jamie said:

you forgot to thank the republicans.


dont fret. windows 7 is coming - and its one corporate press release (about no drm) away from being a hit

(ps -ms - you seem to borrow alot from apples steve jobs... borrow his DRM letters - asap)

*ie - you keep talking about getting back into the consumer market... do you know what that means these days?  supporting consumers!

and its one corporate press release (about no drm) away from being a hit

Sven Groot said:

jamie said:

*snip*

Ballmer: "Great news everyone. We have decided that you will not be able to play all that content you own in Windows 7! DVDs? You can't play them. Blu-ray? Forget it! All the support for playing those things has been removed."

Yeah, that'll go down great.

CreamFilling512 said:

Honestly I think the Obama administration and the current congress are deliberately trying to harm the market the way they're acting.  There hasn't been an ounce of effort to turn the market around.  How about some damn tax cuts?  Can we at least cut capital gains tax?  Obama's administration hasn't even mentioned the market once.  I guess the way the Democrats figure it, only filthy rich, capitalist pigs invest so who cares?

jamie said:

CreamFilling512 said:

*snip*

beep beep beep  *toxic thread *

(not an album but that would work )



edit:   ...that i shouldnt make...
repub's - please post your solutions... not your "no's"   Everything obama has done so far,  is inspiring not just USA but the world.
why is that so bad?  why is that so...NO!
("people all over the world are liking america - NO!")

<Dr evil> put that in your pipe and smoke it

( you see all these headlines on CNN - obama doing bad - etc - then you notice its some republican in some boon town quote...
at least the Terminator stood up today - go arnie go!

*this message brought to you by the childrens television workshop, the letter M and "the liberal media" - owned by corporate america ® TM

CreamFilling512 said:

jamie said:

*snip*

How is what Obama and friends have done so far inspiring?  Who in their right mind is inspired by the creation of 2 trillion in new debt in 1 month, giving terrorists civil rights, and the promise of higher taxes in the middle of a recession and massive expansion of government?  Tell me what part of Obama's actions are inspiring to you?  Is it his fear mongering or maybe his countless administration blunders?  Please explain this to me because apparently common sense is not sufficient.

Rahm Emanuel summed up Democrat strategy so nicely, "We can't let this crisis go to waste."

CreamFilling512 said:

jamie said:

*snip*

How is what Obama and friends have done so far inspiring?  Who in their right mind is inspired by the creation of 2 trillion in new debt in 1 month, giving terrorists civil rights, and the promise of higher taxes in the middle of a recession and massive expansion of government?  Tell me what part of Obama's actions are inspiring to you?  Is it his fear mongering or maybe his countless administration blunders?  Please explain this to me because apparently common sense is not sufficient.

Rahm Emanuel summed up Democrat strategy so nicely, "We can't let this crisis go to waste."

figuerres said:

CreamFilling512 said:

*snip*

The "Blame Game" and the "Party Game" are all big parts of how we got to where we are.

REALITY IS THIS:

We (Americans) ALL DID THIS....

that's right every one of us who has been of voting / working age have each been a part of making this mess....
 and it did not start 4 years ago, or 8 or 10....  NO it started 30 or 40 years ago and has now reached a point where we have to face it and move on.
we buy on credit, we voted many any times for "Bread and Circus" and to pay the bills later.
so did the romans.... we better learn that lesson NOW or share the fate of other nations who did not learn from the mistakes of the past.

Mr. Obama is at least willing to be honest and try... at least I think that is what he is doing.
time will tell, we will not know the answer, our grand children will....

REALLY!  any cure to a 40 year illness will take time to have any long term effect.
if you get a high fever that's not a cure that's a cover up....

jamie said:

you forgot to thank the republicans.


dont fret. windows 7 is coming - and its one corporate press release (about no drm) away from being a hit

(ps -ms - you seem to borrow alot from apples steve jobs... borrow his DRM letters - asap)

*ie - you keep talking about getting back into the consumer market... do you know what that means these days?  supporting consumers!

jamie said:

you forgot to thank the republicans.


dont fret. windows 7 is coming - and its one corporate press release (about no drm) away from being a hit

(ps -ms - you seem to borrow alot from apples steve jobs... borrow his DRM letters - asap)

*ie - you keep talking about getting back into the consumer market... do you know what that means these days?  supporting consumers!

spivonious said:

jamie said:

*snip*

What lots of people don't understand is that it's Congress who makes laws, not the President.  Who was in charge of Congress when the economy went down the tubes?  Democrats.  Who was in charge when we had  prosperity (Clinton, early Bush)?  Republicans.

There's one way to improve our economy and that's to stop printing so much money.  Let companies who made bad decisions fail.  Let people who bought a house they couldn't afford have to sell their house.  Let car companies who didn't see high gas prices coming go bankrupt.

The only thing I agree with the current Democratic Party on is socialized medicine.  The free market system cannot work when someone's life is what's being bartered for.

And before you all lump me into the Republican Party, I voted Libertarian, a.k.a. the party that most closely matches my views.

Some experts say this is just the beginning of a something that will last for a few years. It’s not the Democrats fault. It’s that war we have been waging over seas. Very expensive. It’s the American people who have over spent, buying homes they can’t afford and creating debt up to their eye balls.

its easy to point the finger like i just did. but whats harder is comming up with a solution.

jason818_253.33 said:

spivonious said:

*snip*

Some experts say this is just the beginning of a something that will last for a few years. It’s not the Democrats fault. It’s that war we have been waging over seas. Very expensive. It’s the American people who have over spent, buying homes they can’t afford and creating debt up to their eye balls.

its easy to point the finger like i just did. but whats harder is comming up with a solution.

spivonious said:

jamie said:

*snip*

What lots of people don't understand is that it's Congress who makes laws, not the President.  Who was in charge of Congress when the economy went down the tubes?  Democrats.  Who was in charge when we had  prosperity (Clinton, early Bush)?  Republicans.

There's one way to improve our economy and that's to stop printing so much money.  Let companies who made bad decisions fail.  Let people who bought a house they couldn't afford have to sell their house.  Let car companies who didn't see high gas prices coming go bankrupt.

The only thing I agree with the current Democratic Party on is socialized medicine.  The free market system cannot work when someone's life is what's being bartered for.

And before you all lump me into the Republican Party, I voted Libertarian, a.k.a. the party that most closely matches my views.

jamie said:

you forgot to thank the republicans.


dont fret. windows 7 is coming - and its one corporate press release (about no drm) away from being a hit

(ps -ms - you seem to borrow alot from apples steve jobs... borrow his DRM letters - asap)

*ie - you keep talking about getting back into the consumer market... do you know what that means these days?  supporting consumers!

fknight said:

spivonious said:

*snip*

What about the people who bought a house they *could* afford (and by that I mean, a mortgage they could afford, meaning they have a stable job that pays well in excess of their mortgage payments), but now might lose it because the company they work for (which has no debt and was making enough cash to sustain itself), might go out of business because the economy has dried up?   

Right there, a company that did nothing wrong, and a homeowner who did nothing wrong.

That's the price of living in a capitalist society.  What if the economy was doing fine but the company just decided to close?  Should the taxpayers step in and pay that person's mortgage until he/she can find another job?

spivonious said:

fknight said:

*snip*

That's the price of living in a capitalist society.  What if the economy was doing fine but the company just decided to close?  Should the taxpayers step in and pay that person's mortgage until he/she can find another job?

May28th2018 said:

spivonious said:

*snip*

http://www.google.com/finance
DJ: 7,114.78



It's starting to get extremely ugly.

Bill Gates has been helping Africa bank with cell phones, why doesn't Bill start helping America?

You know how many homeless people, welfare recipients and prostitutes we have here?
There are millions of people in America who literally have no education or hope of a better life. I don't want to be a stick in the mud, I just thought I'd mention it. Does that have anything to do with this economic collapse? Yes it does.

May28th2018 said:

spivonious said:

*snip*

http://www.google.com/finance
DJ: 7,114.78



It's starting to get extremely ugly.

Bill Gates has been helping Africa bank with cell phones, why doesn't Bill start helping America?

You know how many homeless people, welfare recipients and prostitutes we have here?
There are millions of people in America who literally have no education or hope of a better life. I don't want to be a stick in the mud, I just thought I'd mention it. Does that have anything to do with this economic collapse? Yes it does.

Dr Herbie said:

May28th2018 said:

*snip*

If you go watch Gates' TED talk, you'll see that he's not just helping Africa. After he talks about Malaria, he talks about improving education in the USA.  The Gates Foundation isn't just funding one project, it's funding multiple projects.


Herbie

Why is it that American's feel that they have to solve the world problems all on their own?

The economic down-turn is a global problem that means global solutions. Notice the use of the plural there, as different countries will need to do different things. My concern is where is the co-ordination going to come from? Who will we trust with that?

At least with Obama the US is lucky to have a leader with a clearly communicated vision; here in the UK we have a man that seems to have no direction other than a follower of opinion polls. I have no sympathy as we didn’t get to vote for him.

So what should we all do? Well we like a bit of doom and gloom, we have talked our way into this and let the media carry us off on our worst fears. The simple fact is that the man in the street is just as much affected by this as he was last year, just now is in fear of his job but if he lives in the UK has more money to spend?! Companies are doing little to qwell those fears but the price of lay-offs to any company is great for what seems to be short term, knee-jerk gain, especially one that doesn't have a culture of it, like Microsoft, have found that this is actually a disaster as the effect on morale is the same as making twice as many people redundant.

However, the really smart people out there have realised that some shares are now at serious bargain values and they are in companies without debt, the more we wake up to facts like these the better chance we will have of getting out of this. I would recommend that ordinary people start buying very small amounts of shares you may as well makes some money if a bank is to chicken.

So, stop being so stupid and snap out of it! *He says with a slap across the chops* The future is still yours just jump into things with your eyes wide open.

Sven Groot said:

jamie said:

*snip*

Ballmer: "Great news everyone. We have decided that you will not be able to play all that content you own in Windows 7! DVDs? You can't play them. Blu-ray? Forget it! All the support for playing those things has been removed."

Yeah, that'll go down great.

CreamFilling512 said:

jamie said:

*snip*

How is what Obama and friends have done so far inspiring?  Who in their right mind is inspired by the creation of 2 trillion in new debt in 1 month, giving terrorists civil rights, and the promise of higher taxes in the middle of a recession and massive expansion of government?  Tell me what part of Obama's actions are inspiring to you?  Is it his fear mongering or maybe his countless administration blunders?  Please explain this to me because apparently common sense is not sufficient.

Rahm Emanuel summed up Democrat strategy so nicely, "We can't let this crisis go to waste."

May28th2018 said:

CreamFilling512 said:

*snip*

http://www.easybourse.com/bourse-actualite/marches/update-microsoft-ceo-sees-difficult-conditions-in-2nd-half-622419

Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) executives Tuesday reiterated its dreary outlook for the rest of its fiscal year ending in June, saying all of its businesses would be affected by the current recession.
Chief Executive Steve Ballmer also repeated the company's desire to talk with new Yahoo Inc. (YHOO) Chief Executive Carol Bartz, and he indicated that it was unlikely the software giant would be able to gain significant ground against Google Inc. (GOOG) this year.
Following the company's comments at a financial analysts' meeting in New York, Microsoft shares fell to 11-year lows. Yahoo shares, meanwhile, rose.

The "house of cards" is blowing down MSFT's bricks and mortar.

intelman said:

jamie said:

*snip*

You are from Canda, you wouldn't understand basic values like the free market and private healthcare. How long would it take you to get an MRI? Took my Canadian friend a few months...

phreaks said:

May28th2018 said:

*snip*

Obama is about to come out on National TV and tell all of us citizens that he is against big government and big spending.

And he is going to do it with a straight face, and the majority of people will probably believe it.

The world has gone to the dogs, it's official.

May28th2018 said:

phreaks said:

*snip*

http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chdet=1236027600000&chddm=115055&q=NASDAQ:MSFT&ntsp=0

MSFT is dipping below $16

Low: 15.90

Citibank is heading for $1 and AIG has just failed, again.

phreaks said:

DJIA is below 6900 now.

I'm totally headed for the unemployment line, and my 1 year old son is basically in debt about $60k to the government already (as are you and I), and that number is still growing.

Cap and Trade policy is going to be even more ruinous for Main street.

And with record unemployment rates, raising taxes on corporations (that are already struggling, hence the high unemployment numbers) is idiotic, unless there is another secret agenda...

We may have well voted for Hugo Chavez, their policies are almost identical.


Thanks Obama.

Yes lets blame Obama for something that happened before he was even elected.

Would you please stop?

JeremyJ said:

phreaks said:

*snip*

Yes lets blame Obama for something that happened before he was even elected.

Would you please stop?

Corporate taxes were raised before he was elected?

4 trillion dollars was sent down a black hole before he was elected?

Tax cheats and chicago thugs were members of the previous administration?

Cap and Trade on utilities was planned before Obama?

Bailing out ppl that shouldn't have gotten a mortgage to begin with was before Obama?

Will YOU please, take a moment away from the Obama love in and think about it rationally for a minute.

The markets are sending a clear signal, ignoring them doesn't help.

Raising corporate taxes in this market alone sends a clear signal. Obama has declared war on capitalism.

And for all of you folks that think he isn't raising *your* taxes, he is.

He is just doing it in a tricky way, hoping that you don't notice.

Cap and trade will raise everyones utility bills at least 200% but probably more like 300%+.

phreaks said:

JeremyJ said:

*snip*

Corporate taxes were raised before he was elected?

4 trillion dollars was sent down a black hole before he was elected?

Tax cheats and chicago thugs were members of the previous administration?

Cap and Trade on utilities was planned before Obama?

Bailing out ppl that shouldn't have gotten a mortgage to begin with was before Obama?

Will YOU please, take a moment away from the Obama love in and think about it rationally for a minute.

The markets are sending a clear signal, ignoring them doesn't help.

Raising corporate taxes in this market alone sends a clear signal. Obama has declared war on capitalism.

And for all of you folks that think he isn't raising *your* taxes, he is.

He is just doing it in a tricky way, hoping that you don't notice.

Cap and trade will raise everyones utility bills at least 200% but probably more like 300%+.

JeremyJ said:

phreaks said:

*snip*

What Obama love?  I am not even a Democrat.  I just get so tired of the Fox news diatribe.  Take your political ramblings elsewhere.  This isn't the place for it.

May28th2018 said:

Microsoft now has almost as much market capital as the top 5 US banks COMBINED.

Wells Fargo: 45.84B
JPMorgan Chase Bank: 78.99B
CitiBank: 6.54B
Bank of America: 23.20B
Wachovia: 0B
____________________________________

154B

vs

MSFT: 140.38B

A software company who's share price is falling dramatically has as much money than every significant American bank combined.

May28th2018 said:

Microsoft now has almost as much market capital as the top 5 US banks COMBINED.

Wells Fargo: 45.84B
JPMorgan Chase Bank: 78.99B
CitiBank: 6.54B
Bank of America: 23.20B
Wachovia: 0B
____________________________________

154B

vs

MSFT: 140.38B

A software company who's share price is falling dramatically has as much money than every significant American bank combined.

Bass said:

May28th2018 said:

*snip*

Microsoft's stock has been falling alongside the rest of the market. So proportionally they are still quite valuable company, even if their market cap is in historic lows. Does anyone even know of a company that's value has gone up in the few months?

phreaks said:

May28th2018 said:

*snip*

That's a pretty sad commentary in itself.

That's OK though, soon enough the government will control the banks... (and auto manufacturers and utilities?), comrade.

phreaks said:

DJIA is below 6900 now.

I'm totally headed for the unemployment line, and my 1 year old son is basically in debt about $60k to the government already (as are you and I), and that number is still growing.

Cap and Trade policy is going to be even more ruinous for Main street.

And with record unemployment rates, raising taxes on corporations (that are already struggling, hence the high unemployment numbers) is idiotic, unless there is another secret agenda...

We may have well voted for Hugo Chavez, their policies are almost identical.


Thanks Obama.

phreaks said:

May28th2018 said:

*snip*

That's a pretty sad commentary in itself.

That's OK though, soon enough the government will control the banks... (and auto manufacturers and utilities?), comrade.

US Governement bought IndyMac, and they don't own it anymore. So your point is???????? Do you even try to imagine what will happen when all those banks and automakers go bankrupt? US Government buy those companies just to keep it from bankrupt and keep the jobs and productivity going. Besides, you see US governement controlling IndyMac right now?

warren said:

phreaks said:

*snip*

Who cares if the Dow is 6900 or whatever?  It was grossly inflated through pretty much the entirety of the 2000s; there was little real wealth created in that time, but there were quite a lot of people with MBAs B-Sing eachother into believing that things were better than they really were.   A major correction is needed to bring the stock market in line with the real reality, not the one that the hand-wavers and shady operators wanted you to believe in.

phreaks said:

warren said:

*snip*

A correction would be 10k / 11k, not ~7k.

Who cares? How about all the universities, hospitals,retirement funds and municiple endowments that have lost over half their values?

I think pretty much anybody with a clue cares.

A correction would be 10k / 11k, not ~7k.

warren said:

phreaks said:

*snip*

Who cares if the Dow is 6900 or whatever?  It was grossly inflated through pretty much the entirety of the 2000s; there was little real wealth created in that time, but there were quite a lot of people with MBAs B-Sing eachother into believing that things were better than they really were.   A major correction is needed to bring the stock market in line with the real reality, not the one that the hand-wavers and shady operators wanted you to believe in.

PaoloM said:

phreaks said:

*snip*

According to who?

CreamFilling512 said:

warren said:

*snip*

Yes thats what happens in a recession normally, without any extra help.  Everything resets to a lower value, everyone is forced to rebalance their checkbooks.  There are many tears as jobs are lost and people lose things they couldn't actually afford anyway.  And at the end the economy is more robust than it was before, and things are properly valued.

That's of course, assuming the government doesn't go around "stimulating" things.

phreaks said:

PaoloM said:

*snip*

You're unable to read a chart?

Draw a line from 2000 to now.

PaoloM said:

phreaks said:

*snip*

Why did you choose 2000? It was around the top of the dotcom hype, when everything was overvalued.

I hope a new baseline gets created and safeguards are put in place to avoid crap like this to happen again. And that people will stop using credit as free money.

PaoloM said:

I hope a new baseline gets created and safeguards are put in place to avoid crap like this to happen again. And that people will stop using credit as free money

phreaks said:

PaoloM said:

*snip*

You wouldn't mean safe guards such as letting banks fail that lend too much credit to those that don't deserve it would you?

Why shouldn't the banks take as much risk as possible to potentially maximize their reward?
The government will mitigate the risk, that's the lesson in all this.

phreaks said:

Why shouldn't the banks take as much risk as possible to potentially maximize their reward?

phreaks said:

PaoloM said:

*snip*

You wouldn't mean safe guards such as letting banks fail that lend too much credit to those that don't deserve it would you?

Why shouldn't the banks take as much risk as possible to potentially maximize their reward?
The government will mitigate the risk, that's the lesson in all this.

PaoloM said:

phreaks said:

*snip*

Why did you choose 2000? It was around the top of the dotcom hype, when everything was overvalued.

I hope a new baseline gets created and safeguards are put in place to avoid crap like this to happen again. And that people will stop using credit as free money.

tfraser said:

phreaks said:

*snip*

You wouldn't mean safe guards such as letting banks fail that lend too much credit to those that don't deserve it would you?

I am curious how your interpretation of the situation can be so skewed that you genuinely see this as a rational solution. Have you already forgotten what happened when Lehman Brothers collapsed?

You only need to look at the nations with banks that haven't failed to understand that there is something fundamentally wrong with the systems in the US and other countries. Softening the blow in the form of preventing further institutions from failing and then adopting similar practices to the successful finance environments is the only reasonable thing to do.

What nations have banks that haven't failed (yet)?

This is a fundamental principal of free market enterprise, which unless I am mistaken is the market of choice for the USA.

Look, I'm not saying it's a simple thing, but there are more efficacious methods other than throwing hundreds of billions of tax dollars down a hole; especially considering that some of these institutions are beyond saving.

The FDIC is actually one of the most efficient entities in federal government. They are extremely good at what they do. A RTC type of solution would have been a much better approach on so many levels.

What is your expertise in banking again?

This thing is far from over, and it's going to get worse before it gets better. Stop throwing money around and let the markets work.  This whole idea of there being a black box being filled with tax dollars for the 'better good' is absurd, there is no transparency, and there is no guarantee that these institutions will invariably survive anyway, just look at citi.

Softening the blow? I don't even know what that is supposed to really mean, can you please elaborate.

Softening the blow in the form of preventing further institutions from failing and then adopting similar practices to the successful finance environments is the only reasonable thing to do.

phreaks said:

tfraser said:

*snip*

Really, that's reasonable? Why?
Banks fail all the time, I fail to see any real economic evidence behind your statement.

There was  a huge amount of fraud being perpetrated, The head of the big CRA's should be in jail at this point. The whole situation is being handled in such a juvenile manner, it's ridiculous.

Banks fail, the FDIC would go in and re balance the books, move accounts around and sell off the viable parts that are left. It's fairly simple (considering this alternative path we are now on) , effective and doesn't enable the banks to reap rewards from fraud and poor practices. And the taxpayers wouldn't be on the hook for trillions of dollars.


What we are doing now is "button mashing". Someone gets a new video game, and doesn't understand how to play it, so they sit there and press buttons randomly, hoping it will work. That's basically what we are doing now.

All you need to do is look at Citi, to realize how flawed this bailout notion really is. How much tax money have we committed to citi? Something like $400+bn and they are going to fail anyway.

So yeah, your argument has lots of merit.

evildictaitor said:

phreaks said:

*snip*

Because if a bank goes under and causes any saver to lose some or all of the money they had held in that account, then EVERYONE with money in ANY bank will go and withdraw all of their money in cash and hide it under the bed.

Since no bank has enough money to do that (the most conservative banks lend about 5 times their reserve), every bank would immediately call in all of their loans, causing any company with loans to fail and every homeowner to have to sell, and the shortfall would be still be sufficient to cause the bank itself to go under as well, and the whole world goes to hell in a hand-basket.

The reason banks are being propped up is two-fold:

1) A single saver losing their savings would be sufficient to crush banks under the weight of the bank-runs that would follow.

2) Companies need to get short-term loans from banks in order to meet the simple fact that companies need to spend money before they make that money back later (you need to buy the bread before you can sell the sandwich). If no bank will lend money, few companies will make money, and those that do will do less well.

There are lots of proposed solutions:

1) All banks must be small - then capitalism can swallow the badly performing ones
  But...
    This leads to inefficiencies
    Banks are complex businesses, and need to be secure against fraud and for transactions
    And anyway, banks arn't small, and we need solutions for the real world, not hypotheticals

2) Let the banks be big, but let them fail anyway.
  But...
    This leads to bank-runs (e.g. Northern Rock) and can melt entire economies (e.g. Iceland)

3) Let the banks be big, and bail them out
  But...
    This leads to banks behaving recklessly (e.g. RBS, HBOS)

4) Let the banks be big, but only bailout their savers, not the banks
  But...
    This doesn't solve where people can get loans from



My preferred solution is to give every citizen of the US $3000 (that's about $900bn total). This will either be
 * Spent in the US, helping to prop up the markets
 * Put in a bank, helping to prop up the banks
 * Used to help people transition to new jobs if their company goes bust.

Banks in the U.S. are federally insured.

I was just reading a research paper yesterday talking specifically about this.

Basically, the premise is that we haven't seen any big runs on banks because the citizens are confident that the FDIC will cover all deposits in the event of a failure.

I would post the paper for your review, it was rather interesting, but it's for internal distribution only.

I have to admit, I would prefer your solution to the one we are currently executing.

phreaks said:

evildictaitor said:

*snip*

Banks in the U.S. are federally insured.

I was just reading a research paper yesterday talking specifically about this.

Basically, the premise is that we haven't seen any big runs on banks because the citizens are confident that the FDIC will cover all deposits in the event of a failure.

I would post the paper for your review, it was rather interesting, but it's for internal distribution only.

I have to admit, I would prefer your solution to the one we are currently executing.

evildictaitor said:

phreaks said:

*snip*

It doesn't cover all deposits, it protects up to $100,000 per person, and I note that lots of companies (e.g. GM or MSFT) have more money than $100,000.

tfraser said:

phreaks said:

*snip*

You wouldn't mean safe guards such as letting banks fail that lend too much credit to those that don't deserve it would you?

I am curious how your interpretation of the situation can be so skewed that you genuinely see this as a rational solution. Have you already forgotten what happened when Lehman Brothers collapsed?

You only need to look at the nations with banks that haven't failed to understand that there is something fundamentally wrong with the systems in the US and other countries. Softening the blow in the form of preventing further institutions from failing and then adopting similar practices to the successful finance environments is the only reasonable thing to do.

I am curious how your interpretation of the situation can be so skewed that you genuinely see this as a rational solution. Have you already forgotten what happened when Lehman Brothers collapsed?

phreaks said:

tfraser said:

*snip*

Really, that's reasonable? Why?
Banks fail all the time, I fail to see any real economic evidence behind your statement.

There was  a huge amount of fraud being perpetrated, The head of the big CRA's should be in jail at this point. The whole situation is being handled in such a juvenile manner, it's ridiculous.

Banks fail, the FDIC would go in and re balance the books, move accounts around and sell off the viable parts that are left. It's fairly simple (considering this alternative path we are now on) , effective and doesn't enable the banks to reap rewards from fraud and poor practices. And the taxpayers wouldn't be on the hook for trillions of dollars.


What we are doing now is "button mashing". Someone gets a new video game, and doesn't understand how to play it, so they sit there and press buttons randomly, hoping it will work. That's basically what we are doing now.

All you need to do is look at Citi, to realize how flawed this bailout notion really is. How much tax money have we committed to citi? Something like $400+bn and they are going to fail anyway.

So yeah, your argument has lots of merit.

evildictaitor said:

phreaks said:

*snip*

Because if a bank goes under and causes any saver to lose some or all of the money they had held in that account, then EVERYONE with money in ANY bank will go and withdraw all of their money in cash and hide it under the bed.

Since no bank has enough money to do that (the most conservative banks lend about 5 times their reserve), every bank would immediately call in all of their loans, causing any company with loans to fail and every homeowner to have to sell, and the shortfall would be still be sufficient to cause the bank itself to go under as well, and the whole world goes to hell in a hand-basket.

The reason banks are being propped up is two-fold:

1) A single saver losing their savings would be sufficient to crush banks under the weight of the bank-runs that would follow.

2) Companies need to get short-term loans from banks in order to meet the simple fact that companies need to spend money before they make that money back later (you need to buy the bread before you can sell the sandwich). If no bank will lend money, few companies will make money, and those that do will do less well.

There are lots of proposed solutions:

1) All banks must be small - then capitalism can swallow the badly performing ones
  But...
    This leads to inefficiencies
    Banks are complex businesses, and need to be secure against fraud and for transactions
    And anyway, banks arn't small, and we need solutions for the real world, not hypotheticals

2) Let the banks be big, but let them fail anyway.
  But...
    This leads to bank-runs (e.g. Northern Rock) and can melt entire economies (e.g. Iceland)

3) Let the banks be big, and bail them out
  But...
    This leads to banks behaving recklessly (e.g. RBS, HBOS)

4) Let the banks be big, but only bailout their savers, not the banks
  But...
    This doesn't solve where people can get loans from



My preferred solution is to give every citizen of the US $3000 (that's about $900bn total). This will either be
 * Spent in the US, helping to prop up the markets
 * Put in a bank, helping to prop up the banks
 * Used to help people transition to new jobs if their company goes bust.

phreaks said:

tfraser said:

*snip*

Lehman wasn't really a bank. They were mainly a prime brokerage.

To the best of my knowledge, you couldn't walk into a Lehman office and open a checking or savings account.

That's why it's collapse was so catastrophic, there were millions of trades that weren't executed across thousands of funds, because they "collapsed".

I appreciate that this stuff can be difficult to conceptualize without any intimate understanding of finance.

It doesn't help that you have every journalist spreading fud, probably not maliciously, but because they don't understand it either, so they are only reporting on small pieces that some "expert" has put into context for them.

tfraser said:

phreaks said:

*snip*

It doesn't matter what division of financial services it was operating in. The folding of any major figure in this industry at the moment is enough to generate extreme instability.

Softening the blow is reasonable because it prevents economies from burning to the ground, where the only fix is to start over. ...

It's quite simple.

May28th2018 said:

spivonious said:

*snip*

http://www.google.com/finance
DJ: 7,114.78



It's starting to get extremely ugly.

Bill Gates has been helping Africa bank with cell phones, why doesn't Bill start helping America?

You know how many homeless people, welfare recipients and prostitutes we have here?
There are millions of people in America who literally have no education or hope of a better life. I don't want to be a stick in the mud, I just thought I'd mention it. Does that have anything to do with this economic collapse? Yes it does.

Dow Jones Industrial Average

(DJI: ^DJI)

Index Value:	6,586.87
Trade Time:	3:34pm ET
Change:	288.97 (4.20%)
Prev Close:	6,875.84
Open:	6,874.01
Day's Range:	6,584.25 - 6,874.01
52wk Range:	6,661.74 - 13,191.50

 

 

phreaks said:

tfraser said:

*snip*

and how's that working out so far?

There really ought to be some transparency into this experiment, and for every one's sake, I really hope this turns out well; but I really am unable to logically conclude that it is, at least not within the next decade or so...

tfraser said:

phreaks said:

*snip*

Was that taken directly out of the Geithner hand-book?

No.

Obviously, there isn't any "instability" present currently?!?

Of course there is, but much less than there was when Lehman Brothers went down. Imagine if every month there were multiple failures on the same scale as the Lehman collapse, which is essentially what would happen without the bailouts.

And aren't all the big banks in Canada either nationalized or part of some larger international conglomerate.

No.

This is the US, the point is to facilitate a free market, not quasi-nationalization.

Except that the free market has obviously failed and in the process is bringing down everyone else. If the current economic situation was localised to America then I wouldn't care less, but unfortunately that isn't the case.

It is interesting that you use that excuse. It makes it seem like you would rather preserve the free market ideology than have a stable financial system.

Australia didn't have a housing bubble, so by your logic that makes their banks "better"?

You're making things up now. First, Australia is in the midst of a severe housing bubble at the moment that seems to be on the way down. Where I live is currently the most unaffordable place in the world. Second, it was never my logic that Australian banks are better because of the absence of a housing bubble. Where did you get that from?

and how's that working out so far?

Considering the circumstances, I would say rather well. Few economies have been brought under completely.

It is interesting that you use that excuse. It makes it seem like you would rather preserve the free market ideology than have a stable financial system.

phreaks said:

tfraser said:

*snip*

What stability?

I'm not knowledgeable in AU securitization policies, so I will defer comment and concede the point on the basis I can't intelligently debate your assertion. However, my statement about the AU housing bubble was based on a conversation I had with a Credit Suisse analyst this afternoon.  I inquired about the stability of the banks there (prompted by your previous reply) and he said they were ok for now, but there was no real housing bubble and that really you couldn't compare the 2.


Nobody even read the "stimulus" bill before voting on it, and there has been 0 transparency with the bailout, so you don't even know what its real function is, to what capacity any bank is utilizing it or how effective it has been as a benchmark. Yet you consistently argue it's efficacy?


I think this conversation is about over, I'm not going to waste my time sitting in front of a pc arguing.
Believe what you like, have your opinions, we'll all find out how this turns out soon enough.

I hope that by this time next year, I can say that you were right and I was wrong.

tfraser said:

phreaks said:

*snip*

Lehman wasn't a bank, for the love of god man; please stop cherry picking your samples.

This doesn't matter. It could have been an insurance company and the effect would have been similar. Plus, investment banks are still banks.

What stability?

The stability that economies with suitable government intervention enjoy. Remember when I mentioned Canada and Australia?

However, my statement about the AU housing bubble was based on a conversation I had with a Credit Suisse analyst this afternoon.

He needs to check his sources then.

Nobody even read the "stimulus" bill before voting on it, and there has been 0 transparency with the bailout, so you don't even know what its real function is, to what capacity any bank is utilizing it or how effective it has been as a benchmark. Yet you consistently argue it's efficacy?

Since I don't live there I can't judge the bill on things like this, but I can understand that taxpayers would want to know where the money is going and the like. At the end of the day though, I would still prefer a package with this secrecy than no package at all. It's in the interest of governments to make these measures work, since the cost of them not working is massive.

I hope that by this time next year, I can say that you were right and I was wrong.

Well, we won't be able to make that conclusion since your solution isn't being implemented. As long as things are still bad next year (quite possible) you will be able to claim that it hasn't worked. Even if things are good, you can assert that they would have been better under a true free market.

CreamFilling512 said:

tfraser said:

*snip*

You would prefer bad policy over no policy?  I'm still trying to wrap my head around that.  But considering most of the "Stimulating DNC Constituents" bill isn't even being spent for another 2 years, when the recession should be long over, I can't imagine it doing much good in terms of economics.

Listen, virtually nobody in their right mind disagrees with the idea of having a stimulus package to create jobs and stabilize the financial sector.  It's the fact that the bill we got is so full of pork, and so partisan, and so full of political posturing its unrecognizable as an economic stimulus bill.  They just took advantage of a crisis to throw in all these pet projects that could never get passed in the Clinton/Bush years.  You should be pissed off about it.

Hillary Clinton said:

Never waste a good crisis ... Don't waste it when it can have a very positive impact on climate change and energy security.

Rahm Emanuel said:

You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before.

CreamFilling512 said:

tfraser said:

*snip*

You would prefer bad policy over no policy?  I'm still trying to wrap my head around that.  But considering most of the "Stimulating DNC Constituents" bill isn't even being spent for another 2 years, when the recession should be long over, I can't imagine it doing much good in terms of economics.

Listen, virtually nobody in their right mind disagrees with the idea of having a stimulus package to create jobs and stabilize the financial sector.  It's the fact that the bill we got is so full of pork, and so partisan, and so full of political posturing its unrecognizable as an economic stimulus bill.  They just took advantage of a crisis to throw in all these pet projects that could never get passed in the Clinton/Bush years.  You should be pissed off about it.

phreaks said:

We just broke 6500.

Models are calling the bottom at 4000.

Bad and getting disastrous...

Dow Jones Industrial Average

(DJI: ^DJI)

Index Value:	6,485.80
Trade Time:	3:05pm ET
Change:	108.64 (1.65%)
Prev Close:	6,594.44
Open:	6,595.16
Day's Range:	6,479.11 - 6,755.17
52wk Range:	6,531.28 - 13,191.50

I called all this over a year ago, and everyone here pretty much laughed at me then.

CannotResolveSymbol said:

phreaks said:

*snip*

And yet the Dow ended +32.50 today.

The sub-prime “scam” was basically about 2 things:

1. Loan Fraud on a grand scale.
   The scam was simple and breath-taking. Build a house for $X but put a value on it of $X*10. Find financially illiterate battlers who would like to live in a new house but could never afford it, and sell the ultimate honeymoon loan to allow them to buy their over-priced dream home by discounting it to $X*8... telling them that even if the worst happens, and they can't afford to maintain the repayments, they can sell it for $X*9 and walk away with a profit.  Get someone respectable to say the security is solid, and then on-sell the loans to banks, based on the properties inflated value. These loans were then resold multiple times around the world, as banks traded them as security for bonds.
   
   
2. Banking Incompetence on an even grander scale.
   The various banks didn’t bother check the real value of the loans they bought, just took them on face value, based on the advice of accepted credit advisories, who were corrupt. Banks assumed that even if the borrowers defaulted, they were holding bricks & mortar worth $X*10 when in fact they were only worth $X. As the reality of the loans started to bite and borrowers were forced to hand back the keys, the banks suddenly realised the assets were only worth a fraction of what they’d paid for them, and the entire house of cards came tumbling down. What happened after that is a direct result of the credit squeeze caused when banks realised they were in trouble and stopped lending to each other, as they didn’t trust the value of each others assets any more.

phreaks said:

PaoloM said:

*snip*

You wouldn't mean safe guards such as letting banks fail that lend too much credit to those that don't deserve it would you?

Why shouldn't the banks take as much risk as possible to potentially maximize their reward?
The government will mitigate the risk, that's the lesson in all this.

tfraser said:

CreamFilling512 said:

*snip*

You would prefer bad policy over no policy?

When did I say that I thought it was bad policy?

You should be pissed off about it.

Why?

It seems that I'm done here, since the topic of this conversation has now morphed from the bailouts to the greater ARRA bill.

Its because the problem with the banks isn't really addressed by the government, they're spending all their political capital on using the crisis to push through other agendas.  The answer is probably pretty simple, we need some way to spin off the toxic assets from the banks, perhaps with subsidiary, and do it in a way that doesn't involve nationalization and is transparent.  But government is not interested in doing this.

phreaks said:

tfraser said:

*snip*

Really, that's reasonable? Why?
Banks fail all the time, I fail to see any real economic evidence behind your statement.

There was  a huge amount of fraud being perpetrated, The head of the big CRA's should be in jail at this point. The whole situation is being handled in such a juvenile manner, it's ridiculous.

Banks fail, the FDIC would go in and re balance the books, move accounts around and sell off the viable parts that are left. It's fairly simple (considering this alternative path we are now on) , effective and doesn't enable the banks to reap rewards from fraud and poor practices. And the taxpayers wouldn't be on the hook for trillions of dollars.


What we are doing now is "button mashing". Someone gets a new video game, and doesn't understand how to play it, so they sit there and press buttons randomly, hoping it will work. That's basically what we are doing now.

All you need to do is look at Citi, to realize how flawed this bailout notion really is. How much tax money have we committed to citi? Something like $400+bn and they are going to fail anyway.

So yeah, your argument has lots of merit.

CreamFilling512 said:

tfraser said:

*snip*

Its because the problem with the banks isn't really addressed by the government, they're spending all their political capital on using the crisis to push through other agendas.  The answer is probably pretty simple, we need some way to spin off the toxic assets from the banks, perhaps with subsidiary, and do it in a way that doesn't involve nationalization and is transparent.  But government is not interested in doing this.

tfraser said:

CreamFilling512 said:

*snip*

Its because the problem with the banks isn't really addressed by the government, they're spending all their political capital on using the crisis to push through other agendas.

You do understand that the ARRA bill isn't intended to be a rescue package for weak financial companies, don't you? It has nothing to do with the bailouts, so I don't understand why you keep mixing the two together.

Which is exactly my point, it has nothing to do with the crisis at hand, they threw everything into this bill but it completely misses the actual problem.   They used the crisis caused by the weak financial sector to push the bill through as if its a solution, but its not.  Without the cascading failure of banks, this would just be an ordinary recession of little concern.

CreamFilling512 said:

tfraser said:

*snip*

Which is exactly my point, it has nothing to do with the crisis at hand, they threw everything into this bill but it completely misses the actual problem.   They used the crisis caused by the weak financial sector to push the bill through as if its a solution, but its not.  Without the cascading failure of banks, this would just be an ordinary recession of little concern.

warren said:

phreaks said:

*snip*

Hey, I can think of a nation where no banks have failed -- CANADA.

The banks do so well in this country that not a single one of them has needed to take any kind of government money to help keep their businesses afloat -- even though a fund has been set up for exactly that for almost half a yaear.  All five major national banks routinely appear on Global Finance's list of top 50 safest banks in the world.  Two of them have AAA credit rating -- only seven banks in the whole world have that.

And you're going to s--t yourself when you hear why they're so successful: It's because the Canadian government enforces fairly strict regulations on how banks can do business.  They weren't allowed to do ridiculous things like sub-prime mortgages or engage in mega-mergers.  They weren't allowed to take major risks in foreign markets, and they certainly weren't allowed to give multi-millions in bonuses to people at the company as a reward for doing things in a risky fashion.

So, talk all you want about.... well, whatever the heck it is you believe, but right to the north of you is one of the world's best examples of how stability and security of a country's finances is assured through strong regulation of the financial industry.  

As a counter-example, look a bit further to the north-east, to Iceland, to see the disastrous results that deregulation and subsequent risky behaviour will cause.

warren said:

phreaks said:

*snip*

Hey, I can think of a nation where no banks have failed -- CANADA.

The banks do so well in this country that not a single one of them has needed to take any kind of government money to help keep their businesses afloat -- even though a fund has been set up for exactly that for almost half a yaear.  All five major national banks routinely appear on Global Finance's list of top 50 safest banks in the world.  Two of them have AAA credit rating -- only seven banks in the whole world have that.

And you're going to s--t yourself when you hear why they're so successful: It's because the Canadian government enforces fairly strict regulations on how banks can do business.  They weren't allowed to do ridiculous things like sub-prime mortgages or engage in mega-mergers.  They weren't allowed to take major risks in foreign markets, and they certainly weren't allowed to give multi-millions in bonuses to people at the company as a reward for doing things in a risky fashion.

So, talk all you want about.... well, whatever the heck it is you believe, but right to the north of you is one of the world's best examples of how stability and security of a country's finances is assured through strong regulation of the financial industry.  

As a counter-example, look a bit further to the north-east, to Iceland, to see the disastrous results that deregulation and subsequent risky behaviour will cause.

Employment fell by 129,000 in January (-0.8%), almost all in full time, pushing the unemployment rate up 0.6 percentage points to 7.2%. This drop in employment exceeds any monthly decline during the previous economic downturns of the 1980s and 1990s.

May28th2018 said:

warren said:

*snip*

Hey, I can think of a nation where no banks have failed -- CANADA.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/subjects-sujets/labour-travail/lfs-epa/lfs-epa-eng.htm

January 2009 (Previous release)

Employment fell by 129,000 in January (-0.8%), almost all in full time, pushing the unemployment rate up 0.6 percentage points to 7.2%. This drop in employment exceeds any monthly decline during the previous economic downturns of the 1980s and 1990s.

How are they going to afford 38% gasoline tax ( 53% on the actual gas cost ) which makes their gas twice as expensive as America's? A week of travel back and forth to work there must cost a fortune compared to our $2 a gallon gas here? What about GST, AND their mortgage and loan payments? What about those big health benefit QPP QPIP payments for employers? Small businesses are going to survive this in Canada to pay back their business loans?

What about the massive health burden on Canada. The capital gains taxes which cripple small business owners there?

As usual Canada is simply behind the US by a few months.

Harper already bankrupted you all of the IE surplus to fund his logging constituency in the west and 4B to the auto industry in the east.

The CAD has already fell back to almost 30%

Canadians will be defaulting on huge loans soon enough, not that it hasn't started already. Canada is going to get it way worse than anything in the US. Poor Americans are richer than rich Canadians. Take that to the bank.

Canada's philosophy is to keep everyone poor, and the redistribution of wealth by the government. A losing scenario in the best of economies. Canada is also extremely corrupt, as seen by the Airbus scandal, sponsorship scandal, the government's ties with the Italian mafia, and motorcycle gangs, Harper's 1 million dollar insurance offer to Cadman, ect... Not a plus.

May28th2018 said:

warren said:

*snip*

Hey, I can think of a nation where no banks have failed -- CANADA.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/subjects-sujets/labour-travail/lfs-epa/lfs-epa-eng.htm

January 2009 (Previous release)

Employment fell by 129,000 in January (-0.8%), almost all in full time, pushing the unemployment rate up 0.6 percentage points to 7.2%. This drop in employment exceeds any monthly decline during the previous economic downturns of the 1980s and 1990s.

How are they going to afford 38% gasoline tax ( 53% on the actual gas cost ) which makes their gas twice as expensive as America's? A week of travel back and forth to work there must cost a fortune compared to our $2 a gallon gas here? What about GST, AND their mortgage and loan payments? What about those big health benefit QPP QPIP payments for employers? Small businesses are going to survive this in Canada to pay back their business loans?

What about the massive health burden on Canada. The capital gains taxes which cripple small business owners there?

As usual Canada is simply behind the US by a few months.

Harper already bankrupted you all of the IE surplus to fund his logging constituency in the west and 4B to the auto industry in the east.

The CAD has already fell back to almost 30%

Canadians will be defaulting on huge loans soon enough, not that it hasn't started already. Canada is going to get it way worse than anything in the US. Poor Americans are richer than rich Canadians. Take that to the bank.

Canada's philosophy is to keep everyone poor, and the redistribution of wealth by the government. A losing scenario in the best of economies. Canada is also extremely corrupt, as seen by the Airbus scandal, sponsorship scandal, the government's ties with the Italian mafia, and motorcycle gangs, Harper's 1 million dollar insurance offer to Cadman, ect... Not a plus.

warren said:

May28th2018 said:

*snip*

May28th2018, I feel a bit sorry for you because it's clear that you don't actually understand a single word of what you just said to me.  I suspect that without an Internet connection, you'd probably be at a complete loss as to how to explain how things actually work in Canada.

First of all, the exchange rate is back to where it was four years ago.  That actually suits a lot of businesses in Canada and the U.S. just fine; sudden changes in the exchange rate can create significant problems for importers and exporters.  I know a guy who runs a small business, who very nearly went out of business because of the drop in the exchange rate in 2007 -- about 30% of his company's income had disappeared by the summer of 2008 for reasons completely out of the control of both himself and his customers.  He's still in business now only because the exchange rate has gone back up.  Don't believe me?  The Canadian Labour Congress has research that shows that since 2002, about a quarter million jobs were lost due to the upward trend in the exchange rate, much of it in manufacturing.  A lot of Canadians who invested in U.S. stocks also watched their money disappear into nowhere.

There is this notion used in the worldwide currency industry called "purchasing power parity" (there's a Wikipedia article on it) that uses a simple formula to determine what an exchange rate between two countries "should" be, based on real incomes and the real cost of similar goods.  The PPP between Canada and the U.S. right now is calculated at about 1.20, and the real exchange rate is about 1.28.  That's not too bad, considering that Canada's new economic problem this year is almost entirely the effect of the poor economy in the United States.  Currency parity is much more imbalanced and undesirable than the current exchange rate!

Anyways, you also chose to call out unemployment rates.  Again, let's be clear about this: most of the jobs being lost in Canada due to the weakening U.S. economy.  The U.S. is Canada's largest trading partner (and vice versa), but because there are ten times as many Americans as Canadians, any significant drop in the U.S. economy can have an outsized effect in Canada.


You also chose to call out gas taxes.  Hey, guess what?  Canada's roads are in better shape than the United States's roads.  Ask anyone who drives in both countries.  Ontarians grumble about high gas taxes, but then they go to Michigan or New York, have a mighty WTF about the sorry state of the infrastructure there, and are quite happy to get home where things are better.  The real difference in fuel cost isn't actually all that great. A of a couple of days ago, the cost of gas in SW Ontario was about 83 cents/L CAD (less if you know where to look), and about $1.95 USD/gal in SE Michigan (again, less if you know where to look).    Let's walk through the math:  0.83 CAD = 0.644 USD.  There are 3.78L in a gallon, so 1 gallon of fuel is 2.43 USD.  That's 50 cents more a gallon.  Of course, the price of gas varies widely in the United States; it's more like 2.05 in SE Ohio, 2.25 in parts of New York City, and 1.70 in Athens, Georgia.

There's no possible way for the actual, real math to work out that Canadians pay twice as much for gas as Americans do.  You're outright lying here.


Yes, Canadians pay more taxes than the United States, but... amazing thing, this, Canada's economy is generally much better-managed, and Canadians have a higher standard of living, are safer, and enjoy much cheaper access to health care and education. 


And you're also absolutely wrong about "poor Americans are richer than rich Canadians".  I guarantee (and I'd wager money on this) that you can't find any proper statistics to back this statement up.  There are more Americans living in poverty than there are Canadians, period.  There are more illiterate people in the Unites States than there are Canadians, period.  Canada routinely rates in the top 10 countries in the world for comparatively low poverty levels, the United States is always several spots behind, in spite of those lower taxes you've B-Sed yourself into believing make the United States a better country.

warren said:

May28th2018 said:

*snip*

May28th2018, I feel a bit sorry for you because it's clear that you don't actually understand a single word of what you just said to me.  I suspect that without an Internet connection, you'd probably be at a complete loss as to how to explain how things actually work in Canada.

First of all, the exchange rate is back to where it was four years ago.  That actually suits a lot of businesses in Canada and the U.S. just fine; sudden changes in the exchange rate can create significant problems for importers and exporters.  I know a guy who runs a small business, who very nearly went out of business because of the drop in the exchange rate in 2007 -- about 30% of his company's income had disappeared by the summer of 2008 for reasons completely out of the control of both himself and his customers.  He's still in business now only because the exchange rate has gone back up.  Don't believe me?  The Canadian Labour Congress has research that shows that since 2002, about a quarter million jobs were lost due to the upward trend in the exchange rate, much of it in manufacturing.  A lot of Canadians who invested in U.S. stocks also watched their money disappear into nowhere.

There is this notion used in the worldwide currency industry called "purchasing power parity" (there's a Wikipedia article on it) that uses a simple formula to determine what an exchange rate between two countries "should" be, based on real incomes and the real cost of similar goods.  The PPP between Canada and the U.S. right now is calculated at about 1.20, and the real exchange rate is about 1.28.  That's not too bad, considering that Canada's new economic problem this year is almost entirely the effect of the poor economy in the United States.  Currency parity is much more imbalanced and undesirable than the current exchange rate!

Anyways, you also chose to call out unemployment rates.  Again, let's be clear about this: most of the jobs being lost in Canada due to the weakening U.S. economy.  The U.S. is Canada's largest trading partner (and vice versa), but because there are ten times as many Americans as Canadians, any significant drop in the U.S. economy can have an outsized effect in Canada.


You also chose to call out gas taxes.  Hey, guess what?  Canada's roads are in better shape than the United States's roads.  Ask anyone who drives in both countries.  Ontarians grumble about high gas taxes, but then they go to Michigan or New York, have a mighty WTF about the sorry state of the infrastructure there, and are quite happy to get home where things are better.  The real difference in fuel cost isn't actually all that great. A of a couple of days ago, the cost of gas in SW Ontario was about 83 cents/L CAD (less if you know where to look), and about $1.95 USD/gal in SE Michigan (again, less if you know where to look).    Let's walk through the math:  0.83 CAD = 0.644 USD.  There are 3.78L in a gallon, so 1 gallon of fuel is 2.43 USD.  That's 50 cents more a gallon.  Of course, the price of gas varies widely in the United States; it's more like 2.05 in SE Ohio, 2.25 in parts of New York City, and 1.70 in Athens, Georgia.

There's no possible way for the actual, real math to work out that Canadians pay twice as much for gas as Americans do.  You're outright lying here.


Yes, Canadians pay more taxes than the United States, but... amazing thing, this, Canada's economy is generally much better-managed, and Canadians have a higher standard of living, are safer, and enjoy much cheaper access to health care and education. 


And you're also absolutely wrong about "poor Americans are richer than rich Canadians".  I guarantee (and I'd wager money on this) that you can't find any proper statistics to back this statement up.  There are more Americans living in poverty than there are Canadians, period.  There are more illiterate people in the Unites States than there are Canadians, period.  Canada routinely rates in the top 10 countries in the world for comparatively low poverty levels, the United States is always several spots behind, in spite of those lower taxes you've B-Sed yourself into believing make the United States a better country.

warren said:

May28th2018 said:

*snip*

May28th2018, I feel a bit sorry for you because it's clear that you don't actually understand a single word of what you just said to me.  I suspect that without an Internet connection, you'd probably be at a complete loss as to how to explain how things actually work in Canada.

First of all, the exchange rate is back to where it was four years ago.  That actually suits a lot of businesses in Canada and the U.S. just fine; sudden changes in the exchange rate can create significant problems for importers and exporters.  I know a guy who runs a small business, who very nearly went out of business because of the drop in the exchange rate in 2007 -- about 30% of his company's income had disappeared by the summer of 2008 for reasons completely out of the control of both himself and his customers.  He's still in business now only because the exchange rate has gone back up.  Don't believe me?  The Canadian Labour Congress has research that shows that since 2002, about a quarter million jobs were lost due to the upward trend in the exchange rate, much of it in manufacturing.  A lot of Canadians who invested in U.S. stocks also watched their money disappear into nowhere.

There is this notion used in the worldwide currency industry called "purchasing power parity" (there's a Wikipedia article on it) that uses a simple formula to determine what an exchange rate between two countries "should" be, based on real incomes and the real cost of similar goods.  The PPP between Canada and the U.S. right now is calculated at about 1.20, and the real exchange rate is about 1.28.  That's not too bad, considering that Canada's new economic problem this year is almost entirely the effect of the poor economy in the United States.  Currency parity is much more imbalanced and undesirable than the current exchange rate!

Anyways, you also chose to call out unemployment rates.  Again, let's be clear about this: most of the jobs being lost in Canada due to the weakening U.S. economy.  The U.S. is Canada's largest trading partner (and vice versa), but because there are ten times as many Americans as Canadians, any significant drop in the U.S. economy can have an outsized effect in Canada.


You also chose to call out gas taxes.  Hey, guess what?  Canada's roads are in better shape than the United States's roads.  Ask anyone who drives in both countries.  Ontarians grumble about high gas taxes, but then they go to Michigan or New York, have a mighty WTF about the sorry state of the infrastructure there, and are quite happy to get home where things are better.  The real difference in fuel cost isn't actually all that great. A of a couple of days ago, the cost of gas in SW Ontario was about 83 cents/L CAD (less if you know where to look), and about $1.95 USD/gal in SE Michigan (again, less if you know where to look).    Let's walk through the math:  0.83 CAD = 0.644 USD.  There are 3.78L in a gallon, so 1 gallon of fuel is 2.43 USD.  That's 50 cents more a gallon.  Of course, the price of gas varies widely in the United States; it's more like 2.05 in SE Ohio, 2.25 in parts of New York City, and 1.70 in Athens, Georgia.

There's no possible way for the actual, real math to work out that Canadians pay twice as much for gas as Americans do.  You're outright lying here.


Yes, Canadians pay more taxes than the United States, but... amazing thing, this, Canada's economy is generally much better-managed, and Canadians have a higher standard of living, are safer, and enjoy much cheaper access to health care and education. 


And you're also absolutely wrong about "poor Americans are richer than rich Canadians".  I guarantee (and I'd wager money on this) that you can't find any proper statistics to back this statement up.  There are more Americans living in poverty than there are Canadians, period.  There are more illiterate people in the Unites States than there are Canadians, period.  Canada routinely rates in the top 10 countries in the world for comparatively low poverty levels, the United States is always several spots behind, in spite of those lower taxes you've B-Sed yourself into believing make the United States a better country.

warren said:

May28th2018 said:

*snip*

May28th2018, I feel a bit sorry for you because it's clear that you don't actually understand a single word of what you just said to me.  I suspect that without an Internet connection, you'd probably be at a complete loss as to how to explain how things actually work in Canada.

First of all, the exchange rate is back to where it was four years ago.  That actually suits a lot of businesses in Canada and the U.S. just fine; sudden changes in the exchange rate can create significant problems for importers and exporters.  I know a guy who runs a small business, who very nearly went out of business because of the drop in the exchange rate in 2007 -- about 30% of his company's income had disappeared by the summer of 2008 for reasons completely out of the control of both himself and his customers.  He's still in business now only because the exchange rate has gone back up.  Don't believe me?  The Canadian Labour Congress has research that shows that since 2002, about a quarter million jobs were lost due to the upward trend in the exchange rate, much of it in manufacturing.  A lot of Canadians who invested in U.S. stocks also watched their money disappear into nowhere.

There is this notion used in the worldwide currency industry called "purchasing power parity" (there's a Wikipedia article on it) that uses a simple formula to determine what an exchange rate between two countries "should" be, based on real incomes and the real cost of similar goods.  The PPP between Canada and the U.S. right now is calculated at about 1.20, and the real exchange rate is about 1.28.  That's not too bad, considering that Canada's new economic problem this year is almost entirely the effect of the poor economy in the United States.  Currency parity is much more imbalanced and undesirable than the current exchange rate!

Anyways, you also chose to call out unemployment rates.  Again, let's be clear about this: most of the jobs being lost in Canada due to the weakening U.S. economy.  The U.S. is Canada's largest trading partner (and vice versa), but because there are ten times as many Americans as Canadians, any significant drop in the U.S. economy can have an outsized effect in Canada.


You also chose to call out gas taxes.  Hey, guess what?  Canada's roads are in better shape than the United States's roads.  Ask anyone who drives in both countries.  Ontarians grumble about high gas taxes, but then they go to Michigan or New York, have a mighty WTF about the sorry state of the infrastructure there, and are quite happy to get home where things are better.  The real difference in fuel cost isn't actually all that great. A of a couple of days ago, the cost of gas in SW Ontario was about 83 cents/L CAD (less if you know where to look), and about $1.95 USD/gal in SE Michigan (again, less if you know where to look).    Let's walk through the math:  0.83 CAD = 0.644 USD.  There are 3.78L in a gallon, so 1 gallon of fuel is 2.43 USD.  That's 50 cents more a gallon.  Of course, the price of gas varies widely in the United States; it's more like 2.05 in SE Ohio, 2.25 in parts of New York City, and 1.70 in Athens, Georgia.

There's no possible way for the actual, real math to work out that Canadians pay twice as much for gas as Americans do.  You're outright lying here.


Yes, Canadians pay more taxes than the United States, but... amazing thing, this, Canada's economy is generally much better-managed, and Canadians have a higher standard of living, are safer, and enjoy much cheaper access to health care and education. 


And you're also absolutely wrong about "poor Americans are richer than rich Canadians".  I guarantee (and I'd wager money on this) that you can't find any proper statistics to back this statement up.  There are more Americans living in poverty than there are Canadians, period.  There are more illiterate people in the Unites States than there are Canadians, period.  Canada routinely rates in the top 10 countries in the world for comparatively low poverty levels, the United States is always several spots behind, in spite of those lower taxes you've B-Sed yourself into believing make the United States a better country.

warren said:

Yes, Canadians pay more taxes than the United States, but... amazing thing, this, Canada's economy is generally much better-managed, and Canadians have a higher standard of living, are safer, and enjoy much cheaper access to health care and education. 

May28th2018 said:

warren said:

*snip*

There are more illiterate people in the Unites States than there are Canadians, period.

http://studentsforliteracyottawa.blogspot.com/2006/04/nunavut-school-problems.html

"Three in four high-school students drop out before graduating, attendance rates are abysmal and literacy levels are the lowest in the country.

Mr. Berger's report may have grabbed the headlines, but last week also saw the release of a research report put together by the Iqaluit District Education Authority, a volunteer board that oversees four schools in Nunavut's capital.

The status report on students at risk in Iqaluit schools also contains some shocking numbers: 13 per cent of Iqaluit children arrive in kindergarten without the basic skills that five-year-olds are expected to acquire before formal education begins.

In Grade 1, 22 per cent of students are found to be below the level of skills they should have by that grade. In Grade 2, that percentage goes up to 28; by Grades 4 and 5, it is in the 30-per-cent range.

The number of students working below their grade level peaks in Grade 8, where teachers estimate that 53 per cent of students do not have the basic skills expected in that grade.

Moreover, students who fall behind are lucky if they get any kind of remedial math or literacy help, because there are no programs specifically designed to help struggling students."

Hooray for socialism, and 50 billion official languages.

There are more illiterate people in America, because there are more people in America.

May28th2018 said:

warren said:

*snip*

Again, let's be clear about this: most of the jobs being lost in Canada due to the weakening U.S. economy.

The Nortel and other collapses had nothing to do with the United States. The RIM contraction also had nothing to do with the US. Competition from US and other manufacturers are to blame. Even with the huge tax credits the Canadian govt gives to select preferred companies in the hope of creating jobs, they can not compete with rising global IT manufacturing.

The biosphere in Montreal is analogous to Canada in a nutshell I think. It's a country trapped in the late 1960s. Most ordinary people there have no easy access to the market. Something as easy as online streaming of movies through Netflix becomes impossible there, and monopolies are free to run in the vein that people may lose their jobs if they are split up. Too much government control is not a good thing.

The economy is bombing here in the US on the mere prospect of our economy and health care system become just a little bit more like Canada's.

phreaks said:

warren said:

*snip*

Erm, it's not that your health care costs are cheaper, it's that ours is more expensive.

And if you can't tell me why Canada is part of the reason that the US's health costs (especially pharmaceuticals) are so much more expensive; then there really is not much of a reason for anyone to continue this conversation.

You mention something about gleaming information from the Internet, what exactly are your credentials that make you such an expert in global economics again?

And what is Canada's GDP again.

AND BTW, "purchasing parity" is only 1 factor in determining the value of any currency vs another.
In our models it's one of the least weighted; interest rate trends, financial sector strength (which has several sub-factors), consumer spending and cyclical history all have a higher weighting in predicting exchange rates (in my models)

So wikipedia, yeah...

One more thing, I'm not going to argue whose financial model is better, but they are fundamentally different.
And we really don't want to adopt your model, thanks anayway; but our model works pretty well for the most part.

Sure it needs to be re-evaluated now and again, as all models ought to be. And sure we have a higher risk exposure, which contributes to bigger rewards and more opportunities and ... jobs.