Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kosh on December 08, 2008, 03:35:35 am
-
ouch (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=COO20081206&articleId=11312)
Social catastrophes are poorly expressed by statistics. A recent study by The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities revealed that 41 states are facing severe budget shortfalls for 2009. Some states are worse off than others, with California ($31.7 billion) and Florida ($5.1 billion) leading the deficit pack. In all, the 41 states are currently facing a $71.9 billion budget shortfall.
The key word here is “currently,” since a similar study was conducted by the same group only three months earlier, at which time “only” 29 states were predicted to face shortfalls of a “mere” $48 billion. As the recession deepens, so will the state’s budget problems, turning this “budget crisis” into a humanitarian disaster. Projections have already been made for a $200 billion shortfall by 2010.
That has got to hurt.....
-
Phew! Obama has his work cut out for him, doesn't he?
-
No! Just as the Governator was sorting things out.
Eh, I can't actually back that up. How has Schwarzenegger's last few years gone? I'll probably cheer him regardless though.
Humanitarian disaster. I don't think that's a term that can actually apply to the only world superpower. Unless of course it's not anymore.
-
Humanitarian disaster. I don't think that's a term that can actually apply to the only world superpower. Unless of course it's not anymore.
Most Western nations live well beyond their means, largely due to the extension of credit. Reality has to hit eventually.
-
Well, that's how the credit system works. Spend now, pay later.
Still, I'll genuinely be surprised if "later" is next year. :shaking:
-
Mika makes a mental note to stay the **** away from US, China, India and Thailand next year
-
Pfft. They're all slow. Michigan is already bankrupt.
EDIT: Oh, BTW: My credit score is infinite.
-
Hmm... doesn't mention Colorado, we must be fine...
*skips off merrily*
-
Phew! Obama has his work cut out for him, doesn't he?
I still think the 'klanners will get organised and do him in before he takes over.
-
Well, that's how the credit system works. Spend now, pay later.
Still, I'll genuinely be surprised if "later" is next year. :shaking:
Well, later has to come at some point. As soon as somebody *needs* to be repayed... the whole system collapses. Look at the 1920s; credit was everything. And then there was a panic, and everyone sold their stock, so the stock market crashed. And then people rushed the banks, and the banks failed. And there it is: no money in the system, Great Depression.
"Later" has to be sometime. No reason it can't be next year, considering.
I still think the 'klanners will get organised and do him in before he takes over.
The people who would kill Obama are way, way too stupid to actually pull it off.
-
That makes me look downright optimistic.
-
You're only optimistic because you don't know Colorado's got a budget gap of $99 million.
But, hey, look on the bright side: North Carolina's is $800 million.
Well, link. (http://www.cbpp.org/9-8-08sfp.htm)
-
The really funny thing is that NCs GSP is supposed to be higher than Colorados by $100 billion.
$99 million is not really all that much compared to Colorados GSP, which is $230 billion, still, it's concerning.
Am I the only one surprised Texas isn't on that list?
Oh and "Of these states Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Utah did not also face shortfalls before adopting FY2009 budgets."So apparently someone in the state government is being a dick and biting off more than they can afford.
-
Well, they cut back a lot. I know Colorado is dealing with some huge amount of money it *thought* it would have (from taxes and such) but isn't going to happen.
-
I don`t think cutting spending will turn this around, at least not in a short term. This is spreading like a virus, and may have to run its corse. If nothing changes within a few years, well be looking at economic collapse.
The word ression mean anything to you, It does now...
Its spreading, gaining steam, making its way into other countries, slowly...
Im going to shut up now. :sigh:
(edit) At least where I work we are still doing a 6 day work week..
-
Sometimes, I question if money can be created out of thin air. That appears to be what the credit system does.
-
It's not money out of thin air. It's more like a placeholder for money. An IOU.
The problem is that with credit, you can take the IOU and use it as money.
-
Huh, you have zero post. :wtf:
-
GenDisc posts don't count.
-
Am I the only person who sees the upcoming recession as positive event?
I would think it ought to sweep away all the stupidity and allows a clear restart (only to be repeated later). Given that major wars don't break out like last time.
Yes there will be hard times ahead, but I'm pretty sure it is possible to survive through it.
Mika
-
I would think it ought to sweep away all the stupidity and allows a clear restart (only to be repeated later). Given that major wars don't break out like last time.
If big businesses that ****ed up royally like Citigroup and GM were allowed to fail, it would allow a restart. As it is Citigroup in particular is hiding large amounts of bad debt, and letting them implode would force full disclosure.
-
Recession's not positive because I need the economy to not be in the toilet so I can go to college. :[
But I guess in a big-picture way, it could be a good thing. Maybe.
-
The first rule of project chaos is you don't ask questions
-
Recession's not positive because I need the economy to not be in the toilet so I can go to college. :[
But I guess in a big-picture way, it could be a good thing. Maybe.
I would think a recession/depression is the best time to go to college.
-
Not at all. Loans are hard to come by and it's retardedly hard to get a job, especially if you're an unskilled, pink-haired teenager.
-
Am I the only person who sees the upcoming recession as positive event?
Maybe not the only one, but probably one of the few. What do you do for a living that isn't going to be threatened by this? :wtf: What about all of your family and friends - all of their livelihoods are at risk too. I doubt you'd find too many people sympathetic to all the executives this is going to see axed, but the people they take with them on the way dow, they're the ones who make major recessions like this immensely negative events.
-
You know, more starving people in third world countries, more homeless people here, job loss, really it's a positive thing. :doubt:
-
You know, more starving people in third world countries, more homeless people here, job loss, really it's a positive thing. :doubt:
leaving the third world countries alone might just be the best thing for the farmers there. They do not have to compete against all the free food from the civilised world, and get an good incentive to get the agriculture going.
-
leaving the third world countries alone might just be the best thing for the farmers there. They do not have to compete against all the free food from the civilised world, and get an good incentive to get the agriculture going.
Unfortunately, leaving the third world alone would be very bad at first.
See, if you just look at Africa: With the naturally high infant mortality due to all the jungle diseases and such, Africans have that tendency to produce eight or nine children in the hopes that two or three will reach puberty. Reproduction begins at a young age and continues from there, and they try to have as many children as possible. They need the extra hands because Africa doesn't naturally have beasts of burden, and the terrain didn't inspire invention of the wheel.
But then come the Europeans. We reduced infant mortality, improved health, et cetera, and the population exploded. In response, Africans had to try to produce way more food than is possible in African soil and... now we have famines and epidemics and civil wars and genocides.
Third world countries in the eastern hemisphere are third world because of geography, mostly. The land can't support the number of people there, and the number of people increases with improved medicine.
So if we just left (not that we're doing a whole, whole lot at the moment) the famine and disease and war would become a lot worse... at first. There'd be a period of time before everything balanced out, if that would end up happening at all.
What we really ought to do there is remove governments and rebuild these countries from the ground up. Iraq doesn't need or want our "help." Ethiopia, Sudan, Uganda, et cetera need and want help. We don't need to militarily occupy any of those nations except to stop the LRA and various civil wars. We just need to encourage and help to build agricultural and technological innovations like this one (http://www.celsias.com/article/a-refrigerator-that-runs-without-electricity/).
Farmers need seeds and tools to begin with to produce food, to produce more seeds, and to improve on methods and tools. These societies need free, accessible education.
What they don't need? Religion. Missions do work to improve standard of living in these areas somewhat, but they really think conversion is the number one priority nine times out of ten. Unfortunately, religions who focus on conversion volunteer time and resources, so the government fails to take action beyond giving missions money and protection.
The biggest problem with missions, though? Salem-style "witch" hysteria, destruction of generations-old religious and cultural artifacts, the Lord's Resistance Army, proliferation of the abstinence-until-marriage method of safe sex, et cetera, et cetera.
The people in African countries aren't really competing with the Western world. We send money and food, but most of the time it all gets held up in governments so corrupt they make that guy trying to sell Obama's Senate seat look like frakking George Washington.
Am I the only person who sees the upcoming recession as positive event?
You know, more starving people in third world countries, more homeless people here, job loss, really it's a positive thing. :doubt:
In an extremely, extremely big-picture sort of way, recessions can be a good thing. After all, we got the New Deal out of the Great Depression. Massive public works projects and improved infrastructure, etc, etc.
But, really, when you look at it that way, *anything* can be seen as a positive event.
Uhh... I think I am waaayyy off-topic.
-
Maybe not the only one, but probably one of the few. What do you do for a living that isn't going to be threatened by this? What about all of your family and friends - all of their livelihoods are at risk too. I doubt you'd find too many people sympathetic to all the executives this is going to see axed, but the people they take with them on the way dow, they're the ones who make major recessions like this immensely negative events.
The answer took some pondering. First off, I'm the kind of person who can adapt quite easily. What it comes to my job, it may stay or may not, but I'm not worried about this. Personal doesn't equal important in my case. I'm pretty sure I'll find a way if **** really hits the fan here. If I find myself unemployed that only means I was doing fancy dream stuff that had no relation to society. Yes I do think that the job will remain but the irony will be on my side if it doesn't. Not a big deal if that turns out to be the case.
And personally, I'm relieved to see all the *******t, stupidity and lies crumble, leaving the bare, basic things in front of everybody. Also, I prefer to live in a society where those who steal and lie get tar & feathers. Besides, it is not the executives that are to blame. Nobody forced people to get bigger mortgages than they can ever hopefully pay back.
At some point I was actually wondering if moving from countryside to city was that smart after all. Now it will be equally interesting to see if people flock back, since I think that the jobs will be found in the countryside. If not jobs, make it food then.
What it comes to developing areas, like say, Africa, the aid organisations have asked for money for at least 30 bloody years (my life time, that is)! If the aid doesn't make any difference, or does never arrive on location, there is no sense in paying it! Outside pressure will not change things. Only population with common will can change it. What is the rationale that the developing countries will have more hungry people if the world financial system collapses?
Mika
-
If you're married, you're wife is working, and you have two kids, if you lose your job you might be okay.
If you both lose your jobs, you're in deep ****.
-
If you're married, you're wife is working, and you have two kids, if you lose your job you might be okay.
If you both lose your jobs, you're in deep ****.
Two or more people on one income? Kids are super, super expensive. Losing one income won't put you on the streets right away...
-
It does seem, however, that the recession is a blessing for my mum, because she might have been retrenched otherwise.
-
Am I the only person who sees the upcoming recession as positive event?
You know, more starving people in third world countries, more homeless people here, job loss, really it's a positive thing. :doubt:
In an extremely, extremely big-picture sort of way, recessions can be a good thing. After all, we got the New Deal out of the Great Depression. Massive public works projects and improved infrastructure, etc, etc.
But, really, when you look at it that way, *anything* can be seen as a positive event.
Uhh... I think I am waaayyy off-topic.
wait
wait
how the hell is the New Deal a big-picture event?
-
I meant, the Great Depression could be seen as sorta a good thing if you look at the big picture, which I guess would be the 30s, 40s, and 50s because it inspired the New Deal which improved our infrastructure and stuff..
-
I meant, the Great Depression could be seen as sorta a good thing if you look at the big picture, which I guess would be the 30s, 40s, and 50s because it inspired the New Deal which improved our infrastructure and stuff..
you answered to a post about third worlders being hit hard by the current recession by talking about big picture and taking the new deal as an example. tip: globally, new deal had jack **** to depression and p. much no one outside the united states gives a **** about New Deal and usually the crisises just end up as return to the status quo.
in really big picture world war 2 was also a good thing because the aftermath improved infrastructure and international communication, and the war sped up the technological advance bu quite a bit. however, lightly talking about things which have really dramatic consequences to daily lives of prolly millions of people is stupid and "in big picture something good could come out of this" is just a codeword for apathy
qed
-
Spel cheek maks yur argumants luk beter.
-
Spel cheek maks yur argumants luk beter.
i HATE speling
-
I meant, the Great Depression could be seen as sorta a good thing if you look at the big picture, which I guess would be the 30s, 40s, and 50s because it inspired the New Deal which improved our infrastructure and stuff..
you answered to a post about third worlders being hit hard by the current recession by talking about big picture and taking the new deal as an example. tip: globally, new deal had jack **** to depression and p. much no one outside the united states gives a **** about New Deal and usually the crisises just end up as return to the status quo.
in really big picture world war 2 was also a good thing because the aftermath improved infrastructure and international communication, and the war sped up the technological advance bu quite a bit. however, lightly talking about things which have really dramatic consequences to daily lives of prolly millions of people is stupid and "in big picture something good could come out of this" is just a codeword for apathy
qed
Yeeeah... I was just sorta mildly defending Mika's comment about the recession being positive. I did say earlier that if you're looking at the "big picture" then *anything* is justifiably positive.
-
in really big picture world war 2 was also a good thing because the aftermath improved infrastructure and international communication, and the war sped up the technological advance bu quite a bit. however, lightly talking about things which have really dramatic consequences to daily lives of prolly millions of people is stupid and "in big picture something good could come out of this" is just a codeword for apathy
I'm pretty sure I mentioned I don't see wars as positive events in the first post. Recession then, is another call.
I'm again the only one who sees the general population just as guilty or innocent as the executives? There have been whistleblowers, but the general population doesn't actually respect or listen them. Why is that so? It is the only way to keep things from crashing down.
Mika
-
Because the "general population" has innocent people, who had nothing to do with the crisis involved as well. There were a large number of ****ers who screwed things up, and now I can't get a job, and if this continues, my little brothers might have trouble going to college.
-
Because the "general population" has innocent people, who had nothing to do with the crisis involved as well. There were a large number of ****ers who screwed things up, and now I can't get a job, and if this continues, my little brothers might have trouble going to college.
I don't think so. Your government has been enjoying a (silent, most likely) approval from the general population. If this wasn't so, general population would have stopped stuff from happening.
On the other hand, I'm looking forward for times when I can go to US flapping 5 Euro notes around and say "Yes ma'am, I'm one of those rich Ur-a-peans you might have heard of!" And behave like the good-ol' European Colonial lords! (In case anyone wondered, this is purposefully offensive. I don't know, it might put some incentive on the US population, to, like watch their surroundings and politics and use some common sense. This is probable as cows flying, but there, I wrote it down nevertheless.)
Besides, I think most of the Europeans have been aware for at least eight years (some of us a little bit longer, though) that US is on the brink of a financial collapse, hence the large amount of Bush policy bashing and critique towards large US cars.
Mika
-
Well for now you those of you Europeans who feel like being bastards can take comfort in the fact that the largest economic and military power in the world is potentially unstable.
Happy?
Lets all thank our new Chinese overlords - may they do a better job than we did
-
A thing what Europeans tried to tell you what would happen before US started warring.
And it is not like the first time there would have been a super power in our immediate proximity that failed financially. Hell, US is on the other side of the pond and the last one was literally our neighbor.
It will be interesting to see IF it goes to the point that Europeans are worried about American nukes being sold to black markets or used by American radicalists. (And yeah, this is purposefully offensive again.)
Mika
-
Yes, the US sucks doesn't it.
AND ITS STILL NOT MY FAULT.
Go away, trolling the US citizens on this forum will not solve anything. You're just gratifying yourself
-
and some of us still dont give a crap about your little us of a and would gladly throw celebration parties when you ****ers finally fell down and realised that the rest of the world is laughing at you so hard they're almost dying.
-
Pecenipicek, I've read two posts of yours today. Both of them sound incredibly idiotic. Please moderate yourself.
-
Huh?
I'm out of here for 20 minutes and it is already spiralling into a flamefest!
I never said US sucks. Actually a couple of our customers are US companies.
And this is not actually trolling. I'm purposefully stirring emotions, but I have not insulted anyone. Me as a colonial lord, for example, is unthinkable. I'm taught that all people are equal and that holds.
Lets all thank our new Chinese overlords - may they do a better job than we did
The last I heard that country is also on some kind of turmoil. Besides, I think it is again US itself that gave its wealth to China and India by offsourcing. So, thanks a bunch.
Mika
-
No doubt there are many idiots in the US who continuously compromise America's reputation throughout the world...but pecenipicek's post went well beyond that. There are too many Americans in this forum who deserve respect.
-
yet their country deserves all contempt. lrn2read
-
AND ITS STILL NOT MY FAULT.
If you have just turned 18 then it's true. Ask your parents why they allowed / are allowing this to happen. This is what I have been asking here from my parents. I have got some understanding of certain issues by listening to their replies. No, they didn't get angry about my questions.
In fact it turned out they opposed quite a lot of decisions by parliament, but since democracy works as it does, there is pretty much nothing else but to bite the upper lip and get through the bad times. It is, afterall, what general population wanted. And my parents and me are included in the general population.
Mika
EDIT: typos, typos, typos again
-
Left unsaid, is that it is actually my generation that bears the brunt of those decisions. But looking through the votings where I could not participate, they have been legal, and it is so that there is a general, democratic approval on those decisions. Too bad I can only say why the **** were you so stupid to make such idiotic decisions, but it simply doesn't change anything. I simply have to, as Americans say, deal with it and move on.
Just like Americans themselves also.
Mika
-
You haven't been to America much, have you?
The popular feeling is, among the majority of people I'm around anyway, that the past 8 years, and sometimes the past 16 years, that our decisions have sucked. People who voted for McCain and Obama both, by and large, wanted different policy. We as a nation are trying to move on from our mistakes.
I'm 19, when Bush was first elected, I was 11, his second election I was 15. It really is painful to have people accusing my country because of its past, very regrettable decisions. It's a lot like accusing the German population after WWII, or the British population after the Falklands. Many Americans did have a role in the current crisis, but many did not. As an American, who's trying to enter into the workforce, the economic crisis hurts; all because a bunch of stupid sods bought houses they couldn't afford.
This Nation has acted unilaterally against non-existent threats. The current administration threatened violence toward far to many countries. I believe a majority of yanks accept that. We can't change it, and as you've said, we can only deal with the results.
-
Hey pecenipicek, **** you.
-
Don't pay pecenipeck any mind, ignore him
-
Indeed. Everyone needs to chill a bit. This is a good topic, and doesn't deserve locking yet, but it's kinda trending that way. 'Twould be a shame to lose a good discussion because a few people want to act like twits (Pecenpicek and redsniper, that would be you).
-
Alright fine, I got trolled. Sorry.
-
Honestly there's not really a lot left to discuss. The US led the world into an nasty economic crisis, because everyone had too much confidence in poor people paying their mortgages.. Now everyone, including the individual states of the Union, are feeling the crunch. The end.
-
The popular feeling is, among the majority of people I'm around anyway, that the past 8 years, and sometimes the past 16 years, that our decisions have sucked. People who voted for McCain and Obama both, by and large, wanted different policy. We as a nation are trying to move on from our mistakes.
A great many people outside the US during these last 8 years (and even a few in the US, but too often they were shouted down as people who were unpatriotic or focusing too much on "negatives") believed something like this was going to happen. US commentators were always telling us how "great" we are compared to those countries with "Eurosclerosis" and how everyone should follow our example (like Spain, Ireland, and Iceland did).
The US led the world into an nasty economic crisis, because everyone had too much confidence in poor people paying their mortgages..
They didn't care about whether or not poor people could pay for their mortgages, what they would do is after they get the mortgage, they would immediately chop it up and sell it off (for a profit of course) in the form of securities to people (or other banks) who would profit off of it, either by collecting the repayments or by selling it off to someone else, either another investor or another bank. This debt flipping would continue over and over and over.
It was plain greed, and a classic example of the "short term profits at the expense of long term success" mentality that is so wrong with out corporate culture today. Anyone who was paying attention could have seen this coming, but too few people cared to listen.
-
The popular feeling is, among the majority of people I'm around anyway, that the past 8 years, and sometimes the past 16 years, that our decisions have sucked. People who voted for McCain and Obama both, by and large, wanted different policy. We as a nation are trying to move on from our mistakes.
A great many people outside the US during these last 8 years (and even a few in the US, but too often they were shouted down as people who were unpatriotic or focusing too much on "negatives") believed something like this was going to happen. US commentators were always telling us how "great" we are compared to those countries with "Eurosclerosis" and how everyone should follow our example (like Spain, Ireland, and Iceland did).
You've been watching too much Sean Hannity.
The US led the world into an nasty economic crisis, because everyone had too much confidence in poor people paying their mortgages..
They didn't care about whether or not poor people could pay for their mortgages, what they would do is after they get the mortgage, they would immediately chop it up and sell it off (for a profit of course) in the form of securities to people (or other banks) who would profit off of it, either by collecting the repayments or by selling it off to someone else, either another investor or another bank. This debt flipping would continue over and over and over.
It was plain greed, and a classic example of the "short term profits at the expense of long term success" mentality that is so wrong with out corporate culture today. Anyone who was paying attention could have seen this coming, but too few people cared to listen.
Yes it was. You'll notice though that the majority of people in the US weren't directly involved? I personally didn't sell any poor people any houses.
-
Yes it was. You'll notice though that the majority of people in the US weren't directly involved? I personally didn't sell any poor people any houses.
The majority of the people still approved of it by electing politicians who supported the de regulation that allowed this to happen.
You've been watching too much Sean Hannity.
Wasn't just him, exhibit a (http://www.strategy-business.com/press/article/05210?pg=0)
The bursting of the dot-com bubble and the U.S. recession in 2001 seemed to put an end to the New Economy mania, and these events were greeted by some Europeans with a sense of relief. For them, surely this also meant an end to harangues about “why can’t Europe be more like America and share in the productivity miracle being brought about by computers?” The respite was only temporary, it turns out. While Americans may be haranguing their European compatriots less these days, the competitiveness gap remains. Europe is still struggling economically, with the biggest continental economies — France, Germany, and Italy — continuing to stagnate. Meanwhile, the U.S. economy has bounced back and, what’s more, has seen consistently impressive productivity growth.
-
sorry bout that lil outburst earlier but mobius irked my nerver at almost 1AM... sleepy pece + irritating things= flamebait... :p
bout the crisis itself, nothing much changed here... yet. getting a job here when you're 18-19, out of high school and without job experience has been a scarring experience for many people i've known in the past ten years, now couple it with the fact that my dear father is using the crisis as an excuse for being a jew + the fact that he is blackmailing me in getting any job, not the one i'd actually find somewhat enjoyable... (the jew thing meaning that he doesnt want to part with any money of his)
so yeah, america, prepare to do something we're all used to for a long time :p
-
As has been said, most of the smart people in America, including myself, have seen this coming for a long time. You just can't spend money you don't have indefinitely. Eventually someone will call us out, and then we're screwed. :doubt:
-
As has been said, most of the smart people in America, including myself, have seen this coming for a long time. You just can't spend money you don't have indefinitely.
But the smart people in America are the minority, the vast majority of the plebes expected this to continue indefinitely.
-
Right, and therein lies the problem.
-
I thought that half of America comprised of intellectuals.
-
I thought that half of America comprised of intellectuals.
You have got to be kidding me.........
-
I thought that half of America comprised of intellectuals.
Surely you can't be serious.
-
*Sighs*
To be fair, I don't think any country in the world has a population in which 50% of them are intellectuals.
-
As has been said, most of the smart people in America, including myself, have seen this coming for a long time. You just can't spend money you don't have indefinitely.
But the smart people in America are the minority, the vast majority of the plebes expected this to continue indefinitely.
:lol:
You act as if there is a clear cut "smart" and "stupid" people. I grew out of that phase like two years ago.
-
As has been said, most of the smart people in America, including myself, have seen this coming for a long time. You just can't spend money you don't have indefinitely.
But the smart people in America are the minority, the vast majority of the plebes expected this to continue indefinitely.
Ah, so we believe the propaganda that the rich and powerful are smart while the plebs are stupid. Uh-huh, no. It's been the shortsighted decisions of the powerful that have gotten us in this mess.
-
Might I mention that us shortsighted plebs are getting completely raped as well?
-
They are getting raped mainly because they also participated in this mess. No one forced them to go so deeply into debt, no one forced them to get mortgages to buy houses they couldn't afford, no one forced them to have a negative savings rate....yet they did it anyway.
-
They are getting raped mainly because they also participated in this mess. No one forced them to go so deeply into debt, no one forced them to get mortgages to buy houses they couldn't afford, no one forced them to have a negative savings rate....yet they did it anyway.
You're right! It's so simple! It's all their fault! All they have to do is not be in debt!
-
Going into debt for some things is ok, but most people go into debt to buy things they don't need. They could have gotten a reasonable mortgage to buy a house that was within their income range, but instead they bought a suburban mcmansion. Whose fault is that?
-
Nobody forced me to lower the value of my home. Nobody forced me to accept the fact that I now have a ridiculously high interest rate. Nobody forced me to be unable to refinance because of negative equity.
But I did it anyway.
-
Going into debt for some things is ok, but most people go into debt to buy things they don't need. They could have gotten a reasonable mortgage to buy a house that was within their income range, but instead they bought a suburban mcmansion. Whose fault is that?
What source are you supporting that statement with, again?
-
Kosh, it's still a minority of the total population that bought into houses they couldn't afford. Then rich hedge funds, banks, etc bought into them, and then normal people bought into these financial institutions because they were supposed to know what they were doing.
-
Going into debt for some things is ok, but most people go into debt to buy things they don't need. They could have gotten a reasonable mortgage to buy a house that was within their income range, but instead they bought a suburban mcmansion. Whose fault is that?
What source are you supporting that statement with, again?
The whole subprime mortgage crisis?
Nobody forced me to lower the value of my home.
The real estate appraisers and the potential buyers did. It's a buyers market now.
Nobody forced me to accept the fact that I now have a ridiculously high interest rate.
Actually the terms of your Adjustable Rate Mortgage do, IIRC. What does the word "Adjustable" mean?
Kosh, it's still a minority of the total population that bought into houses they couldn't afford.
The problem was not just them. Given the massive, record setting increase in foreclosures it was a sizable minority. But they were merely part of the problem, and I used them as an example.
-
I thought that half of America comprised of intellectuals.
Surely you can't be serious.
...well, half of them voted for Obama... :nervous:
-
It remains to be seen how that goes. And you can bet, if he screws up, the Europeans will be back to making fun of us (as though they ever stopped)
-
Going into debt for some things is ok, but most people go into debt to buy things they don't need. They could have gotten a reasonable mortgage to buy a house that was within their income range, but instead they bought a suburban mcmansion. Whose fault is that?
What source are you supporting that statement with, again?
The whole subprime mortgage crisis?
So essentially you're the well studied, highly reliable source that deduced that this is the problem? The poor people? Okay. That's fine. Now that we got that figured out, we're back to the solving the problem in the easiest way possible: By telling poor people to stop being so poor.
Nobody forced me to lower the value of my home.
The real estate appraisers and the potential buyers did. It's a buyer's market now.
Okay, so we know that the problem's not Scuddie's fault. If it's the buyer's fault that housing values are low, all we have to is make people stop buying houses at the best available price.
Nobody forced me to accept the fact that I now have a ridiculously high interest rate.
Actually the terms of your Adjustable Rate Mortgage do, IIRC. What does the word "Adjustable" mean?
Yes, I'm sure all mortgage rates are indeed adjustable, and I'm sure that they're adjustable within no domain. Why don't we all simply give ourselves a negative rate, and have the interest pay us? It's really that simple! Kosh is right, Scuddie!
Kosh, it's still a minority of the total population that bought into houses they couldn't afford.
The problem was not just them. Given the massive, record setting increase in foreclosures it was a sizable minority. But they were merely part of the problem, and I used them as an example.
Okay, I'll just say this: No normal person can afford any house. Unless you're one of the people who are insanely rich, then you're going to have to get a loan or mortgage something. Not everyone just happens to have $100K saved up, and it's really not an easy task trying to save up that much money.
Of course, I suppose we could all live in the ghettos, where the cost of maintaining the building is more than the building itself. Yeah, that'd be a good thing. It'd be a bit of a health hazard, and the size is probably insufficient for most families, but who needs their own bedroom, really?
Damnit, poor people just gotta stop being so poor and stupid people just gotta stop being so stupid. I obviously can't do anything to help that, so I'll just sit here on my Internets and complain about just how poor and stupid they are.
-
There hasn't been posts on which I would specifically need to reply (or somebody else did it already) on this thread for a couple of days. But I need to correct a couple of things:
First, I'm pretty sure nobody joked about US in the 1960s or 70s.
And I don't think there is anything funny about Obama failing to steer US away from crisis. Personally, I think US economy is in an irrecoverable condition, but I'll give the guy a chance and see what he gets done.
Scuddie, aren't you in UK? If so, I recall reading some of the real estate brochures in a hotel at a village close to Stansted airport (Mountfitchet?) back in 2005. Even then I was wondering how do the Brits get the money to buy such astronomically priced houses, which didn't even seem to be in good condition for me. Guess it is that they pay less taxes I thought back then, but still, 250.000 £ of a 300-years-old building is far too much.
I recall a Brit mentioning he lives in a rented house since he thinks it's more financially profitable to save his money since the house prices are inflated. And on top of that he mentioned that a lot of people are buying houses but in actuality cannot afford them, should the financial world change.
My father has been working in the banking sector for some 40 years. He saw the financial crash coming 12 years ago. We are located on the other side of the world, and do not know much about happenings in the US inland, but he did recognise this threat. If he could do this without any resources, no bank is excused in US. Furthermore, it seems that the general population has been successfully duped into thinking free lunches exist. This is the thing I don't understand, unless the general population itself has been as bloody willing to get short term profits as the bankers themselves.
Mika
-
I don't live in the UK, I live in Sacramento, CA, the city hit the hardest by the bursting of the housing bubble. Reduction in home value is close to 40% for multi-unit properties since July 2005. Guess what I have? A condo. Because of this, I owe more money than the home is worth, and the bank knows perfectly well I can't refinance due to this, and jacks the interest up as high as they can. I purchased the home with 6% interest, I now pay 8.25% interest. It would be cheaper to abandon the home, the only thing keeping me from doing this is the trouble I'd have to go through for a foreclosure.
-
Damn Sizzler, when did you stop being a moron?
-
My guess is about a year or so ago.
-
I don't live in the UK, I live in Sacramento, CA, the city hit the hardest by the bursting of the housing bubble. Reduction in home value is close to 40% for multi-unit properties since July 2005. Guess what I have? A condo. Because of this, I owe more money than the home is worth, and the bank knows perfectly well I can't refinance due to this, and jacks the interest up as high as they can. I purchased the home with 6% interest, I now pay 8.25% interest. It would be cheaper to abandon the home, the only thing keeping me from doing this is the trouble I'd have to go through for a foreclosure.
Damned, it is your login name that always places you in UK (I think they have a military slang word Scuddie). Losing 40 % value of house is nothing new, I have heard a lot worse numbers after divorces. Also, I find it strange that increasing interest rate from 6 % to 8.25 % would wreck somebody's economy. But it all goes back to the question: do you believe that US economy recovers or not? If it does, the interest rate dip is only momentarily.
By the way, if you find that the interest rate is above the normal rate and that the bank is taking advantage of your situation, take a look at what your legislation says about usury. The highest interest rates should be mandated and controlled by state (at least here). Also, you could ask the bank do they really believe they can get rid of the house if their interest rates force you to sell it.
Oh yeah, I do have my own mortgage to pay also. The interest rate was something like 5.2 % if I remember it right. Haven't bothered to check it later.
Mika
-
Damn Sizzler, when did you stop being a moron?
Looks more like he's fallen back into that trap.
So essentially you're the well studied, highly reliable source that deduced that this is the problem? The poor people? Okay. That's fine. Now that we got that figured out, we're back to the solving the problem in the easiest way possible: By telling poor people to stop being so poor.
No, lots and lots of people came to that conclusion long before me, as Mika said.
Okay, so we know that the problem's not Scuddie's fault. If it's the buyer's fault that housing values are low, all we have to is make people stop buying houses at the best available price.
I'm not really seeing the point of this. He said "no one forced me to lower the value of my home", and I pointed out that statement was incorrect.
Yes, I'm sure all mortgage rates are indeed adjustable, and I'm sure that they're adjustable within no domain. Why don't we all simply give ourselves a negative rate, and have the interest pay us? It's really that simple! Kosh is right, Scuddie!
Don't be an idiot, the banks set the rate. There was also a special kind of mortgage called an "Adjustable Rate Mortgage", where you would have low interest "teaser" rates, until about a year or two later the "adjustment" happens and the interest skyrockets. I'm not sure if this is what scuddie has, but it did sound like it from his description.
Okay, I'll just say this: No normal person can afford any house. Unless you're one of the people who are insanely rich, then you're going to have to get a loan or mortgage something. Not everyone just happens to have $100K saved up, and it's really not an easy task trying to save up that much money.
Duh, the point is whether or not you can afford the mortgage repayments. If you buy a house that is worth more, you need a bigger mortgage. The bigger the mortgage is, the bigger your monthly payments are. If your monthly payments are too much, you must be living in a house you can't afford.
-
So essentially you're the well studied, highly reliable source that deduced that this is the problem? The poor people? Okay. That's fine. Now that we got that figured out, we're back to the solving the problem in the easiest way possible: By telling poor people to stop being so poor.
No, lots and lots of people came to that conclusion long before me, as Mika said.
That's still an assertion, though.
Okay, so we know that the problem's not Scuddie's fault. If it's the buyer's fault that housing values are low, all we have to is make people stop buying houses at the best available price.
I'm not really seeing the point of this. He said "no one forced me to lower the value of my home", and I pointed out that statement was incorrect.
There we go. Why are you even debating?
Yes, I'm sure all mortgage rates are indeed adjustable, and I'm sure that they're adjustable within no domain. Why don't we all simply give ourselves a negative rate, and have the interest pay us? It's really that simple! Kosh is right, Scuddie!
Don't be an idiot, the banks set the rate. There was also a special kind of mortgage called an "Adjustable Rate Mortgage", where you would have low interest "teaser" rates, until about a year or two later the "adjustment" happens and the interest skyrockets. I'm not sure if this is what scuddie has, but it did sound like it from his description.
Exactly my point.
Okay, I'll just say this: No normal person can afford any house. Unless you're one of the people who are insanely rich, then you're going to have to get a loan or mortgage something. Not everyone just happens to have $100K saved up, and it's really not an easy task trying to save up that much money.
Duh, the point is whether or not you can afford the mortgage repayments. If you buy a house that is worth more, you need a bigger mortgage. The bigger the mortgage is, the bigger your monthly payments are. If your monthly payments are too much, you must be living in a house you can't afford.
I figured that not being able to afford the house was the same as not being able to afford the mortgage and not being able to afford the mortgage was the same as not being able to afford the house, and I just combined the two. Looks like I shouldn't have done that.
Damn Sizzler, when did you stop being a moron?
Looks more like he's fallen back into that trap.
You got me there. I can't argue with that; All of my arguments are inherently flawed because I'm a moron. Congratulations, Kosh; you win. You've won a debate with a moron.
-
Meh . . . w/e I'm gonna go sow global poverty, instability and economic woe throughout the world, along with all the rest of the Stupid AmericansTM
-
I figured that not being able to afford the house was the same as not being able to afford the mortgage and not being able to afford the mortgage was the same as not being able to afford the house, and I just combined the two. Looks like I shouldn't have done that.
Exactly my point.
So if you agreed with me about all that stuff why were you trying to argue with me?
You got me there. I can't argue with that; All of my arguments are inherently flawed because I'm a moron. Congratulations, Kosh; you win. You've won a debate with a moron.
No, you're just acting like one now.
Meh . . . w/e I'm gonna go sow global poverty, instability and economic woe throughout the world, along with all the rest of the Stupid AmericansTM
No need, you just elect people to do that. :p
There we go. Why are you even debating?[/quote]
I meant I didn't see the point in what you said.
-
The point in what I said was, no matter what I do, people will still do the easy thing and blame the yank.
-
I figured that not being able to afford the house was the same as not being able to afford the mortgage and not being able to afford the mortgage was the same as not being able to afford the house, and I just combined the two. Looks like I shouldn't have done that.
My continuation question would be:
How much tolerance should you allow between able to pay the mortgage and unable to pay the mortgage?
Mika
-
Phew! Obama has his work cut out for him, doesn't he?
Too much so. Atleast we can blaim him for the states bankrupcy.
-
Damn Sizzler, when did you stop being a moron?
Looks more like he's fallen back into that trap.
Watch it! Mr. Vega's comment is only really a flame if TheSizzler takes it as such. While yours is an ad hominem at best and a deliberate flame at worst.
-
Damn and i thought we had it rought here. Oh yeah and dont complayn about 8,5% interest rate. People here would kill to get those kinds of rates. Instead you have a minimum of 12-15% rate with a maximum of about 50% .
Guess that explains why bank's here have reported massive proffits over the past several years. With net profits raising from some 5- mllion euros to more then 400 million euros per trymester.
Anyway i have a question.
Since over here 90% of the population actualy owns theyr own home they dont have loeans or anithing on the houses etc. And they are not paying monthly rates on the homes they live. That beeing said how come such a massive economical crisis has hit us hard also.
I mean if we had a very powerfull stock market with lots of companies and stuff listed that would get hit by market crashes i could understand but we dont. We are not so much dependent on what hapenes in the stock market .
One might think that this is because we dont have any big companies to be listed.
Well we actualy a LOT of them but most of them choose not to get listed on the stockmarket .
So my question is why ??
Am i missing something or what??
People still pay up the bank loans some of them even ahead of time. And while appartment sales have slowed and prices have gone down a bit they only affect houses appartments that are older then 15-20 years. And even then not by a large margin a mx of some 20% i would say.
That is still way way way over the REAL values of the houses.
My guess is that at least some people are attempting to force a crisis at least in some places.
No im not a conspiracy freak. But i mean we had media attack's form some of the biggest players out there inclueding the Goldman Sachs bank or whatever its called and another one soon after they went bust.
We had media attack reporting we were negociating emergency funding from FMI and so forth.
At the same time the gouvernor of the central bank was dumbstruck since we did not need the money we had more then enough cash reserves to pay up imediatly all of our short to mid term loans.
So again Why ? who benefits ??
I believe the bank's most of all . Since they are in a sort of open war with the central bank here. The central bank has imposed some very very very harsh conditions regulations and so forth on all banks over here.
Some of them even got measures taken against them for increasing the interest rates artificialy and something to do with speculative money beeing brought in taken out monetary attack's on the national currency etc etc.
At least 2 bak's got stuk with a few billion euros cuz the central bank pulled most of the currency from the market in order to stop an attempt to artificialy increase the value of the euro compared to our national currency and make a massive profit out of this. Instead they got tens and hundreds of millions losses because they could not sell what they had for several days last i heard it took them some 2 weeks to get rid of everithing at a much lower rate then they bought.
anyway if anyone can make heads or tales out of my so called english spelling please fill me in on WTF is gooing on with these types of situations and why this current economical crysis seems well artificial.
-
Do you happen to be from Hungary?
Mika
EDIT: Forget it. Noticed that you were from Romania. Could it be so that Romania is in similar condition as Hungary?
-
I think Romania has got some amount of companies from other European countries, but if I recall correcly the wages have been increasing so much that Romania is not any more so cheap place. Also, I recall hearing that the Romanians workers have not been very loyal to the companies and this is something what most of the foreign companies will not accept (train the workforce and then they go after the highest available wage).
I think these are the reasons we are seeing companies returning from Romania. Some amount of growth in Romania is also caused by loans from EU, with certain conditions. And since the economy is getting stronger everybody wants to get as big lump of money as they can.
Maybe this can help you to piece it together?
Mika
-
Company loyalty is almost zero in the US because companies will fire you without warning, so why should average joe be loyal to them?
-
I know. My comment about Romania were just my observations and recalls of the news pieces I've read. There is nothing else to it.
In this case I feel the companies themselves have deserved that treatment. It all goes back to looking good quarter yearly to the stock holders. Which happen to be the people themselves.
Mika
-
Well the fact that some companies wanna leave is mainly because the gouverment has put the foot down on all the policy to buy cheap with the promise of investment then fire most of the people and sell the assets of the company for huge amounts of money.
Companies here can no longer just buy something and keep it as it is or run it into the ground they must actualy invest and do something provide good products and so forth. Also the waiges have been increased. The minimum wage a company can pay has also been increased and any foreign company present has to respect the said minimum wage.
However having said that the average wage is less then 400 euros per month for a skilled veteran worker which can outproduce any novice worker.
They were used to salaries in the 200 Euros per month so when the gouverment upped the salary by about 50% with another 50% in the folowing 2 years to come they decided the pull out. I mean it was all great and nice when workers were working 12-14 hour shifts with a very low salary and they got billion of euros profit per year but when they actualy had to pay more for the workers provide proper working conditions etc. the net profit dropped from billions of euros per year to about several hundred of million per year.
So yeah they have a LOT of reasons to go. I say get them out while we still can. We dont need them. Half the industry that was privatised has either been run into the ground or is in such poor shape after the foreign companies took hold of them its not even funny anymore.
Mika i know about which companie you are talking about and i must say pending this crisis on some sort of financial dificulties those companie have today is unrealistic. No im not talking about you im refering to those analist that say this.
I mean those companie have had record profits and when i say profits i dont mean tens of million of euros im talking hunreds of million even billion of euros per year net profit.
I have a very hard time believing that a company that has such massive profits cant afford to ride out the so called economic crisis . I mean they have no reason to shut down or lay off workers.
-
That was my thinking too. How can banks like HSBC announce profits in the billions over successive years suddenly be in such dire financial situations ? Don't banks have savings accounts ?
-
Yes. They're called CEOs.
-
Currently I'm drunken and exceeding my usual go-to-sleep time by several hours, so bear with me.
The companies are like sharks looking for the best possible prey (read: country) to manufacture stuff in the cheapest possible way. However, I don't consider this as a normal behavior for a company, it's more related to getting good ratings quarter yearly in order to fulfil stock holders' wishes for growth (and thus more money). The media here has started to talk about societal responsibility of companies, as they simply cannot lay-off a bunch of people and expect them not to get angry while CEOs collect maximal bonuses. As a sidenote, the current agressive expansionist policy of companies started from the faculties of economy in US universities. (This is actually a fact and again not meant as bashing.)
The average monthly wage is about 200 € in Romania? That's pretty interesting and makes one wonder how the hell can the value of money simply change so much if one takes a step inside other country. I first thought about this when I went to China, me as a student was a rich guy there. I found that already pretty crazy, since I'm not really a rich person in my homeland. It seemed that the products had same relative values with each other as in here, meaning that a house and a car had similar single decade price difference as in here also. But, for me, there was this cheapening factor of 10 since I was using Euros. I still don't understand how that can happen, but I'm no economist. A single world currency would have its benefits. Could it stop this kind of stuff, I don't know, but I hope for it.
About average wage, I would venture and say it is about 2000 € here, but I suspect quite a lot of things are more expensive also than in Romania. As a price comparision, my house was about 100000€, 60 m^2 apartment, sauna included!
Massive profits are shared with stock holders. Only a small amount of the profit is left to the bank.
Mika
-
I believe the system in which companies have the urge to find the cheapest countries in which to manufacture is called Capitalism. It's caused by rampant consumerism and disregard for long term consequences.
-
I believe i should make some clarifications.
the statistics say that the average that is medium salary over here is about 500 euros or 600 euros depending on what politician is talking.
However out of those you get anywhere between 100 to 200 euros cut out for taxes. It really all depends and the field you are working in.
also state owned firms usualy pay up more then private companies.
I mean the average salary for a skilled worker with about 6 or 8 years experience in one of our car companies is about 250 euros if im not mistaken.
The minimum wage was about 130-140 euros now its up to about 150 or 170 and will raise a bit more.
So all in all considering that not everyone works for the state the average salary is between 200 and 300 euros.
Im not counting here the beurocratic industry forgot the name for it with all the state workers with absolutely HUGe salaries compared to the rest of the population. You know then ones you see at the tax office when you go pay up your taxes and so forts.
thos guis can cash out some pretty decent salaries with minimum of work 3 perhaps 4 hours a day 6 if its a busy day with just 4 working days a week or so... !
Not that is agood job :)))
Oh yeah my appartm,ent is also valued at about 100.000 Euros no sauna no nothing . and its about 65 m^2 !
-
That was my thinking too. How can banks like HSBC announce profits in the billions over successive years suddenly be in such dire financial situations ? Don't banks have savings accounts ?
They use a technique called mark to market accounting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark-to-market). The link should explain everything, but basically it is one of the tricks Enron used to inflate profits.
-
100000€ for a house in Romania also? Average wage about 300 € / month? For me this would imply a lot of people cannot realistically buy a house in Romania! Though it could be that I misunderstood something. Or then the Scandinavian housing markets differ radically from Central European ones - which could actually be the case, if my German colleagues were right.
I believe the system in which companies have the urge to find the cheapest countries in which to manufacture is called Capitalism. It's caused by rampant consumerism and disregard for long term consequences.
It is another matter if it is healthy Capitalism. I still don't understand where I got it wrong when I think that should a company outsource in a capitalistic world, every other company is forced to do so also in order to keep up with the competition. When every other company does that, there is no more work performed in the country, no wages paid to people, so people have no buying power. This will eventually force the company into a bankcrupty or to move itself totally away from that country.
This is the world we also have been living here, though the situation is not as nearly as bad as it is in US. The feeling I got as a kid in the 80's was that the companies in general were more responsible towards the society, using different kind of capitalistic corporate policy. Also that we had more state owned companies could have made things more stabile.
Mika
-
What incentive can companies have to use sustainable practices though (i.e. not outsourcing massively)
consumers by and large are easily bought through advertising, and cannot easily be swayed to see reason. Therefore consumers can't be thought of as an incentive
My guess is that Europeans have much more effective regulation than the US ever had. And China is probably slightly more expensive to ship too and from.
-
consumers by and large are easily bought through advertising, and cannot easily be swayed to see reason. Therefore consumers can't be thought of as an incentive
I'm not sure about this. Since I have seen commercials pretty much my whole life, I tend to ignore them alltogether. The recently asked me to reply to some of those marketing surveys, while fulfilling the form I realised I had not seen any of the commercials they mentioned. Later, I browsed through some of the newspapers and found out that those adverts really were printed there. But the information of their existance never got to brain and thus were not registered. Also, I didn't recognise brands, something like 90 % of the brand names were unknown for me. So yeah, I'm a merchandising nightmare. The only thing that helps if somebody wants to sell me something is timing and common sense.
Lastly, I know that a majority of people are exactly unlike me in this respect.
Small country and small communities help in keeping the companies in line. CEOs will see very quickly the consequences of their actions and get direct response from the population. As an extreme example, I think some CEO got literally axed to death by angered company worker for laying him off.
Mika
-
I believe the system in which companies have the urge to find the cheapest countries in which to manufacture is called Capitalism. It's caused by rampant consumerism and disregard for long term consequences.
On the other hand many of these people have benefited quite a lot from it.
My guess is that Europeans have much more effective regulation than the US ever had. And China is probably slightly more expensive to ship too and from.
It costs more or less the same, I would think. Typically outsourcing isn't done as much from them because of very strict European labor laws.