Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Financial Institutions are a joke; they ignore regulations left and right because they never pay the price.The larger the organization and the easier it is to make money without producing an actual product, the easier it is to get away with nonsense.I have not seen such accountability.
I've seen fools pass the buck and other fools nod their heads like brain damaged parrots.
One thing the ACA did was to make medicine very lucrative.
Yes, the first 3 years where physicians had to upgrade their offices and bring their case management up to date was a nightmare.
If you believe what you said is a good thing, then you can't complain about the cost of health care.
What large organization would you claim, does not produce a product or service, and yet makes tons of money easily, over a long period of time. Note, you can't cite a company with ties to the government.
For example, you can't cite ethanol, where the government mandates the use of ethanol. That's not a free-market system.
7 CEOs and 0 Directors paid the price for the 2008 crash.
Well... the problem there is that government itself pushed for Sub-prime loans. Obama specifically, sued banks to force them to make sub-prime loans. Bill Clinton's Andrew Cuomo actually bragged about forcing banks to make sub-prime loans, and even admitted that these loans would have a higher default rate, which of course was true.
So claiming the banks should go to prison, because they were doing exactly what the government wanted, is a little hypocritical.
You do realize that out of all the financial institutions that failed, the most expensive bailout of the entire sub-prime crash..... was Freddie and Fannie. The government run corporations.
Additionally, I think it would be difficult to claim that these financial institutions produce nothing of value, given how many people use them routinely. 25 million use Bank of America, on a daily basis.
They must be doing something right.
I've been hearing banking commercials encouraging people to take out loans against the value of their house, to take vacations.
These people are fucking assholes. They would be happy to lend you enough money that you would spend the rest of your life in debt slavery, without a single thought of whether it was a good idea.
When I last took out a loan against the value of a house, we didn't even include my income, because we knew the bank would give us more credit than we thought was reasonable, just on my wife's income.
They are irresponsible assholes, who are not meeting their responsibilities.
No, most are not complete assholes. They just have short term goals and are not that interested in their net worth or what it might be in the future. Why? Because they're not going to be around that much longer. They want to take that dream vacation while they're able to enjoy it and aren't interested in what their estate will be worth upon their death. That's not necessarily a dumb thing to do. It's all a matter of priorities and what is truly important to you.Financial Institutions are a joke; they ignore regulations left and right because they never pay the price.The larger the organization and the easier it is to make money without producing an actual product, the easier it is to get away with nonsense.
One thing the ACA did was to make medicine very lucrative.
Yes, the first 3 years where physicians had to upgrade their offices and bring their case management up to date was a nightmare.
If you believe what you said is a good thing, then you can't complain about the cost of health care.
What large organization would you claim, does not produce a product or service, and yet makes tons of money easily, over a long period of time. Note, you can't cite a company with ties to the government.
For example, you can't cite ethanol, where the government mandates the use of ethanol. That's not a free-market system.
7 CEOs and 0 Directors paid the price for the 2008 crash.
Well... the problem there is that government itself pushed for Sub-prime loans. Obama specifically, sued banks to force them to make sub-prime loans. Bill Clinton's Andrew Cuomo actually bragged about forcing banks to make sub-prime loans, and even admitted that these loans would have a higher default rate, which of course was true.
So claiming the banks should go to prison, because they were doing exactly what the government wanted, is a little hypocritical.
You do realize that out of all the financial institutions that failed, the most expensive bailout of the entire sub-prime crash..... was Freddie and Fannie. The government run corporations.
Additionally, I think it would be difficult to claim that these financial institutions produce nothing of value, given how many people use them routinely. 25 million use Bank of America, on a daily basis.
They must be doing something right.
I've been hearing banking commercials encouraging people to take out loans against the value of their house, to take vacations.
These people are fucking assholes. They would be happy to lend you enough money that you would spend the rest of your life in debt slavery, without a single thought of whether it was a good idea.
When I last took out a loan against the value of a house, we didn't even include my income, because we knew the bank would give us more credit than we thought was reasonable, just on my wife's income.
They are irresponsible assholes, who are not meeting their responsibilities.
Bankers are not required to give financial advice, decent or otherwise. Some banks have financial advisers who for a fee give general and specially investment advice. Generally these people are not really part of the banking function. They are either in the brokerage or financial planning part of the business.No, most are not complete assholes. They just have short term goals and are not that interested in their net worth or what it might be in the future. Why? Because they're not going to be around that much longer. They want to take that dream vacation while they're able to enjoy it and aren't interested in what their estate will be worth upon their death. That's not necessarily a dumb thing to do. It's all a matter of priorities and what is truly important to you.Financial Institutions are a joke; they ignore regulations left and right because they never pay the price.If you believe what you said is a good thing, then you can't complain about the cost of health care.
What large organization would you claim, does not produce a product or service, and yet makes tons of money easily, over a long period of time. Note, you can't cite a company with ties to the government.
For example, you can't cite ethanol, where the government mandates the use of ethanol. That's not a free-market system.
7 CEOs and 0 Directors paid the price for the 2008 crash.
Well... the problem there is that government itself pushed for Sub-prime loans. Obama specifically, sued banks to force them to make sub-prime loans. Bill Clinton's Andrew Cuomo actually bragged about forcing banks to make sub-prime loans, and even admitted that these loans would have a higher default rate, which of course was true.
So claiming the banks should go to prison, because they were doing exactly what the government wanted, is a little hypocritical.
You do realize that out of all the financial institutions that failed, the most expensive bailout of the entire sub-prime crash..... was Freddie and Fannie. The government run corporations.
Additionally, I think it would be difficult to claim that these financial institutions produce nothing of value, given how many people use them routinely. 25 million use Bank of America, on a daily basis.
They must be doing something right.
I've been hearing banking commercials encouraging people to take out loans against the value of their house, to take vacations.
These people are fucking assholes. They would be happy to lend you enough money that you would spend the rest of your life in debt slavery, without a single thought of whether it was a good idea.
When I last took out a loan against the value of a house, we didn't even include my income, because we knew the bank would give us more credit than we thought was reasonable, just on my wife's income.
They are irresponsible assholes, who are not meeting their responsibilities.
No, the BANKERS are complete assholes. It is their professional responsibility to give decent financial advice to their customers.
Taking out a loan against the value of your home, to take a vacation is the exact opposite of that.
A Loan Officer is not allowed to override lending standards en masse.Bankers are not required to give financial advice, decent or otherwise. Some banks have financial advisers who for a fee give general and specially investment advice. Generally these people are not really part of the banking function. They are either in the brokerage or financial planning part of the business.No, most are not complete assholes. They just have short term goals and are not that interested in their net worth or what it might be in the future. Why? Because they're not going to be around that much longer. They want to take that dream vacation while they're able to enjoy it and aren't interested in what their estate will be worth upon their death. That's not necessarily a dumb thing to do. It's all a matter of priorities and what is truly important to you.Financial Institutions are a joke; they ignore regulations left and right because they never pay the price.
7 CEOs and 0 Directors paid the price for the 2008 crash.
Well... the problem there is that government itself pushed for Sub-prime loans. Obama specifically, sued banks to force them to make sub-prime loans. Bill Clinton's Andrew Cuomo actually bragged about forcing banks to make sub-prime loans, and even admitted that these loans would have a higher default rate, which of course was true.
So claiming the banks should go to prison, because they were doing exactly what the government wanted, is a little hypocritical.
You do realize that out of all the financial institutions that failed, the most expensive bailout of the entire sub-prime crash..... was Freddie and Fannie. The government run corporations.
Additionally, I think it would be difficult to claim that these financial institutions produce nothing of value, given how many people use them routinely. 25 million use Bank of America, on a daily basis.
They must be doing something right.
I've been hearing banking commercials encouraging people to take out loans against the value of their house, to take vacations.
These people are fucking assholes. They would be happy to lend you enough money that you would spend the rest of your life in debt slavery, without a single thought of whether it was a good idea.
When I last took out a loan against the value of a house, we didn't even include my income, because we knew the bank would give us more credit than we thought was reasonable, just on my wife's income.
They are irresponsible assholes, who are not meeting their responsibilities.
No, the BANKERS are complete assholes. It is their professional responsibility to give decent financial advice to their customers.
Taking out a loan against the value of your home, to take a vacation is the exact opposite of that.
Business Visa legislation is not based on available labor, it's based on competent labor.JP Morgan was responsible for Dodd-Frank...to destroy smaller firms.Then why do over 98% of Americans make $9.00/hour?
I was on Wall Street in the early 80s.
Reagan started fixing the economy to exclude minorities.
Now we have an albatross around our necks...a very expensive albatross.
I am hoping Trump's vision of bringing jobs and opportunities back to the US pays off.
Saint Ronald's worst policies was to ignore anti-trust restrictions and allow concentrations of industry to oligarchic and monopolistic levels not seen since the Gilded age of trusts, and this process is still going on. We've never had such a concentration of wealth in our history, and it has killed off small and mid-sized businesses and social mobility, and the sources of training for managerial and organizational talent.
What? Social mobility is massive today.
And actually, I would disagree with that claim completely. The lowest classes in this country, live a standard of living much closer to that of the wealthy elite today, than at any time in the past.
By any measure that is true today.
As for killing off mid-sized business, that's true, and it's because the government has more and more regulations and controls over the market than ever before.
And managerial training... that's just flat out false. Millions of companies have training programs and reimbursement programs.
Just like Microsoft killed off smaller software firms by giving stuff away.
How is that bad? If you can get software for a lower price, how is this bad?
That's like saying GM giving seat belts away for free in their cars, killed off the Tucker which was the first car to have seat belts.
How is the customer getting more products at a lower price, bad? If you are able to make a business model, that provides more products and services to the customer for a lower price, that's not a negative.
And yet, it will cause other companies that can't do that, to go out of business. Because they are not providing more services and products at a lower cost.
As for JP Morgan and Dodd-Frank..... all regulations inherently destroy competition and benefit the larger corporations.
This is inherent to all regulations. it's natural. Like rain causes things to get wet, regulations push out competition.
Even if JP Morgan had nothing to do with it... it would naturally benefit JP Morgan.
Why?
Because inherently the way regulations work, causes two results that both benefit the large corporations.
1. It reduces innovation and the ability to differentiate products and services.
How does a small or mid-size company, convince customers to use them over large companies that are well established and known? By either innovating and company up with a completely different product, or by modifying the product to be different than the large corporations product.
Regulations force companies to keep their products within a defined boundary. That makes the products from large companies, and small companies to be more like each other, and it prevents the smaller companies from innovating a new product.
Well if the small corp product, and large corp product are similar, why would you choose the small company which could be risky, because they could go out of business, over the large trusted company that is well established?
You wouldn't. You would be more likely to use the products from the large corporation, that you know and trust, sense both products are similar.
2. It levies expenses on both companies, which inherently means the larger more wealthy company, will be more easily able to afford those additional costs.
If you pass a regulation that costs half million to meet..... which company is going to be able to afford it? Your small size company that only makes a million a year? Or my mega corp that makes a hundred million a year? Or a billion a year?
Obviously my large corp will be easily able to afford the cost of meeting those regulations. Your tiny corp, is more likely to close, or sell out to me, since the cost of those regulations will eat up most of your revenue.
You're going to tell me that only Indians can produce the crap software that has plagued us since 1998?
Every Business Visa not from India was sent packing in the late 90s and early 2000s.
Microsoft's success caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs.
After the 2008, the laid off Business Visas weren't sent back to India.
Stores fired Americans, even those making Minimum Wage, and hired the BVs.
You know what it's like going to MACY's and being helped by someone who doesn't speak English?
Today Canadian tariffs on US imports go into effect on a lot more than just washing machines, steel products, aluminum products, and everything from Maple syrup to ball point pens. 25% EU tariffs have gone into effect on bourbon, Harleys, as well as agricultural products like orange and cranberry juice; to steel and aluminium items; to manufactured goods, such as makeup, clothes and boats.Wanna buy laundry equipment for your home? Good luck paying more than you used to, thanks to Donald J. Trump and his tariffs.
In this thread, we will come up with ideas as to how to lower said prices again:
Opinion | Trump’s tariffs are already backfiring
Today Canadian tariffs on US imports go into effect on a lot more than just washing machines, steel products, aluminum products, and everything from Maple syrup to ball point pens. 25% EU tariffs have gone into effect on bourbon, Harleys, as well as agricultural products like orange and cranberry juice; to steel and aluminium items; to manufactured goods, such as makeup, clothes and boats.Wanna buy laundry equipment for your home? Good luck paying more than you used to, thanks to Donald J. Trump and his tariffs.
In this thread, we will come up with ideas as to how to lower said prices again:
Opinion | Trump’s tariffs are already backfiring
And the insanity continues as governments taxes the most successful producers to protect the least successful and we all end up with poorer quality at a higher price.
Good job, Mr Trump. Keep it up and we will soon be in a recession.
Today Canadian tariffs on US imports go into effect on a lot more than just washing machines, steel products, aluminum products, and everything from Maple syrup to ball point pens. 25% EU tariffs have gone into effect on bourbon, Harleys, as well as agricultural products like orange and cranberry juice; to steel and aluminium items; to manufactured goods, such as makeup, clothes and boats.Wanna buy laundry equipment for your home? Good luck paying more than you used to, thanks to Donald J. Trump and his tariffs.
In this thread, we will come up with ideas as to how to lower said prices again:
Opinion | Trump’s tariffs are already backfiring
And the insanity continues as governments taxes the most successful producers to protect the least successful and we all end up with poorer quality at a higher price.
Good job, Mr Trump. Keep it up and we will soon be in a recession.
Today Canadian tariffs on US imports go into effect on a lot more than just washing machines, steel products, aluminum products, and everything from Maple syrup to ball point pens. 25% EU tariffs have gone into effect on bourbon, Harleys, as well as agricultural products like orange and cranberry juice; to steel and aluminium items; to manufactured goods, such as makeup, clothes and boats.Wanna buy laundry equipment for your home? Good luck paying more than you used to, thanks to Donald J. Trump and his tariffs.
In this thread, we will come up with ideas as to how to lower said prices again:
Opinion | Trump’s tariffs are already backfiring
And the insanity continues as governments taxes the most successful producers to protect the least successful and we all end up with poorer quality at a higher price.
Good job, Mr Trump. Keep it up and we will soon be in a recession.
Every pushback from our trading "partners" validates Trump's policy.
Trump has a policy?Today Canadian tariffs on US imports go into effect on a lot more than just washing machines, steel products, aluminum products, and everything from Maple syrup to ball point pens. 25% EU tariffs have gone into effect on bourbon, Harleys, as well as agricultural products like orange and cranberry juice; to steel and aluminium items; to manufactured goods, such as makeup, clothes and boats.Wanna buy laundry equipment for your home? Good luck paying more than you used to, thanks to Donald J. Trump and his tariffs.
In this thread, we will come up with ideas as to how to lower said prices again:
Opinion | Trump’s tariffs are already backfiring
And the insanity continues as governments taxes the most successful producers to protect the least successful and we all end up with poorer quality at a higher price.
Good job, Mr Trump. Keep it up and we will soon be in a recession.
Every pushback from our trading "partners" validates Trump's policy.
Today Canadian tariffs on US imports go into effect on a lot more than just washing machines, steel products, aluminum products, and everything from Maple syrup to ball point pens. 25% EU tariffs have gone into effect on bourbon, Harleys, as well as agricultural products like orange and cranberry juice; to steel and aluminium items; to manufactured goods, such as makeup, clothes and boats.Wanna buy laundry equipment for your home? Good luck paying more than you used to, thanks to Donald J. Trump and his tariffs.
In this thread, we will come up with ideas as to how to lower said prices again:
Opinion | Trump’s tariffs are already backfiring
And the insanity continues as governments taxes the most successful producers to protect the least successful and we all end up with poorer quality at a higher price.
Good job, Mr Trump. Keep it up and we will soon be in a recession.
Every pushback from our trading "partners" validates Trump's policy.Trump has a policy?Today Canadian tariffs on US imports go into effect on a lot more than just washing machines, steel products, aluminum products, and everything from Maple syrup to ball point pens. 25% EU tariffs have gone into effect on bourbon, Harleys, as well as agricultural products like orange and cranberry juice; to steel and aluminium items; to manufactured goods, such as makeup, clothes and boats.Wanna buy laundry equipment for your home? Good luck paying more than you used to, thanks to Donald J. Trump and his tariffs.
In this thread, we will come up with ideas as to how to lower said prices again:
Opinion | Trump’s tariffs are already backfiring
And the insanity continues as governments taxes the most successful producers to protect the least successful and we all end up with poorer quality at a higher price.
Good job, Mr Trump. Keep it up and we will soon be in a recession.
Every pushback from our trading "partners" validates Trump's policy.
Business Visa legislation is not based on available labor, it's based on competent labor.JP Morgan was responsible for Dodd-Frank...to destroy smaller firms.Then why do over 98% of Americans make $9.00/hour?
I was on Wall Street in the early 80s.
Reagan started fixing the economy to exclude minorities.
Now we have an albatross around our necks...a very expensive albatross.
I am hoping Trump's vision of bringing jobs and opportunities back to the US pays off.
Saint Ronald's worst policies was to ignore anti-trust restrictions and allow concentrations of industry to oligarchic and monopolistic levels not seen since the Gilded age of trusts, and this process is still going on. We've never had such a concentration of wealth in our history, and it has killed off small and mid-sized businesses and social mobility, and the sources of training for managerial and organizational talent.
What? Social mobility is massive today.
And actually, I would disagree with that claim completely. The lowest classes in this country, live a standard of living much closer to that of the wealthy elite today, than at any time in the past.
By any measure that is true today.
As for killing off mid-sized business, that's true, and it's because the government has more and more regulations and controls over the market than ever before.
And managerial training... that's just flat out false. Millions of companies have training programs and reimbursement programs.
Just like Microsoft killed off smaller software firms by giving stuff away.
How is that bad? If you can get software for a lower price, how is this bad?
That's like saying GM giving seat belts away for free in their cars, killed off the Tucker which was the first car to have seat belts.
How is the customer getting more products at a lower price, bad? If you are able to make a business model, that provides more products and services to the customer for a lower price, that's not a negative.
And yet, it will cause other companies that can't do that, to go out of business. Because they are not providing more services and products at a lower cost.
As for JP Morgan and Dodd-Frank..... all regulations inherently destroy competition and benefit the larger corporations.
This is inherent to all regulations. it's natural. Like rain causes things to get wet, regulations push out competition.
Even if JP Morgan had nothing to do with it... it would naturally benefit JP Morgan.
Why?
Because inherently the way regulations work, causes two results that both benefit the large corporations.
1. It reduces innovation and the ability to differentiate products and services.
How does a small or mid-size company, convince customers to use them over large companies that are well established and known? By either innovating and company up with a completely different product, or by modifying the product to be different than the large corporations product.
Regulations force companies to keep their products within a defined boundary. That makes the products from large companies, and small companies to be more like each other, and it prevents the smaller companies from innovating a new product.
Well if the small corp product, and large corp product are similar, why would you choose the small company which could be risky, because they could go out of business, over the large trusted company that is well established?
You wouldn't. You would be more likely to use the products from the large corporation, that you know and trust, sense both products are similar.
2. It levies expenses on both companies, which inherently means the larger more wealthy company, will be more easily able to afford those additional costs.
If you pass a regulation that costs half million to meet..... which company is going to be able to afford it? Your small size company that only makes a million a year? Or my mega corp that makes a hundred million a year? Or a billion a year?
Obviously my large corp will be easily able to afford the cost of meeting those regulations. Your tiny corp, is more likely to close, or sell out to me, since the cost of those regulations will eat up most of your revenue.
You're going to tell me that only Indians can produce the crap software that has plagued us since 1998?
Every Business Visa not from India was sent packing in the late 90s and early 2000s.
Microsoft's success caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs.
After the 2008, the laid off Business Visas weren't sent back to India.
Stores fired Americans, even those making Minimum Wage, and hired the BVs.
You know what it's like going to MACY's and being helped by someone who doesn't speak English?
We need the EU, Canada, Mexico, and the TPP countries.
More than they need us? I don't think so.
Last week I made a delivery to one of our customers we have been servicing for several years. The shipper told me I was not allowed to wait in my truck while getting loaded any longer; I must wait inside.
Slightly insulted at his hint I am not to be trusted in my truck while being loaded, he felt compelled to explain: he stated they got a huge new customer, and their new customer created guidelines for their shipping department. Regardless whether the shipper was dealing with their goods or not, they insisted that all drivers must be out of their trucks while loading or unloading.
We had another customer do a similar thing. They too created guidelines as to how the shipping department conduct their business whether the trucks are involved with their freight or not, and the company caved in.
I thought to myself, regardless how much business they gave me, I would tell them to F off. Certainly I could enforce guidelines on their freight or freight carriers, but not tell me how to run my shipping department for all.
It doesn't work that way unfortunately. Our second customer I mentioned makes us stop at the gate, tell them the order number and trailer, makes us come inside to sign a login sheet, and forces us to wait inside or drop the trailer while getting loaded or unloaded, all because Walmart made the rules.
The point I'm trying to make is this: your largest customers have a lot of leverage. The US is the largest customer of many of our trading partners. Sure, they will respond harshly to our tariffs, but given time, they will likely see a huge loss in exports and perhaps finally cave in.
We need the EU, Canada, Mexico, and the TPP countries.
More than they need us? I don't think so.
Last week I made a delivery to one of our customers we have been servicing for several years. The shipper told me I was not allowed to wait in my truck while getting loaded any longer; I must wait inside.
Slightly insulted at his hint I am not to be trusted in my truck while being loaded, he felt compelled to explain: he stated they got a huge new customer, and their new customer created guidelines for their shipping department. Regardless whether the shipper was dealing with their goods or not, they insisted that all drivers must be out of their trucks while loading or unloading.
We had another customer do a similar thing. They too created guidelines as to how the shipping department conduct their business whether the trucks are involved with their freight or not, and the company caved in.
I thought to myself, regardless how much business they gave me, I would tell them to F off. Certainly I could enforce guidelines on their freight or freight carriers, but not tell me how to run my shipping department for all.
It doesn't work that way unfortunately. Our second customer I mentioned makes us stop at the gate, tell them the order number and trailer, makes us come inside to sign a login sheet, and forces us to wait inside or drop the trailer while getting loaded or unloaded, all because Walmart made the rules.
The point I'm trying to make is this: your largest customers have a lot of leverage. The US is the largest customer of many of our trading partners. Sure, they will respond harshly to our tariffs, but given time, they will likely see a huge loss in exports and perhaps finally cave in.
There is one huge massive failure in this equation.
Politics. Yeah, when you are dealing with company between company, you are right, the person buying has leverage.
But country between country, that isn't the case. I just isn't. Simply put, there is no leverage there, that you think there is.
Mainly because you are dealing with politicians. Remember world war 1? There were tons of people throughout the world, who were literally writing books that international trade made war impossible. There was no way that Germany would go to war, because they imported so much of their materials from all the countries that they would go to war with.... specifically France.
But when you talk about fighting between nations, for someone to step back and acquiesce to someone else, makes them look weak. Standing firm, even when it wreaks economic damage, looks like strength to the public. You end up gaining support for destroying your economy, and losing support for gaining your economy.
If you want a modern example, just look at Russia. The wide spread sanctions against Russia, have utterly ruined their booming economy, and yet they are still fighting in the Ukraine, even now.
In the Trenches of the War in Ukraine, I See History Repeating Itself
If they did cave, the results would be that they would lose support of the public, and the government will fall.
We saw this in Greece. The Right-wing government agreed to the terms of the bailout, and From 2012 to 2014, the economy of Greece was on course for a steady recovery. Then the public voted against the government, and elected a Left-wing government, on the promise they would stick it to the EU, and ignore the requirements of the bailout. The result was the economy went on a massive dive, until the government realized they were on the verge of a complete default.
You want another example? The UK and the EU. The rallying cry for most of the Brexit supporters, was that we don't want Brussels dictating our national policy. Doesn't matter if those policies were ultimately good. What matters is, foreign people shouldn't be telling us what to do, and we're going to leave the EU to prevent that. Their economy had a massive (although short-term) crash from that policy, and only was short-term because nothing has happened yet.
People and governments, routinely will vote and push positions that are against their economic interest, in the name of maintaining their control over their policy.
So the idea that you are going to dictate policy to Mexico, or China, and they are going to cave, is simply not true.
I'm just saying.... it simply isn't true. They will not cave.
By the way, the US was a leader in trade before the great depression. Our tariffs on imported goods, had no leverage against the rest of the world, which only dug in its heals, and put in place retaliatory tariffs.... which is exactly what we are seeing today.
No, most are not complete assholes. They just have short term goals and are not that interested in their net worth or what it might be in the future. Why? Because they're not going to be around that much longer. They want to take that dream vacation while they're able to enjoy it and aren't interested in what their estate will be worth upon their death. That's not necessarily a dumb thing to do. It's all a matter of priorities and what is truly important to you.Financial Institutions are a joke; they ignore regulations left and right because they never pay the price.If you believe what you said is a good thing, then you can't complain about the cost of health care.
What large organization would you claim, does not produce a product or service, and yet makes tons of money easily, over a long period of time. Note, you can't cite a company with ties to the government.
For example, you can't cite ethanol, where the government mandates the use of ethanol. That's not a free-market system.
7 CEOs and 0 Directors paid the price for the 2008 crash.
Well... the problem there is that government itself pushed for Sub-prime loans. Obama specifically, sued banks to force them to make sub-prime loans. Bill Clinton's Andrew Cuomo actually bragged about forcing banks to make sub-prime loans, and even admitted that these loans would have a higher default rate, which of course was true.
So claiming the banks should go to prison, because they were doing exactly what the government wanted, is a little hypocritical.
You do realize that out of all the financial institutions that failed, the most expensive bailout of the entire sub-prime crash..... was Freddie and Fannie. The government run corporations.
Additionally, I think it would be difficult to claim that these financial institutions produce nothing of value, given how many people use them routinely. 25 million use Bank of America, on a daily basis.
They must be doing something right.
I've been hearing banking commercials encouraging people to take out loans against the value of their house, to take vacations.
These people are fucking assholes. They would be happy to lend you enough money that you would spend the rest of your life in debt slavery, without a single thought of whether it was a good idea.
When I last took out a loan against the value of a house, we didn't even include my income, because we knew the bank would give us more credit than we thought was reasonable, just on my wife's income.
They are irresponsible assholes, who are not meeting their responsibilities.
No, the BANKERS are complete assholes. It is their professional responsibility to give decent financial advice to their customers.
Taking out a loan against the value of your home, to take a vacation is the exact opposite of that.
I presume these programmers are not in NY or NJ.Business Visa legislation is not based on available labor, it's based on competent labor.JP Morgan was responsible for Dodd-Frank...to destroy smaller firms.Saint Ronald's worst policies was to ignore anti-trust restrictions and allow concentrations of industry to oligarchic and monopolistic levels not seen since the Gilded age of trusts, and this process is still going on. We've never had such a concentration of wealth in our history, and it has killed off small and mid-sized businesses and social mobility, and the sources of training for managerial and organizational talent.
What? Social mobility is massive today.
And actually, I would disagree with that claim completely. The lowest classes in this country, live a standard of living much closer to that of the wealthy elite today, than at any time in the past.
By any measure that is true today.
As for killing off mid-sized business, that's true, and it's because the government has more and more regulations and controls over the market than ever before.
And managerial training... that's just flat out false. Millions of companies have training programs and reimbursement programs.
Just like Microsoft killed off smaller software firms by giving stuff away.
How is that bad? If you can get software for a lower price, how is this bad?
That's like saying GM giving seat belts away for free in their cars, killed off the Tucker which was the first car to have seat belts.
How is the customer getting more products at a lower price, bad? If you are able to make a business model, that provides more products and services to the customer for a lower price, that's not a negative.
And yet, it will cause other companies that can't do that, to go out of business. Because they are not providing more services and products at a lower cost.
As for JP Morgan and Dodd-Frank..... all regulations inherently destroy competition and benefit the larger corporations.
This is inherent to all regulations. it's natural. Like rain causes things to get wet, regulations push out competition.
Even if JP Morgan had nothing to do with it... it would naturally benefit JP Morgan.
Why?
Because inherently the way regulations work, causes two results that both benefit the large corporations.
1. It reduces innovation and the ability to differentiate products and services.
How does a small or mid-size company, convince customers to use them over large companies that are well established and known? By either innovating and company up with a completely different product, or by modifying the product to be different than the large corporations product.
Regulations force companies to keep their products within a defined boundary. That makes the products from large companies, and small companies to be more like each other, and it prevents the smaller companies from innovating a new product.
Well if the small corp product, and large corp product are similar, why would you choose the small company which could be risky, because they could go out of business, over the large trusted company that is well established?
You wouldn't. You would be more likely to use the products from the large corporation, that you know and trust, sense both products are similar.
2. It levies expenses on both companies, which inherently means the larger more wealthy company, will be more easily able to afford those additional costs.
If you pass a regulation that costs half million to meet..... which company is going to be able to afford it? Your small size company that only makes a million a year? Or my mega corp that makes a hundred million a year? Or a billion a year?
Obviously my large corp will be easily able to afford the cost of meeting those regulations. Your tiny corp, is more likely to close, or sell out to me, since the cost of those regulations will eat up most of your revenue.
You're going to tell me that only Indians can produce the crap software that has plagued us since 1998?
Every Business Visa not from India was sent packing in the late 90s and early 2000s.
Microsoft's success caused millions of Americans to lose their jobs.
After the 2008, the laid off Business Visas weren't sent back to India.
Stores fired Americans, even those making Minimum Wage, and hired the BVs.
You know what it's like going to MACY's and being helped by someone who doesn't speak English?
Funny how the left-wing supports illegal immigration constantly, but then screams about legal immigration later.
I know dozens of employed American software coders. The idea that somehow Indians have completely replaced Americans, is false. I know 3 companies right now.... right NOW, that have software engineers and none of them are Indian. All are American.
In a few words, get over yourself. If you don't have a job as a software programmer, it's because you suck. Good programmers are in high demand, even if you are American. If you think Microsofts hiring Indians is so bad, then join another company, and put them out of business. Make a better product, if you think you can.
Trust me, many companies are begging to have an alternative to Microsoft. The market is there, if you can actually come up with a solution.
Again, if you don't like the store's employees, then go somewhere else. If you think people are willing to pay a premium to have American workers, then open your own store, hire only Americans, and see how that works for you.
We both know how that will turn out, because we both know if there was a market value to it, then someone wanting to make billions, would have already opened a store with only Americans, or a software company with only Americans. The fact it hasn't happened, because the theory isn't true.
I suggest you stop sucking Rush Limbaugh d*ck and brush up on Sarbanes/Oxley.No, most are not complete assholes. They just have short term goals and are not that interested in their net worth or what it might be in the future. Why? Because they're not going to be around that much longer. They want to take that dream vacation while they're able to enjoy it and aren't interested in what their estate will be worth upon their death. That's not necessarily a dumb thing to do. It's all a matter of priorities and what is truly important to you.Financial Institutions are a joke; they ignore regulations left and right because they never pay the price.
7 CEOs and 0 Directors paid the price for the 2008 crash.
Well... the problem there is that government itself pushed for Sub-prime loans. Obama specifically, sued banks to force them to make sub-prime loans. Bill Clinton's Andrew Cuomo actually bragged about forcing banks to make sub-prime loans, and even admitted that these loans would have a higher default rate, which of course was true.
So claiming the banks should go to prison, because they were doing exactly what the government wanted, is a little hypocritical.
You do realize that out of all the financial institutions that failed, the most expensive bailout of the entire sub-prime crash..... was Freddie and Fannie. The government run corporations.
Additionally, I think it would be difficult to claim that these financial institutions produce nothing of value, given how many people use them routinely. 25 million use Bank of America, on a daily basis.
They must be doing something right.
I've been hearing banking commercials encouraging people to take out loans against the value of their house, to take vacations.
These people are fucking assholes. They would be happy to lend you enough money that you would spend the rest of your life in debt slavery, without a single thought of whether it was a good idea.
When I last took out a loan against the value of a house, we didn't even include my income, because we knew the bank would give us more credit than we thought was reasonable, just on my wife's income.
They are irresponsible assholes, who are not meeting their responsibilities.
No, the BANKERS are complete assholes. It is their professional responsibility to give decent financial advice to their customers.
Taking out a loan against the value of your home, to take a vacation is the exact opposite of that.
No, I disagree.
I don't expect the car manufacturers to give me an education on how not to kill myself or someone else, with a car. I expect that it is incumbent upon me, to be educated on how to use something, before I use it.
Beyond that, by definition a loan is a predatory concept. I'm going to give you something I have, just so you can give it back plus more.
Inherently all loans are therefore predatory. By their nature, that's what they are.
Thus, you claiming the the banks should educate customers on wise financial advice, is basically saying "Banks should tell customers to not be their customers, and not use their products".
Your expectation is beyond unreasonable, it's insane. No company of any type, is going to run around telling their customers not to use their products.
The solution is simply to spend some time with your kids, and educate them to not go into debt. Have more people like that Evil Christian Dave Ramsey, teaching students in schools, how to not borrow, and not be a slave to the banks.
If you really want to stop the banks from being predatory, then support laws the prohibit loans. Of course whenever I suggest this, suddenly the anti-bank people, become massive lending supporters. Which is almost mental illness. You want lenders.... but hate people who lend, and complain constantly. Almost mental illness the views you people have.
Funny how G-d himself, seems to have the right idea. Lending with interest is forbidden to the Jews.
I suggest you stop sucking Rush Limbaugh d*ck and brush up on Sarbanes/Oxley.No, most are not complete assholes. They just have short term goals and are not that interested in their net worth or what it might be in the future. Why? Because they're not going to be around that much longer. They want to take that dream vacation while they're able to enjoy it and aren't interested in what their estate will be worth upon their death. That's not necessarily a dumb thing to do. It's all a matter of priorities and what is truly important to you.Well... the problem there is that government itself pushed for Sub-prime loans. Obama specifically, sued banks to force them to make sub-prime loans. Bill Clinton's Andrew Cuomo actually bragged about forcing banks to make sub-prime loans, and even admitted that these loans would have a higher default rate, which of course was true.
So claiming the banks should go to prison, because they were doing exactly what the government wanted, is a little hypocritical.
You do realize that out of all the financial institutions that failed, the most expensive bailout of the entire sub-prime crash..... was Freddie and Fannie. The government run corporations.
Additionally, I think it would be difficult to claim that these financial institutions produce nothing of value, given how many people use them routinely. 25 million use Bank of America, on a daily basis.
They must be doing something right.
I've been hearing banking commercials encouraging people to take out loans against the value of their house, to take vacations.
These people are fucking assholes. They would be happy to lend you enough money that you would spend the rest of your life in debt slavery, without a single thought of whether it was a good idea.
When I last took out a loan against the value of a house, we didn't even include my income, because we knew the bank would give us more credit than we thought was reasonable, just on my wife's income.
They are irresponsible assholes, who are not meeting their responsibilities.
No, the BANKERS are complete assholes. It is their professional responsibility to give decent financial advice to their customers.
Taking out a loan against the value of your home, to take a vacation is the exact opposite of that.
No, I disagree.
I don't expect the car manufacturers to give me an education on how not to kill myself or someone else, with a car. I expect that it is incumbent upon me, to be educated on how to use something, before I use it.
Beyond that, by definition a loan is a predatory concept. I'm going to give you something I have, just so you can give it back plus more.
Inherently all loans are therefore predatory. By their nature, that's what they are.
Thus, you claiming the the banks should educate customers on wise financial advice, is basically saying "Banks should tell customers to not be their customers, and not use their products".
Your expectation is beyond unreasonable, it's insane. No company of any type, is going to run around telling their customers not to use their products.
The solution is simply to spend some time with your kids, and educate them to not go into debt. Have more people like that Evil Christian Dave Ramsey, teaching students in schools, how to not borrow, and not be a slave to the banks.
If you really want to stop the banks from being predatory, then support laws the prohibit loans. Of course whenever I suggest this, suddenly the anti-bank people, become massive lending supporters. Which is almost mental illness. You want lenders.... but hate people who lend, and complain constantly. Almost mental illness the views you people have.
Funny how G-d himself, seems to have the right idea. Lending with interest is forbidden to the Jews.
We need the EU, Canada, Mexico, and the TPP countries.
More than they need us? I don't think so.
Last week I made a delivery to one of our customers we have been servicing for several years. The shipper told me I was not allowed to wait in my truck while getting loaded any longer; I must wait inside.
Slightly insulted at his hint I am not to be trusted in my truck while being loaded, he felt compelled to explain: he stated they got a huge new customer, and their new customer created guidelines for their shipping department. Regardless whether the shipper was dealing with their goods or not, they insisted that all drivers must be out of their trucks while loading or unloading.
We had another customer do a similar thing. They too created guidelines as to how the shipping department conduct their business whether the trucks are involved with their freight or not, and the company caved in.
I thought to myself, regardless how much business they gave me, I would tell them to F off. Certainly I could enforce guidelines on their freight or freight carriers, but not tell me how to run my shipping department for all.
It doesn't work that way unfortunately. Our second customer I mentioned makes us stop at the gate, tell them the order number and trailer, makes us come inside to sign a login sheet, and forces us to wait inside or drop the trailer while getting loaded or unloaded, all because Walmart made the rules.
The point I'm trying to make is this: your largest customers have a lot of leverage. The US is the largest customer of many of our trading partners. Sure, they will respond harshly to our tariffs, but given time, they will likely see a huge loss in exports and perhaps finally cave in.
There is one huge massive failure in this equation.
Politics. Yeah, when you are dealing with company between company, you are right, the person buying has leverage.
But country between country, that isn't the case. I just isn't. Simply put, there is no leverage there, that you think there is.
Mainly because you are dealing with politicians. Remember world war 1? There were tons of people throughout the world, who were literally writing books that international trade made war impossible. There was no way that Germany would go to war, because they imported so much of their materials from all the countries that they would go to war with.... specifically France.
But when you talk about fighting between nations, for someone to step back and acquiesce to someone else, makes them look weak. Standing firm, even when it wreaks economic damage, looks like strength to the public. You end up gaining support for destroying your economy, and losing support for gaining your economy.
If you want a modern example, just look at Russia. The wide spread sanctions against Russia, have utterly ruined their booming economy, and yet they are still fighting in the Ukraine, even now.
In the Trenches of the War in Ukraine, I See History Repeating Itself
If they did cave, the results would be that they would lose support of the public, and the government will fall.
We saw this in Greece. The Right-wing government agreed to the terms of the bailout, and From 2012 to 2014, the economy of Greece was on course for a steady recovery. Then the public voted against the government, and elected a Left-wing government, on the promise they would stick it to the EU, and ignore the requirements of the bailout. The result was the economy went on a massive dive, until the government realized they were on the verge of a complete default.
You want another example? The UK and the EU. The rallying cry for most of the Brexit supporters, was that we don't want Brussels dictating our national policy. Doesn't matter if those policies were ultimately good. What matters is, foreign people shouldn't be telling us what to do, and we're going to leave the EU to prevent that. Their economy had a massive (although short-term) crash from that policy, and only was short-term because nothing has happened yet.
People and governments, routinely will vote and push positions that are against their economic interest, in the name of maintaining their control over their policy.
So the idea that you are going to dictate policy to Mexico, or China, and they are going to cave, is simply not true.
I'm just saying.... it simply isn't true. They will not cave.
By the way, the US was a leader in trade before the great depression. Our tariffs on imported goods, had no leverage against the rest of the world, which only dug in its heals, and put in place retaliatory tariffs.... which is exactly what we are seeing today.
While I'm no fan of tariffs, I think in this new age of trading it will simply take time to weigh the results. I may be wrong but I may be right. I think our economy is strong enough for a minor trade war, but not so much for other countries.
Yes, politics is in play, and it depends on who can suffer the most damage. After all, when was the last time we didn't have a trade deficit? I think Trump just wants everybody to play by the same rules is all. I don't think it's all that much to ask for.
Yes, Ohio guy, you have no idea what you're talking about.I suggest you stop sucking Rush Limbaugh d*ck and brush up on Sarbanes/Oxley.No, most are not complete assholes. They just have short term goals and are not that interested in their net worth or what it might be in the future. Why? Because they're not going to be around that much longer. They want to take that dream vacation while they're able to enjoy it and aren't interested in what their estate will be worth upon their death. That's not necessarily a dumb thing to do. It's all a matter of priorities and what is truly important to you.I've been hearing banking commercials encouraging people to take out loans against the value of their house, to take vacations.
These people are fucking assholes. They would be happy to lend you enough money that you would spend the rest of your life in debt slavery, without a single thought of whether it was a good idea.
When I last took out a loan against the value of a house, we didn't even include my income, because we knew the bank would give us more credit than we thought was reasonable, just on my wife's income.
They are irresponsible assholes, who are not meeting their responsibilities.
No, the BANKERS are complete assholes. It is their professional responsibility to give decent financial advice to their customers.
Taking out a loan against the value of your home, to take a vacation is the exact opposite of that.
No, I disagree.
I don't expect the car manufacturers to give me an education on how not to kill myself or someone else, with a car. I expect that it is incumbent upon me, to be educated on how to use something, before I use it.
Beyond that, by definition a loan is a predatory concept. I'm going to give you something I have, just so you can give it back plus more.
Inherently all loans are therefore predatory. By their nature, that's what they are.
Thus, you claiming the the banks should educate customers on wise financial advice, is basically saying "Banks should tell customers to not be their customers, and not use their products".
Your expectation is beyond unreasonable, it's insane. No company of any type, is going to run around telling their customers not to use their products.
The solution is simply to spend some time with your kids, and educate them to not go into debt. Have more people like that Evil Christian Dave Ramsey, teaching students in schools, how to not borrow, and not be a slave to the banks.
If you really want to stop the banks from being predatory, then support laws the prohibit loans. Of course whenever I suggest this, suddenly the anti-bank people, become massive lending supporters. Which is almost mental illness. You want lenders.... but hate people who lend, and complain constantly. Almost mental illness the views you people have.
Funny how G-d himself, seems to have the right idea. Lending with interest is forbidden to the Jews.
Did you actually have any kind of a point to make?
