Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
most who even voted have so little understanding as to what even happened that their votes are based on beleiving their own bull-sh@t and not actual events and fact.
Funny how that rarely stops or even slows people from "sharing" their opinions when they should probably be in listening mode. They hear a sound bite or two (from a sometimes random source) and they're off and running placing blame. How many published polls are built on an uninformed audience?
No, you. Even if you stay solvent debtors will drive up your costs. Sorry, you really don't get it.
If you have 99 responsible people who buy houses and 1 real estate speculator buying 10 houses , the law of marginal utility states that their will be huge market distortions for the 99% who will pay more for housing, many of which will fall into negative equity if it pops or just steal away large amounts of their true savings. Their saving will be nothing but liability assets against each other with the carrying charges to the banks.
1 person. destroys the market for 99.
I see your point, but refuse to believe that 'we the people' are powerless to financially/ethically evolve. I saw 2 bank advertisements for ~3% HELOC in the local newspaper this weekend; broadly speaking, if the homeowner keeps the equity in the house, banks predation can be controlled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by animalcrazy
I'm a workaholic so I understand that concept. Morally I can't throw someone else under the bus for it but there are many in power who can.
Kudos, but the opportunistic 'keeping up with the Joneses' spendthrifts are crowding-out prudent, morally responsible behavior IMHO!
~~ ~~ ~~
Who's @ fault pre-2008:
1-We the People
2-USGovt
3-TBTF banks
Who's @ fault post-2008-2010:
1-We the People
2-USGovt
3-TBTF banks
Who's @ fault post-2010 1-TBTF banks
2-USGovt/We the People
Since the mid-80s, the USGovt has been helping (favorable rule changes) the TBTF banks/Big Business transition to globalization & creeping deflation. In 2008, the ~1% interest rate TARP bailout was reluctantly given to the Economy to correct the TBTF mistakes; but instead of fixing the economy, the financial apparatus went for the jugular & maneuvered via moral hazard (a.k.a. predatory extortion).
Funny how that rarely stops or even slows people from "sharing" their opinions when they should probably be in listening mode. They hear a sound bite or two (from a sometimes random source) and they're off and running placing blame. How many published polls are built on an uninformed audience?
Witness the feed back loop. There isn't anything worth listening given that is most what it is.
On the occasion one finds a truly innovative novelty , they still need to cite the the orthodox mode of thinking with authority to prove they are used to handling the subject. Then they have a legitimate target. If one is going say Marxism does not work, cite the passages and show the failed instances of them. Then show the alternative theory and their successful instances etc. One also needs to be prepared for the counter arguments. I used to see person after person, especially in the religious forum, be perfectly contend to leave something in a state of contradiction and paradox. One asserts -the sky is blue- another refutes and asserts - the sky is black - without reconciling the real contexts. How do people think like this and sleep at night? All but insane in my mind.
Truth be told if you have a thought on your mind, it probably was already said better when Oprah hosted Suzie Orman, economically speaking that is.
I see your point, but refuse to believe that 'we the people' are powerless to financially/ethically evolve. I saw 2 bank advertisements for ~3% HELOC in the local newspaper this weekend; broadly speaking, if the homeowner keeps the equity in the house, banks predation can be controlled.
Its not an ethics problem. Its a natural selection problem. 99% can be ethical and yet the economic system they use requires they all be ethical.
Let me give you another for instance. Say you have recreational drug laws. What will be the side effects? It will create a wealth opportunity for the criminal class, say at the same ratio of 1%. If it is not enforced successfully, difficult in free societies, you have added a selective pressure to favor the criminals. Its a risky gambit. So all that is needed is a small ratio of corruption with systems that select for it. Quickly the selected drug lord can then buy up the politicians and its game over.
Quote:
Kudos, but the opportunistic 'keeping up with the Joneses' spendthrifts are crowding-out prudent, morally responsible behavior IMHO!
we must not select for it and given the state of white collar crime , its grim.
Quote:
~~ ~~ ~~
Who's @ fault pre-2008:
1-We the People
2-USGovt
3-TBTF banks
Who's @ fault post-2008-2010:
1-We the People
2-USGovt
3-TBTF banks
Who's @ fault post-2010 1-TBTF banks
2-USGovt/We the People
Since the mid-80s, the USGovt has been helping (favorable rule changes) the TBTF banks/Big Business transition to globalization & creeping deflation. In 2008, the ~1% interest rate TARP bailout was reluctantly given to the Economy to correct the TBTF mistakes; but instead of fixing the economy, the financial apparatus went for the jugular & maneuvered via moral hazard (a.k.a. predatory extortion).
I read the history of the 1870s and saw the future. The eternal occurrence :
Witness the feed back loop. There isn't anything worth listening given that is most what it is.
On the occasion one finds a truly innovative novelty , they still need to cite the the orthodox mode of thinking with authority to prove they are used to handling the subject. Then they have a legitimate target. If one is going say Marxism does not work, cite the passages and show the failed instances of them. Then show the alternative theory and their successful instances etc. One also needs to be prepared for the counter arguments. I used to see person after person, especially in the religious forum, be perfectly contend to leave something in a state of contradiction and paradox. One asserts -the sky is blue- another refutes and asserts - the sky is black - without reconciling the real contexts. How do people think like this and sleep at night? All but insane in my mind.
Truth be told if you have a thought on your mind, it probably was already said better when Oprah hosted Suzie Orman, economically speaking that is.
I listen here and everywhere else to enable discussion/conversation if nothing else. And even an idea that seems unfounded, may lead me to a worthwhile idea to consider on my own.
But I clearly agree with your premise, so IMHO you have to be very discerning about what thoughts actually shape your thinking AND be open to challenge your assumptions. Discerning does not mean limiting all your news gathering to Fox News, MSNBC or any other narrow sources (all would be preferable), as too many people seem to. Very little of what I "hear" here shapes my thinking, and few here (or most places) are willing to challenge their own assumptions. Once we're not willing to learn (as many are), what's the point in any discussion to begin with? YMMV
How do the black vs white posters sleep at night? Ego can and does drive us beyond all reason, especially in our present culture.
I listen here and everywhere else to enable discussion/conversation. But I clearly agree with your premise, so IMHO you have to be very discerning about what thoughts actually shape your thinking AND be open to challenge your assumptions. Very little of what I "hear" here shapes my thinking, and few here (or most places) are willing to challenge their assumptions. YMMV
How do the dogma debaters sleep at night? Ego can drive us beyond all reason, especially in our present culture.
I have had several of those moments in my life where I knew who was full of BS. In my adult life I have changed both my religion and my politics. Nothing frightens me more than my own BS. So I also know what we who would be objective are up against. Of course that was what became of Socrates who upon being told he was the wisest realized it was because he knew nothing while the others asserted wrongly. Looking back he was quite right because I would have loved to introduce to him the concept of relativism since it was idealism that plagued him most. Ideals are relative, Socrates.
most who even voted have so little understanding as to what even happened that their votes are based on beleiving their own bull-sh@t and not actual events and fact.
I suppose one can be elitist and insult the 53 people that participated. You frankly don't know that and every American has a right to a viewpoint. I may disagree with someone's viewpoint, but your RIGHT to express it is sacrosanct. Mathjak, I respect your RIGHT to vote or not to vote even though we had disagreed. Show others the same respect.
I just wanted to suggest that people can pick the choice that is closest to their viewpoint. I mean if you are very disappointed in Wall Street, it is not that big a stretch to check the "mad" box. They are not really that different!
I just wanted to suggest that people can pick the choice that is closest to their viewpoint. I mean if you are very disappointed in Wall Street, it is not that big a stretch to check the "mad" box. They are not really that different!
And what's closest if you a) weren't mad at Wall St to begin with and/or b) don't agree with the (false) implication that it was wholely or primarily Wall St's "fault?" Those, many identified in posts, didn't vote.
The poll was constructed as a 'when did you stop beating your wife?' exercise at the outset...
And what's closest if you a) weren't mad at Wall St to begin with and/or b) don't agree with the (false) implication that it was wholely or primarily Wall St's "fault?" Those, many identified in posts, didn't vote.
The poll was constructed as a 'when did you stop beating your wife?' exercise at the outset...
And what's closest if you a) weren't mad at Wall St to begin with and/or b) don't agree with the (false) implication that it was wholely or primarily Wall St's "fault?" Those, many identified in posts, didn't vote.
The poll was constructed as a 'when did you stop beating your wife?' exercise at the outset...
Then the "I forgive them" choice sounds like it is easily closer to your view IMO. Few polls are perfect. I still think given the abuses and fraud that to be forgiven by nine people is generous frankly. You are aware that there was an actual COLLAPSE of the financial system, are you not? We can't be in denial and the next generation can hopefully learn from this news if we show some decency and don't try to minimize it like someone on FOX news might do. Yes,some people need to be smarter with their own money, too (never disputed that).
It is good that a majority of the voters believe in accountability (44-9 now). It helps to restore one's faith in the American people. We can quibble that the poll is not perfect if we don't like it I suppose. Few polls are.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I didn't vote
