recipe for another housing disaster

Everybody loves a great economy, but everyone wants to jump aboard before they're capable of earning and paying their own way.

true, but don't you sense the constant revaluation via fiscals such as the derivatives market a factor InDeep?

~S~

Institutional Trading should be Illegal.
I'm tired of egotistical assholes with a bullshit degree in Finance from a "prestigious" University that their daddy's bribe got them into, determining from thin air how a much a given piece of a MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATION, with an almost infinite amount of physical Assets & Liabilities alone, is worth at any given second.
HOW THE FUCK DO THEY KNOW????
It's a fucking game that they never lose at!

I explained it last week to a naive person here who wants to believe all people on Wall Street are honest.

I will now calm down...nah!

how a much a given piece of a MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATION, with an almost infinite amount of physical Assets & Liabilities alone, is worth at any given second.

If they're overpricing it, don't buy from them.
If they're underpricing it, don't sell to them.

I get the impression you were on the up and up.
Not so the Institutional Traders who are baiting the small guy.

The Market rides like a roller coaster all day long...there's no way that would happen if the data being fed to the masses were honest.
Are investors really pulling in and out of the same deal all day long?
No way.

It's like a big flashing advertisement, but when it fails, it destroys an entire economy.

In fact, with today's technology, crashes should never happen because we found out something that happened last year was suddenly discovered.

Just look at the Housing Crash...who didn't really know the Loans were BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD!
But everybody's got a dream.

Not so the Institutional Traders who are baiting the small guy.

Again... as I pointed out before, your 401K is run by institutional traders. Union pension funds, are run by institutional traders. The trust fund of schools like Yale and Harvard, are run by institutional traders. Annuities for old people retiring, are run by institutional traders.

Basically every single retirement, or investment program in the world, is run by institutional traders.

The small guy.... benefits specifically from institutional traders. I've doubled my money in the stock market, through an IRA..... run by institutional traders.

The Market rides like a roller coaster all day long...there's no way that would happen if the data being fed to the masses were honest.

Of course it would go up and down, with or without accurate information.

Just like there are hundreds of factors involved in the value of a stock, there are also hundreds of factors involved in investor choices.

Simple example: Had an idiot years ago, who during the sub-prime crash, sold all his stocks. He was convinced, the market was going to completely tank, and he was going to magically lose all his money.

So he sold all his stocks.

I on the other hand, I bought every single stock I could buy. Every single spare dollar I could grab, I purchased stocks with it.

The information we had was identical. He didn't have any more information than I did, and I didn't have any more information than him. Yet both of us had completely opposite reactions to the market.

Warren Buffet supposedly said (I've heard this from multiple sources, but I still can't confirm it), when he was asked by a reporter how much money he lost in the Sub-prime stock market crash, responded "None. I didn't sell my stocks".

So you have 3 different people, and each had different reactions to the same exact information. One guy sold all his stocks (which would drive prices down), one guy bought every stock he could be (which would drive prices up), and one guy did absolutely nothing.

Do you see the problem with your logic? You act like if everyone had perfect information, that we'd all do the exact same thing, and the market would be completely static.

Not so. People react differently to perfect information all the time.

So.... No. The market should naturally go up and down, constantly. It would be ridiculous to think otherwise.

It's like a big flashing advertisement, but when it fails, it destroys an entire economy.

Um... no. The stock market reflects the economy. Not the other way around. A stock market crash, can't somehow magically cause the economy to crash.

Just think about that logically for a moment. Say you are a company, like oh.... Apple Computer. Say the stock market hits a bump and crashes.

How does that affect you?

It doesn't. If people are still buying iPhones, you are still going to sell them. If people are still buying your computers, you are still going to sell them. If products are still being sold, you are still going to have them made.

How does the dropping of your stock price, cause Apple computer, or any other company you might work for, have any problems? It doesn't.

Let's take the 1929 Crash. Did that crash cause any companies to go under? No. In fact, the unemployment rate in 1929, even after the stock market crash, was still just 3%.

But why did the stock market crash? Because investors saw that Smoot Hawley tariffs were going to cash business to crash. In 1930, the Smoot Hawley tariff was imposed, and unemployment from all those businesses forced back into the US (that was sarcasm) jumped up to 8.7%. Then you had the dust bowl, unemployment hit 15%, and the Hoover tax increases to pay for all the government programs, and unemployment hit 23%, and then FDR's new deal, and unemployment hit 24%.

Historical US Unemployment Rate by Year

The unemployment rate has fluctuated greatly since 1929. Learn how GDP, inflation, economic events, and other policies have historically impacted unemployment.

www.thebalance.com

Again, did the crash in 1929 cause businesses to close? No. It was the Smoot-Hawley protectionism that caused businesses to close. The investors saw that coming, that's why the stock crash happened in 1929, when the bill to impose protectionism was introduced.

But none of the economic decline happened after the stock market crash. It happened as tariffs and retaliatory tariffs were placed against the US, which killed the economy, and people lost their jobs.

The stock market reacted to future implications. It didn't cause anything. Stock markets do not "cause" the economy to fail. The future information that the economy would fail, caused the markets to crash.

You are trying to put the cart in front of the horse.

Just look at the Housing Crash...who didn't really know the Loans were BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD!
But everybody's got a dream.

Who didn't know the loans were bad? Government. You want me to post videos of Maxine Waters, and Barnie Frank saying that everything was great? You want me to post the news articles where Freddie Mac signed a deal with First Union (wachovia) and Bear Stearns, two of the largest crashes.... to make bad sub-prime loans?

Or how about Obama who said openly, that sub-prime loans were a good idea?

Government didn't know the loans were bad. They pushed bad loans, throughout the entire sub-prime bubble.

Uh huh...Yeah.
By the way, The Great Depression, as defined by Milton Freidman in one of his last videos, was caused by excessive off-shoring of assets and the lack of technology to know those assets were wasted on parties. Yep, MF says it and every Conservative who hears that sentence blocks it out because Conservatives are just as mentally ill as Liberals.

The rest of your comments are pure nonsense as you have not spent any time in any Wall Street firm at a meeting attended and run by 20 MBAs who didn't care about anything else other than selling an idea or an actual product, regardless of the viability of the product.

Who didn't know the loans were bad? Government. You want me to post videos of Maxine Waters, and Barnie Frank saying that everything was great? You want me to post the news articles where Freddie Mac signed a deal with First Union (wachovia) and Bear Stearns, two of the largest crashes.... to make bad sub-prime loans?
Grow up already; every Loan Officer Rubber Stamped Loans. You really do live in Kansas, don't you?
Half of the Lenders in my community were hired by the Obama Administration to investigate these Papers stamped "Approved" because they were among the few Lenders who followed the Government provided software that Rejected the Loan; these Lenders lost their careers because there weren't enough Borrowers who listened to their advice and buy a less expensive home.

"The stock market reacted to future implications. It didn't cause anything. Stock markets do not "cause" the economy to fail. The future information that the economy would fail, caused the markets to crash."
I hope you're kidding...Stock markets can, and have, turned wealthy people into paupers in mere moments.
In fact, this happened a few months before Trump's tax cuts.

Or how about Obama who said openly, that sub-prime loans were a good idea?
You didn't listen to Rush back then, did you?
Rush loved sub-prime Loans and claimed the GW was a genius!
The Loans themselves were only a fraction of the issue as nobody cares if minorities lose their home and wind up homeless.
After all, there were no Smart Devices back then to storm Wall Street and hand the MBAs.
The Rubber Stamped Loans were packed into other projects, almost all doomed to fail, and then sold to Financial Firms in the Eastern Hemisphere.
Why? Because no firm here cared if a Bank in Asia could collect on the loan because the bankers here would conjure up another scheme to raise that money.

But Whitey made a mistake which I understood because I was taking Karate and understood the Asian mentality...
You owe me $1.00 this month, I'm not accepting $.99.
Sounds funny, doesn't it, but Asians back then, before we tainted them, work on real numbers, not American vapor.

I could go on but you already bought the Rush Limbaugh horse crap.

GW, The Rs and the Ds and every Financial Firm in the US caused a deficit that will never be paid off.
But Obama!..Saved you from starving by borrowing against the future.
You're so Lilly White...
Send your bank account and every check you get to the Fed.
But I work for my check!
You know why your boss has a business?
Obama borrowed against the future.
I was there, I saw business owners begging the banks for a penny!

I could write a book on your delusions, but what the heck, every RWer in my community still denies this GW farce.

Look, you're a really smart guy but so damned Yankee Doodle.
Stop responding to what you consider nonsense (since you weren't there and can only rely on Fox and The Wall Street Journal of Bullshit for your knowledge base).

By the way, The Great Depression, as defined by Milton Freidman in one of his last videos, was caused by excessive off-shoring of assets and the lack of technology to know those assets were wasted on parties. Yep, MF says it and every Conservative who hears that sentence blocks it out because Conservatives are just as mentally ill as Liberals.

Thomas Rustici on Smoot-Hawley and the Great Depression - Econlib

Thomas Rustici of George Mason University and author of Lessons from the Great Depression talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the impact of the Smoot-Hawley Act on the economy. The standard view is that the decrease in trade that followed Smoot-Hawley was not big enough to be a...

www.econtalk.org

Economist Rustici, clearly documents the effects of the Smoot Hawley tariff, and how it caused the crash. One clear example, is the Pittsburgh steel industry. The Smoot Hawley tariff, drastically increased the cost of raw iron ore from Canada. Of course Canada equally put in place a retaliatory tariff against steel imported from the US.

Do tell sparky... if you were a steel company, which would cause you more problems: A drop in your company stock price, or the price of your raw steel going up dramatically at the exact same time the price of your finished product steel dropping dramatically?

The rest of your comments are pure nonsense as you have not spent any time in any Wall Street firm at a meeting attended and run by 20 MBAs who didn't care about anything else other than selling an idea or an actual product, regardless of the viability of the product.

That is not a counter argument to anything I said.

Grow up already; every Loan Officer Rubber Stamped Loans.

Does not change anything I said. Not a counter argument to anything.
Again, if you want me to post the videos of Maxine Waters, and Barnie Frank both praising sub-prime loans, and Obama calling it a good idea, and Andrew Cuomo suing banks to make bad loans.... I will do so. But your statement, changes nothing.

Lenders who followed the Government provided software that Rejected the Loan; these Lenders lost their careers because there weren't enough Borrowers who listened to their advice and buy a less expensive home.

Robot Check

John A. Allison was CEO of BB&T bank, when regulators under the Clinton administration showed up, and required that they lower lending standards.

This is well documented.

But Obama!..Saved you from starving by borrowing against the future.

Bull crap. A number of countries did not bailout out their banks, and were just fine.

Plus, Obama was part of the group pushing sub-prime loans to being with. Only a brainless idiot, sees someone create a problem, and then present themselves as a solution to a problem they created, and claim they saved us.

You are dumbest moron on the face of the planet, if you honestly believe that.

You know why your boss has a business?
Obama borrowed against the future.
I was there, I saw business owners begging the banks for a penny!

My boss was not there. Nor did anything that created that company, or the products that company sold, ever come from Obama.

I could write a book on your delusions, but what the heck, every RWer in my community still denies this GW farce.

My delusions? Which one of us right now, is sitting around justifying government taking your tax money, and giving it to wealthy people?

Stop responding to what you consider nonsense (since you weren't there and can only rely on Fox and The Wall Street Journal of Bullshit for your knowledge base).

Well because I'm right. I know I'm right. You are wrong, and I can prove it. So why should I stop responding, when you are the one making insane claims?

Just out of curiosity, do you realize you didn't directly address anything I posted?

Why do you mention Europe when the I stated Obama had to bail out the world.

Why are you referencing some other video when MFs video is on YouTube?

Why are you blaming sub-primer loans alone when they were less than 3% of the crash?

Not to mention that the men who engineered the entire Lending Bubble, Alan Greenspan, Dick Cheney and Warren Buffet, made billions off the crash.

To be honest, you are so honest I wish you would run for office.

Yes, because you did not make any real points.

Because Obama didn't have to bail out the world. That is opinion. That is not a fact. It's opinion. We didn't bail out Lehman Brothers. It didn't doom the world.

Now I get it that banks claimed Obama had to bail out the world.... well of course they did. Those CEOs jobs are to save the company. If the only way to save the company is to get money from government, they are going to go to government ask for money.

And if the only way to convince government to give you money, is to claim that if you don't bail them out, that the world will end... then they are going to say you have to bail us out or the world will end.

But it's not true. That's just a bunch of rich people, saying whatever they have to say, to get cash.

No, Obama didn't have to bail out the world. The world would have been just fine, with zero bailouts. Iceland didn't bailout a single bank, and their big three banks that all failed, were a far larger percentage of their economy, then our banks were.

Iceland not only did not implode, but they recovered faster, and were recording great economic growth, while we were still in a recession.

Estonia years ago, also refused to bailout their banks, and their banks all went bankrupt and closed, and they recovered just fine, no problem.

Why are you referencing some other video when MFs video is on YouTube?

Because my videos are directly relevant to the topic at hand. Milton Friedman was not relevant to the topic at hand.

Why are you blaming sub-primer loans alone when they were less than 3% of the crash?

Because that is not true?

Sub-prime loans were almost 25% of the market by the end. And you'll notice, as I said before, that sub-prime loans were a niche market before 1997, when Bill Clinton, and his administration pushed Sub-prime loans into the main stream.

Not to mention that the men who engineered the entire Lending Bubble, Alan Greenspan, Dick Cheney and Warren Buffet, made billions off the crash.

People are always going to invest in ways that make a profit. People are going to invest in ways to make a profit, whether the economy is good, or the economy is bad.

Complaining that people made a profit, is pointless. They are always going to make a profit. That's like complaining it's sunny in Arizona, during a depression. Yeah, that's going to happen.

The question isn't "did people make a profit during....." We always answer that with.... yeah. That's what investors do. Investors make wise investments, that return a profit. They would not be investors, if they didn't make investments that returned a profit.

I myself, am an investor. In 2009, I was buying stocks even while the market was crashing. That's what wise investors do.

Even this year. When the market crashed back on Feb 20th, I started buying stocks. I've been buying stocks on the market since the beginning of this crash too. Because that's how you make wise investments, is by buying up stocks that are on sale.

So that is not a valid point. Pointing out that wise investors were investing wisely during the sub-prime crash, is not a valid point of anything. That's like saying "duh". Yeah, investors invested. Duh.

The only valid question is, why did sub-prime loans go from being a niche market, where they should have stayed... to being mainstream and taking up almost 1/4th of the market?

The answer is.... government. Freddie Mac in 1997, signed a deal with First Union (wachovia) and Bear Stearns, to give Sub-prime mortgages a AAA rating.

Bear Stearns, the CRA, and Freddie Mac - Cafe Hayek

I keep hearing that the subprime crisis was caused by people willing to buy stuff they couldn't evaluate. Why would smart people do that? One answer is that they were stupid. In an era of rising home prices, it's hard...

cafehayek.com

CHARLOTTE – First Union Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment​

Act (CRA) loans – marking the industry’s first public securitization of​

CRA loans.​

​

The affordable mortgages were originated or acquired by First Union​

Corporation and subsidiaries. Customers will experience no impact –​

they will continue to make payments to and be serviced by First Union​

Mortgage Corp. CRA loans are loans targeted to low and moderate income​

borrowers and neighborhoods under the Community Reinvestment Act of​

1977.​

​

"The securitization of these affordable mortgages allows us to redeploy​

capital back into our communities and to expand our ability to provide​

credit to low and moderate income individuals," said Jane Henderson,​

managing director of First Union’s Community Reinvestment and Fair​

Lending Programs. "First Union is committed to promoting home ownership​

in traditionally underserved markets through a comprehensive line of​

competitive and flexible affordable mortgage products. This transaction​

enables us to continue to aggressively serve those markets."​

​

The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and​

have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the​

investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation.​

Again, this is well documented.

And at the same time, Andrew Cuomo was suing banks to force them to make bad loans.



Andrew Cuomo admitted openly, that this would force the bank to make loans to people who otherwise would not qualify. Meaning, people who did not qualify for prime rate mortgages.... AND Cuomo equally admitted that the default rate would be higher.

Again, government forced banks to make bad loans, and rewarded sub-prime loans, and encourages sub-prime loans by giving them a AAA rating. This is well documented.

You are distracted...
Simple question...Start off with Yes/No and then we'll discuss if this ever happened and it's short and long effect on the economy where it happened.
Should legislation allow this to occur?

In a free market, can companies suddenly leave a nation in droves leaving millions of people who cannot afford to start their own unemployed?
Should legislation allow this to occur?

In a free market, can companies suddenly and simply lay off millions of employees and replace them with foreigners?
Should legislation allow this to occur?

That is a dumb question though. You are implying that somehow you can force people to hire other people?

That's tyranny. You are talking about Stalinism now.

Say I run a company.... what law are you going to pass, that is going to stop me from closing down the company? It's my company. I own it.

Are you going to do what Hugo Chavez did, and have soldiers forcibly remove owners from their companies, if they don't hire people?

Venezuelans Despair as Companies Flee

Irish packaging giant Smurfit left Venezuela amid a spat with the socialist government, joining other multinationals abandoning the sinking economy.

www.wsj.com

If you try and force companies to do what you want, they will leave completely.

This idea that "well if we just have a policy that says companies can't do stuff"... no, they'll just leave the country completely.

Then you won't have to worry about them hiring foreigners, because they wont' be hiring anyone in the US.

So to answer your question directly... Yeah I believe in freedom. And we are not a dictatorship, and no there should not be totalitarian rules on who companies hire.

You know that India tried that, right? India had rules on outsourcing, and rules on exactly who could be hired by any company.

The result was that companies that were created in India, moved all their operations out of India.

I believe Tata Motors was a huge one, that had all their operations spread out across the world, with virtually nothing in their home country of India. And they interviewed the CEO, and his answer was, because of all the regulations and laws.

So if you think you are going to somehow FORCE companies to act in a way you want... it's not going to happen. Whether you have the regulations "allowing" it or not, doesn't matter. If you pass all the regulations you want, they'll just not employ people in the US.

Excellent!
Guess what?
From a legal standpoint you are incredibly incorrect.
Every piece of Congressional legislation regarding the US economy requires an assay describing why it's good for the US economy.
And guess what, Free Market legislation caused the 2 biggest Global Crashes in the last century.
But the elite who endorsed the legislation become even wealthier.

But they'll leave!
Who 's the world biggest consumer?
Huh?
They'll leave?
Do you ever look around?
THEY LEFT!
And our economy crashed!

I wouldn't use India as a paradigm of how to run a nation as almost 100% of their population lives in unimaginable poverty.

They won't leave.

And guess what, Free Market legislation caused the 2 biggest Global Crashes in the last century.

Factually wrong, and I proved it with evidence already.

Who 's the world biggest consumer?
Huh?
They'll leave?
Do you ever look around?
THEY LEFT!
And our economy crashed!

Also factually wrong. Apple Computer, and numerous others, make more money outside the US, than inside.

Apple Computer still has 90,000 employees in the US. If they had left, it would be zero. Exxon has zero employees in Venezuela today.

Many companies still have tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, and likely collectively have millions of employees in the US. If you want that to be zero.... you can achieve that by trying to regulate the crap out of them.

And no, our economy did not crash because they left.

I wouldn't use India as a paradigm of how to run a nation as almost 100% of their population lives in unimaginable poverty.
They won't leave.

Right, they live in poverty, because in the past they were following your ideology in economics. By the way, as they have left your ideology in economics, and embraced more free-market capitalism, they have far fewer today in unimaginable poverty, as they did before.

Yes, they will leave. I guarantee you they will leave.

By the way, you are talking in circles.

You just said they all left, and we had a crash. Now you are saying they won't leave. Those are mutually exclusive statements.

Regardless.... the rules of economic fundamentals are true, no matter the culture, nation, or time frame.

Economic fundamentals don't change because one nation is poor, and another is rich.

Saying they won't leave is ridiculous. Of course they will leave. When France instituted a wealth tax, thousands packed up and left. When Jamaica put in place capital controls, companies simply closed, and reopened in Miami.

You can see this just within the states. Why do you think Amazon opened another HQ outside Seattle?

1,800 Companies Left California In a Year - With Most Bound for Texas

A record number of companies are leaving California for states with a better business climate, and a new report shows that Texas remains their No. 1 destination. See why they are being urged to leave the state, and what is bringing them to Texas.

www.southstarcommunities.com

Why have over 1800 companies moved from California to Texas? Texas is largely free-market capitalist, and California is more regulation and control.

If you put enough regulations, that companies have a hard time, they'll leave. I promise you they'll leave.

I usually respect your posts but you are being so willfully ignorant it's almost surreal.
I read your reason why the Free Market didn't cause two crashes and I'm beginning to think you are...selectively stupid?

I understand why companies move within our borders because that does not destroy the national economy.
You completely ignored what happens to the US economy when 25K companies leave withing 4 years and get a tax break on the relocation costs.

India's religion causes their mass poverty...out of 1,000 castes, only the top 2 or 3 are even allowed to work in a profession that requires an education.
Step out of bounds and you are executed.
It has nothing to do with economics; their Priests live very well despite their rampant lack of intelligence.
If they were so brilliant they wouldn't have to come to the US.
Your ignorance of what goes in India is insulting to the billions who are doomed to live in poverty.

The problem with people such as yourself is you're are 98% book knowledge and almost 0% looking at what's happening on the ground.
You sound like the guys I know who get their "real" news from The Wall Street Journal, which, by the way, along with 100% of your Conservative heroes, predicted a Global Market Crash would occur if Trump won.
So much for your "heroes".

I know, I know...you didn't read that about Trump anywhere!

Oh, I almost forgot!
Remember when Wall Street hated Apple?
Of course you don't.
Only about 2-3 years ago...Apple wasn't releasing a new phone every 6 months because Tim Cook didn't want to be a whore to Wall Street.

Remember when Wall Street hated Amazon?
Of course you don't.
Only about 3-4 years ago...Amazon invested millions into local Warehouses and Wall Street gave them the boot.
Bezos was right and now Wall Street kisses his ass all day long.

think you are...selectively stupid?

You are an idiot. Keep your mouth shut, if you have nothing of value to say.

Your ignorance of what goes in India is insulting to the billions who are doomed to live in poverty.

You are proving to me, that I know far more about it than you. Moron.

The problem with people such as yourself

I already know. It's we spend too much time talking to complete useless trash like you. You added nothing but insults and trash to this discussion. Do the world a favor, and shut up.

Oh, I almost forgot!

The only thing you forgot, was whatever manors your parents should have taught you. You are pathetic, childish and worthless as a human being.

Hey, if you want to crap out insults non-stop, and have nothing of value to say, then I can play that game. Get lost trash. You have not provided one single valid argument, or one single bit of evidence in this thread yet.

Go back to whatever rock you crawled out of, and die there. Do the world of favor, because you certainly are not doing any of us any favors, spewing your non-stop trash here.

I know lots of people from India...If you're not in the top 2 castes, you're screwed for life.

Have fun living with you "books".

Your ad hominems belie your contempt for anyone who doesn't subscribe to what your books tell you.
Don't worry. almost every Conservative I know has had their economic asses kicked at least once in their life.

Please detail all of my ad hominems...
Oh yeah, besides the selectively stupid comment, I didn't post any at all.
I only posted what actually goes on as opposed to theory.

I know from your posting history here that you don't mind people screwing you in business.
You are in the minority.

Your ad hominems belie

You spent two dozens posts make ad hominem insults, and then cry like a child when someone throws them back in your face? You ball-less pathetic excuse for a man. Grow up you childish trash. Come back when you are not a mindless hypocritical ape.

Please detail all of my ad hominems...

I did you scum sucking bit crap. Flush yourself. Maybe after you have been through the sewer a few times, you actually be cleaner than you are now.

The problem with people such as yourself (insult)
think you are...selectively stupid? (insult)
I could write a book on your delusions (insult)

Ad hominem after ad hominem, and now you want to bitch like the whine pathetic trash child that you are?
Grow up, you pathetic excuse for a human being. Go find someone to teach you some manors.

Based upon observable facts aka that no one here, besides myself and a lot Liberals who can't stand you at all, has discussions with you but they have lots of discussions with me, I would be missed...you wouldn't be missed.

 

[Andylusion]

I can tell you from professional experience that "GW's" Housing Bubble and Crash are going to occur again.

I can tell you the dregs of society , god's 'special children' ie corn-struction workers are all expecting a crash Indeep

I know for a fact that these people earn in the lower 20-30Ks and I am convinced that the Lenders are Rubber Stamping these Loans "Approved".
Just as in the GW years, there is no way the Tables in the software provided by the Municipalities, States and Federal levels of Government are allowing people who work in Pizza Shops to take out Home Equity Loads in the 600K range.

a recipe for another housing disaster

Everybody loves a great economy, but everyone wants to jump aboard before they're capable of earning and paying their own way.

true, but don't you sense the constant revaluation via fiscals such as the derivatives market a factor InDeep?

~S~

Institutional Trading should be Illegal.
I'm tired of egotistical assholes with a bullshit degree in Finance from a "prestigious" University that their daddy's bribe got them into, determining from thin air how a much a given piece of a MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATION, with an almost infinite amount of physical Assets & Liabilities alone, is worth at any given second.
HOW THE FUCK DO THEY KNOW????
It's a fucking game that they never lose at!

I explained it last week to a naive person here who wants to believe all people on Wall Street are honest.

I will now calm down...nah!

how a much a given piece of a MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATION, with an almost infinite amount of physical Assets & Liabilities alone, is worth at any given second.

If they're overpricing it, don't buy from them.
If they're underpricing it, don't sell to them.

I get the impression you were on the up and up.
Not so the Institutional Traders who are baiting the small guy.

The Market rides like a roller coaster all day long...there's no way that would happen if the data being fed to the masses were honest.
Are investors really pulling in and out of the same deal all day long?
No way.

It's like a big flashing advertisement, but when it fails, it destroys an entire economy.

In fact, with today's technology, crashes should never happen because we found out something that happened last year was suddenly discovered.

Just look at the Housing Crash...who didn't really know the Loans were BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD!
But everybody's got a dream.

Not so the Institutional Traders who are baiting the small guy.

Again... as I pointed out before, your 401K is run by institutional traders. Union pension funds, are run by institutional traders. The trust fund of schools like Yale and Harvard, are run by institutional traders. Annuities for old people retiring, are run by institutional traders.

Basically every single retirement, or investment program in the world, is run by institutional traders.

The small guy.... benefits specifically from institutional traders. I've doubled my money in the stock market, through an IRA..... run by institutional traders.

The Market rides like a roller coaster all day long...there's no way that would happen if the data being fed to the masses were honest.

Of course it would go up and down, with or without accurate information.

Just like there are hundreds of factors involved in the value of a stock, there are also hundreds of factors involved in investor choices.

Simple example: Had an idiot years ago, who during the sub-prime crash, sold all his stocks. He was convinced, the market was going to completely tank, and he was going to magically lose all his money.

So he sold all his stocks.

I on the other hand, I bought every single stock I could buy. Every single spare dollar I could grab, I purchased stocks with it.

The information we had was identical. He didn't have any more information than I did, and I didn't have any more information than him. Yet both of us had completely opposite reactions to the market.

Warren Buffet supposedly said (I've heard this from multiple sources, but I still can't confirm it), when he was asked by a reporter how much money he lost in the Sub-prime stock market crash, responded "None. I didn't sell my stocks".

So you have 3 different people, and each had different reactions to the same exact information. One guy sold all his stocks (which would drive prices down), one guy bought every stock he could be (which would drive prices up), and one guy did absolutely nothing.

Do you see the problem with your logic? You act like if everyone had perfect information, that we'd all do the exact same thing, and the market would be completely static.

Not so. People react differently to perfect information all the time.

So.... No. The market should naturally go up and down, constantly. It would be ridiculous to think otherwise.

It's like a big flashing advertisement, but when it fails, it destroys an entire economy.

Um... no. The stock market reflects the economy. Not the other way around. A stock market crash, can't somehow magically cause the economy to crash.

Just think about that logically for a moment. Say you are a company, like oh.... Apple Computer. Say the stock market hits a bump and crashes.

How does that affect you?

It doesn't. If people are still buying iPhones, you are still going to sell them. If people are still buying your computers, you are still going to sell them. If products are still being sold, you are still going to have them made.

How does the dropping of your stock price, cause Apple computer, or any other company you might work for, have any problems? It doesn't.

Let's take the 1929 Crash. Did that crash cause any companies to go under? No. In fact, the unemployment rate in 1929, even after the stock market crash, was still just 3%.

But why did the stock market crash? Because investors saw that Smoot Hawley tariffs were going to cash business to crash. In 1930, the Smoot Hawley tariff was imposed, and unemployment from all those businesses forced back into the US (that was sarcasm) jumped up to 8.7%. Then you had the dust bowl, unemployment hit 15%, and the Hoover tax increases to pay for all the government programs, and unemployment hit 23%, and then FDR's new deal, and unemployment hit 24%.

Historical US Unemployment Rate by Year

The unemployment rate has fluctuated greatly since 1929. Learn how GDP, inflation, economic events, and other policies have historically impacted unemployment.

www.thebalance.com

Again, did the crash in 1929 cause businesses to close? No. It was the Smoot-Hawley protectionism that caused businesses to close. The investors saw that coming, that's why the stock crash happened in 1929, when the bill to impose protectionism was introduced.

But none of the economic decline happened after the stock market crash. It happened as tariffs and retaliatory tariffs were placed against the US, which killed the economy, and people lost their jobs.

The stock market reacted to future implications. It didn't cause anything. Stock markets do not "cause" the economy to fail. The future information that the economy would fail, caused the markets to crash.

You are trying to put the cart in front of the horse.

Just look at the Housing Crash...who didn't really know the Loans were BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD!
But everybody's got a dream.

Who didn't know the loans were bad? Government. You want me to post videos of Maxine Waters, and Barnie Frank saying that everything was great? You want me to post the news articles where Freddie Mac signed a deal with First Union (wachovia) and Bear Stearns, two of the largest crashes.... to make bad sub-prime loans?

Or how about Obama who said openly, that sub-prime loans were a good idea?

Government didn't know the loans were bad. They pushed bad loans, throughout the entire sub-prime bubble.

Uh huh...Yeah.
By the way, The Great Depression, as defined by Milton Freidman in one of his last videos, was caused by excessive off-shoring of assets and the lack of technology to know those assets were wasted on parties. Yep, MF says it and every Conservative who hears that sentence blocks it out because Conservatives are just as mentally ill as Liberals.

The rest of your comments are pure nonsense as you have not spent any time in any Wall Street firm at a meeting attended and run by 20 MBAs who didn't care about anything else other than selling an idea or an actual product, regardless of the viability of the product.

Who didn't know the loans were bad? Government. You want me to post videos of Maxine Waters, and Barnie Frank saying that everything was great? You want me to post the news articles where Freddie Mac signed a deal with First Union (wachovia) and Bear Stearns, two of the largest crashes.... to make bad sub-prime loans?
Grow up already; every Loan Officer Rubber Stamped Loans. You really do live in Kansas, don't you?
Half of the Lenders in my community were hired by the Obama Administration to investigate these Papers stamped "Approved" because they were among the few Lenders who followed the Government provided software that Rejected the Loan; these Lenders lost their careers because there weren't enough Borrowers who listened to their advice and buy a less expensive home.

"The stock market reacted to future implications. It didn't cause anything. Stock markets do not "cause" the economy to fail. The future information that the economy would fail, caused the markets to crash."
I hope you're kidding...Stock markets can, and have, turned wealthy people into paupers in mere moments.
In fact, this happened a few months before Trump's tax cuts.

Or how about Obama who said openly, that sub-prime loans were a good idea?
You didn't listen to Rush back then, did you?
Rush loved sub-prime Loans and claimed the GW was a genius!
The Loans themselves were only a fraction of the issue as nobody cares if minorities lose their home and wind up homeless.
After all, there were no Smart Devices back then to storm Wall Street and hand the MBAs.
The Rubber Stamped Loans were packed into other projects, almost all doomed to fail, and then sold to Financial Firms in the Eastern Hemisphere.
Why? Because no firm here cared if a Bank in Asia could collect on the loan because the bankers here would conjure up another scheme to raise that money.

But Whitey made a mistake which I understood because I was taking Karate and understood the Asian mentality...
You owe me $1.00 this month, I'm not accepting $.99.
Sounds funny, doesn't it, but Asians back then, before we tainted them, work on real numbers, not American vapor.

I could go on but you already bought the Rush Limbaugh horse crap.

GW, The Rs and the Ds and every Financial Firm in the US caused a deficit that will never be paid off.
But Obama!..Saved you from starving by borrowing against the future.
You're so Lilly White...
Send your bank account and every check you get to the Fed.
But I work for my check!
You know why your boss has a business?
Obama borrowed against the future.
I was there, I saw business owners begging the banks for a penny!

I could write a book on your delusions, but what the heck, every RWer in my community still denies this GW farce.

Look, you're a really smart guy but so damned Yankee Doodle.
Stop responding to what you consider nonsense (since you weren't there and can only rely on Fox and The Wall Street Journal of Bullshit for your knowledge base).

By the way, The Great Depression, as defined by Milton Freidman in one of his last videos, was caused by excessive off-shoring of assets and the lack of technology to know those assets were wasted on parties. Yep, MF says it and every Conservative who hears that sentence blocks it out because Conservatives are just as mentally ill as Liberals.

Thomas Rustici on Smoot-Hawley and the Great Depression - Econlib

Thomas Rustici of George Mason University and author of Lessons from the Great Depression talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the impact of the Smoot-Hawley Act on the economy. The standard view is that the decrease in trade that followed Smoot-Hawley was not big enough to be a...

www.econtalk.org

Economist Rustici, clearly documents the effects of the Smoot Hawley tariff, and how it caused the crash. One clear example, is the Pittsburgh steel industry. The Smoot Hawley tariff, drastically increased the cost of raw iron ore from Canada. Of course Canada equally put in place a retaliatory tariff against steel imported from the US.

Do tell sparky... if you were a steel company, which would cause you more problems: A drop in your company stock price, or the price of your raw steel going up dramatically at the exact same time the price of your finished product steel dropping dramatically?

The rest of your comments are pure nonsense as you have not spent any time in any Wall Street firm at a meeting attended and run by 20 MBAs who didn't care about anything else other than selling an idea or an actual product, regardless of the viability of the product.

That is not a counter argument to anything I said.

Grow up already; every Loan Officer Rubber Stamped Loans.

Does not change anything I said. Not a counter argument to anything.
Again, if you want me to post the videos of Maxine Waters, and Barnie Frank both praising sub-prime loans, and Obama calling it a good idea, and Andrew Cuomo suing banks to make bad loans.... I will do so. But your statement, changes nothing.

Lenders who followed the Government provided software that Rejected the Loan; these Lenders lost their careers because there weren't enough Borrowers who listened to their advice and buy a less expensive home.

Robot Check

John A. Allison was CEO of BB&T bank, when regulators under the Clinton administration showed up, and required that they lower lending standards.

This is well documented.

But Obama!..Saved you from starving by borrowing against the future.

Bull crap. A number of countries did not bailout out their banks, and were just fine.

Plus, Obama was part of the group pushing sub-prime loans to being with. Only a brainless idiot, sees someone create a problem, and then present themselves as a solution to a problem they created, and claim they saved us.

You are dumbest moron on the face of the planet, if you honestly believe that.

You know why your boss has a business?
Obama borrowed against the future.
I was there, I saw business owners begging the banks for a penny!

My boss was not there. Nor did anything that created that company, or the products that company sold, ever come from Obama.

I could write a book on your delusions, but what the heck, every RWer in my community still denies this GW farce.

My delusions? Which one of us right now, is sitting around justifying government taking your tax money, and giving it to wealthy people?

Stop responding to what you consider nonsense (since you weren't there and can only rely on Fox and The Wall Street Journal of Bullshit for your knowledge base).

Well because I'm right. I know I'm right. You are wrong, and I can prove it. So why should I stop responding, when you are the one making insane claims?

Just out of curiosity, do you realize you didn't directly address anything I posted?

Why do you mention Europe when the I stated Obama had to bail out the world.

Why are you referencing some other video when MFs video is on YouTube?

Why are you blaming sub-primer loans alone when they were less than 3% of the crash?

Not to mention that the men who engineered the entire Lending Bubble, Alan Greenspan, Dick Cheney and Warren Buffet, made billions off the crash.

To be honest, you are so honest I wish you would run for office.

Yes, because you did not make any real points.

Because Obama didn't have to bail out the world. That is opinion. That is not a fact. It's opinion. We didn't bail out Lehman Brothers. It didn't doom the world.

Now I get it that banks claimed Obama had to bail out the world.... well of course they did. Those CEOs jobs are to save the company. If the only way to save the company is to get money from government, they are going to go to government ask for money.

And if the only way to convince government to give you money, is to claim that if you don't bail them out, that the world will end... then they are going to say you have to bail us out or the world will end.

But it's not true. That's just a bunch of rich people, saying whatever they have to say, to get cash.

No, Obama didn't have to bail out the world. The world would have been just fine, with zero bailouts. Iceland didn't bailout a single bank, and their big three banks that all failed, were a far larger percentage of their economy, then our banks were.

Iceland not only did not implode, but they recovered faster, and were recording great economic growth, while we were still in a recession.

Estonia years ago, also refused to bailout their banks, and their banks all went bankrupt and closed, and they recovered just fine, no problem.

Why are you referencing some other video when MFs video is on YouTube?

Because my videos are directly relevant to the topic at hand. Milton Friedman was not relevant to the topic at hand.

Why are you blaming sub-primer loans alone when they were less than 3% of the crash?

Because that is not true?

Sub-prime loans were almost 25% of the market by the end. And you'll notice, as I said before, that sub-prime loans were a niche market before 1997, when Bill Clinton, and his administration pushed Sub-prime loans into the main stream.

Not to mention that the men who engineered the entire Lending Bubble, Alan Greenspan, Dick Cheney and Warren Buffet, made billions off the crash.

People are always going to invest in ways that make a profit. People are going to invest in ways to make a profit, whether the economy is good, or the economy is bad.

Complaining that people made a profit, is pointless. They are always going to make a profit. That's like complaining it's sunny in Arizona, during a depression. Yeah, that's going to happen.

The question isn't "did people make a profit during....." We always answer that with.... yeah. That's what investors do. Investors make wise investments, that return a profit. They would not be investors, if they didn't make investments that returned a profit.

I myself, am an investor. In 2009, I was buying stocks even while the market was crashing. That's what wise investors do.

Even this year. When the market crashed back on Feb 20th, I started buying stocks. I've been buying stocks on the market since the beginning of this crash too. Because that's how you make wise investments, is by buying up stocks that are on sale.

So that is not a valid point. Pointing out that wise investors were investing wisely during the sub-prime crash, is not a valid point of anything. That's like saying "duh". Yeah, investors invested. Duh.

The only valid question is, why did sub-prime loans go from being a niche market, where they should have stayed... to being mainstream and taking up almost 1/4th of the market?

The answer is.... government. Freddie Mac in 1997, signed a deal with First Union (wachovia) and Bear Stearns, to give Sub-prime mortgages a AAA rating.

Bear Stearns, the CRA, and Freddie Mac - Cafe Hayek

I keep hearing that the subprime crisis was caused by people willing to buy stuff they couldn't evaluate. Why would smart people do that? One answer is that they were stupid. In an era of rising home prices, it's hard...

cafehayek.com

CHARLOTTE – First Union Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment​

Act (CRA) loans – marking the industry’s first public securitization of​

CRA loans.​

​

The affordable mortgages were originated or acquired by First Union​

Corporation and subsidiaries. Customers will experience no impact –​

they will continue to make payments to and be serviced by First Union​

Mortgage Corp. CRA loans are loans targeted to low and moderate income​

borrowers and neighborhoods under the Community Reinvestment Act of​

1977.​

​

"The securitization of these affordable mortgages allows us to redeploy​

capital back into our communities and to expand our ability to provide​

credit to low and moderate income individuals," said Jane Henderson,​

managing director of First Union’s Community Reinvestment and Fair​

Lending Programs. "First Union is committed to promoting home ownership​

in traditionally underserved markets through a comprehensive line of​

competitive and flexible affordable mortgage products. This transaction​

enables us to continue to aggressively serve those markets."​

​

The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and​

have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the​

investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation.​

Again, this is well documented.

And at the same time, Andrew Cuomo was suing banks to force them to make bad loans.



Andrew Cuomo admitted openly, that this would force the bank to make loans to people who otherwise would not qualify. Meaning, people who did not qualify for prime rate mortgages.... AND Cuomo equally admitted that the default rate would be higher.

Again, government forced banks to make bad loans, and rewarded sub-prime loans, and encourages sub-prime loans by giving them a AAA rating. This is well documented.

You are distracted...
Simple question...Start off with Yes/No and then we'll discuss if this ever happened and it's short and long effect on the economy where it happened.
Should legislation allow this to occur?

In a free market, can companies suddenly leave a nation in droves leaving millions of people who cannot afford to start their own unemployed?
Should legislation allow this to occur?

In a free market, can companies suddenly and simply lay off millions of employees and replace them with foreigners?
Should legislation allow this to occur?

That is a dumb question though. You are implying that somehow you can force people to hire other people?

That's tyranny. You are talking about Stalinism now.

Say I run a company.... what law are you going to pass, that is going to stop me from closing down the company? It's my company. I own it.

Are you going to do what Hugo Chavez did, and have soldiers forcibly remove owners from their companies, if they don't hire people?

Venezuelans Despair as Companies Flee

Irish packaging giant Smurfit left Venezuela amid a spat with the socialist government, joining other multinationals abandoning the sinking economy.

www.wsj.com

If you try and force companies to do what you want, they will leave completely.

This idea that "well if we just have a policy that says companies can't do stuff"... no, they'll just leave the country completely.

Then you won't have to worry about them hiring foreigners, because they wont' be hiring anyone in the US.

So to answer your question directly... Yeah I believe in freedom. And we are not a dictatorship, and no there should not be totalitarian rules on who companies hire.

You know that India tried that, right? India had rules on outsourcing, and rules on exactly who could be hired by any company.

The result was that companies that were created in India, moved all their operations out of India.

I believe Tata Motors was a huge one, that had all their operations spread out across the world, with virtually nothing in their home country of India. And they interviewed the CEO, and his answer was, because of all the regulations and laws.

So if you think you are going to somehow FORCE companies to act in a way you want... it's not going to happen. Whether you have the regulations "allowing" it or not, doesn't matter. If you pass all the regulations you want, they'll just not employ people in the US.

Excellent!
Guess what?
From a legal standpoint you are incredibly incorrect.
Every piece of Congressional legislation regarding the US economy requires an assay describing why it's good for the US economy.
And guess what, Free Market legislation caused the 2 biggest Global Crashes in the last century.
But the elite who endorsed the legislation become even wealthier.

But they'll leave!
Who 's the world biggest consumer?
Huh?
They'll leave?
Do you ever look around?
THEY LEFT!
And our economy crashed!

I wouldn't use India as a paradigm of how to run a nation as almost 100% of their population lives in unimaginable poverty.

They won't leave.

And guess what, Free Market legislation caused the 2 biggest Global Crashes in the last century.

Factually wrong, and I proved it with evidence already.

Who 's the world biggest consumer?
Huh?
They'll leave?
Do you ever look around?
THEY LEFT!
And our economy crashed!

Also factually wrong. Apple Computer, and numerous others, make more money outside the US, than inside.

Apple Computer still has 90,000 employees in the US. If they had left, it would be zero. Exxon has zero employees in Venezuela today.

Many companies still have tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, and likely collectively have millions of employees in the US. If you want that to be zero.... you can achieve that by trying to regulate the crap out of them.

And no, our economy did not crash because they left.

I wouldn't use India as a paradigm of how to run a nation as almost 100% of their population lives in unimaginable poverty.
They won't leave.

Right, they live in poverty, because in the past they were following your ideology in economics. By the way, as they have left your ideology in economics, and embraced more free-market capitalism, they have far fewer today in unimaginable poverty, as they did before.

Yes, they will leave. I guarantee you they will leave.

By the way, you are talking in circles.

You just said they all left, and we had a crash. Now you are saying they won't leave. Those are mutually exclusive statements.

Regardless.... the rules of economic fundamentals are true, no matter the culture, nation, or time frame.

Economic fundamentals don't change because one nation is poor, and another is rich.

Saying they won't leave is ridiculous. Of course they will leave. When France instituted a wealth tax, thousands packed up and left. When Jamaica put in place capital controls, companies simply closed, and reopened in Miami.

You can see this just within the states. Why do you think Amazon opened another HQ outside Seattle?

1,800 Companies Left California In a Year - With Most Bound for Texas

A record number of companies are leaving California for states with a better business climate, and a new report shows that Texas remains their No. 1 destination. See why they are being urged to leave the state, and what is bringing them to Texas.

www.southstarcommunities.com

Why have over 1800 companies moved from California to Texas? Texas is largely free-market capitalist, and California is more regulation and control.

If you put enough regulations, that companies have a hard time, they'll leave. I promise you they'll leave.

I usually respect your posts but you are being so willfully ignorant it's almost surreal.
I read your reason why the Free Market didn't cause two crashes and I'm beginning to think you are...selectively stupid?

I understand why companies move within our borders because that does not destroy the national economy.
You completely ignored what happens to the US economy when 25K companies leave withing 4 years and get a tax break on the relocation costs.

India's religion causes their mass poverty...out of 1,000 castes, only the top 2 or 3 are even allowed to work in a profession that requires an education.
Step out of bounds and you are executed.
It has nothing to do with economics; their Priests live very well despite their rampant lack of intelligence.
If they were so brilliant they wouldn't have to come to the US.
Your ignorance of what goes in India is insulting to the billions who are doomed to live in poverty.

The problem with people such as yourself is you're are 98% book knowledge and almost 0% looking at what's happening on the ground.
You sound like the guys I know who get their "real" news from The Wall Street Journal, which, by the way, along with 100% of your Conservative heroes, predicted a Global Market Crash would occur if Trump won.
So much for your "heroes".

I know, I know...you didn't read that about Trump anywhere!

Oh, I almost forgot!
Remember when Wall Street hated Apple?
Of course you don't.
Only about 2-3 years ago...Apple wasn't releasing a new phone every 6 months because Tim Cook didn't want to be a whore to Wall Street.

Remember when Wall Street hated Amazon?
Of course you don't.
Only about 3-4 years ago...Amazon invested millions into local Warehouses and Wall Street gave them the boot.
Bezos was right and now Wall Street kisses his ass all day long.

think you are...selectively stupid?

You are an idiot. Keep your mouth shut, if you have nothing of value to say.

Your ignorance of what goes in India is insulting to the billions who are doomed to live in poverty.

You are proving to me, that I know far more about it than you. Moron.

The problem with people such as yourself

I already know. It's we spend too much time talking to complete useless trash like you. You added nothing but insults and trash to this discussion. Do the world a favor, and shut up.

Oh, I almost forgot!

The only thing you forgot, was whatever manors your parents should have taught you. You are pathetic, childish and worthless as a human being.

Hey, if you want to crap out insults non-stop, and have nothing of value to say, then I can play that game. Get lost trash. You have not provided one single valid argument, or one single bit of evidence in this thread yet.

Go back to whatever rock you crawled out of, and die there. Do the world of favor, because you certainly are not doing any of us any favors, spewing your non-stop trash here.

I know lots of people from India...If you're not in the top 2 castes, you're screwed for life.

Have fun living with you "books".

Your ad hominems belie your contempt for anyone who doesn't subscribe to what your books tell you.
Don't worry. almost every Conservative I know has had their economic asses kicked at least once in their life.

Please detail all of my ad hominems...
Oh yeah, besides the selectively stupid comment, I didn't post any at all.
I only posted what actually goes on as opposed to theory.

I know from your posting history here that you don't mind people screwing you in business.
You are in the minority.

Your ad hominems belie

You spent two dozens posts make ad hominem insults, and then cry like a child when someone throws them back in your face? You ball-less pathetic excuse for a man. Grow up you childish trash. Come back when you are not a mindless hypocritical ape.

Please detail all of my ad hominems...

I did you scum sucking bit crap. Flush yourself. Maybe after you have been through the sewer a few times, you actually be cleaner than you are now.

The problem with people such as yourself (insult)
think you are...selectively stupid? (insult)
I could write a book on your delusions (insult)

Ad hominem after ad hominem, and now you want to bitch like the whine pathetic trash child that you are?
Grow up, you pathetic excuse for a human being. Go find someone to teach you some manors.

Based upon observable facts aka that no one here, besides myself and a lot Liberals who can't stand you at all, has discussions with you but they have lots of discussions with me, I would be missed...you wouldn't be missed.

Oh good heavens.... "No U!"

I'm done with you. I'll never respond to someone so disgusting as and pathetic as you again. You can't even admit you started this insult fest, and are too childish to own when I called you out.

Proper response from an adult "You are right. I started this. Sorry, let's start this again".

Instead, I got the "I know you are, but what am I" response of a toddler.

You have disqualified yourself from this discussion. I am putting you on ignore, and I'll never see your worthless posts again. Sorry, I gave you a chance to grow up, and you blew it.

Good riddance.

 

[georgephillip]

Because every time I post that, you respond with a meme that Capitalism is horrible and Communism is great.
Do you eve read what you post?

I don't support capitalism or any version of communism (state capitalism) that has so far been practiced; why do you automatically assume anyone critical of finance capitalism supports Soviet-style communism?

 

[Indeependent]

Because every time I post that, you respond with a meme that Capitalism is horrible and Communism is great.
Do you eve read what you post?

I don't support capitalism or any version of communism (state capitalism) that has so far been practiced; why do you automatically assume anyone critical of finance capitalism supports Soviet-style communism?

You have to stop using memes and talk about abuses rather then simply posting Capitalism sucks.
You're the opposite of that young schmuck AndyLoser who's got a neo-Con stick up his emotionally abused ass.

 

[georgephillip]

By the way, we're all capitalists. You own something. That something is capital.

But again... the "capitalists" have no ability to determine the value of your labor. The customer does

Does your definition of capital accord with this one?

What Is Capital?

"Capital is a term for financial assets, such as funds held in deposit accounts and/or funds obtained from special financing sources. Capital can also be associated with capital assets of a company that requires significant amounts of capital to finance or expand."

Capitalists typically pay workers they employ as little as possible, and, since workers are also customers, I'm a little confused about how workers determine the value of their labor.

Possibly you would benefit by thinking of economics as the study of social creation and social distribution of society's resources?
Macroeconomics

 

[georgephillip]

Compared to the gulag.......we're slackers, eh comrade?

No one locks up disposable people better than capitalists, Rube.

School-to-prison pipeline - Wikipedia

"In the United States, the school-to-prison pipeline (SPP), also known as the school-to-prison link or the schoolhouse-to-jailhouse track, is the disproportionate tendency of minors and young adults from disadvantaged backgrounds to become incarcerated, because of increasingly harsh school and municipal policies."