I thought I had seen it all, and then came this

[Mr. Peepers]

There is a balance with what it takes to run Govt as well as making a good living on our great nation, this includes working at a burger joint
An honest job is just that, an honest job

The job may be honest, but the wages for the past couple of decades have been anything but. It is SHAMEFUL, especially when held up to the soaring productivity - how poorly compensated American workers are vs exectutives & CEO's in 2012. And no one can begin to make a living working at a burger joint, let alone save for retirement and purchase health insurance.

 

[JRK]

There is a balance with what it takes to run Govt as well as making a good living on our great nation, this includes working at a burger joint
An honest job is just that, an honest job

The job may be honest, but the wages for the past couple of decades have been anything but. It is SHAMEFUL, especially when held up to the soaring productivity - how poorly compensated American workers are vs exectutives & CEO's in 2012. And no one can begin to make a living working at a burger joint, let alone save for retirement and purchase health insurance.

Hmmm
You have issue with a job in the sector Exxon would be a part of, yet you also claim working for Burger king is not an option
I am confused

Look
your talking about so much and offer no soutions
Burger King has Ins and 401ks, maybe not entry, but in time if thats your place in life
you got to start some where

 

[Mr. Peepers]

You have issue with a job in the sector Exxon would be a part of, yet you also claim working for Burger king is not an option
I am confused

Yes, I have an issue with giant corporations' decades of undercompensation despite impressive productivity and output, outsourcing of good entry and mid-level jobs (purely for greed) and replacing those living-wage jobs with thousands of low-wage McJobs in their place, which is the type of job growth we're mainly seeing these days. Remeber when Romney's company, Bain, would take apart a viable corporation that paid living wages, dismember it and replace those good-paying with crappy Staples retail jobs? Like that.

 

[JRK]

You have issue with a job in the sector Exxon would be a part of, yet you also claim working for Burger king is not an option
I am confused

Yes, I have an issue with giant corporations' decades of undercompensation despite impressive productivity and output, outsourcing of good entry and mid-level jobs (purely for greed) and replacing those living-wage jobs with thousands of low-wage McJobs in their place, which is the type of job growth we're mainly seeing these days. Remeber when Romney's company, Bain, would take apart a viable corporation that paid living wages, dismember it and replace those good-paying with crappy Staples retail jobs? Like that.

Again
whats your solution?
the one field that does not promote that kind of growth is the same sector Exxon is in.
I find it hard to resolve any issue without understanding it to start with
And why did Romney take apart a profitable company?

 

[KevinWestern]

There is a balance with what it takes to run Govt as well as making a good living on our great nation, this includes working at a burger joint
An honest job is just that, an honest job

The job may be honest, but the wages for the past couple of decades have been anything but. It is SHAMEFUL, especially when held up to the soaring productivity - how poorly compensated American workers are vs exectutives & CEO's in 2012. And no one can begin to make a living working at a burger joint, let alone save for retirement and purchase health insurance.

Just to add though, part of the reason why executive pay has grown so much since the 1950's (ratio vs employee) is that companies are now becoming larger and multinational (less CEOs per worker), and also execs are commonly being paid via stock options these days (change from the past) vs straight salary.

The point I'm making is that it's not like the landscape is exactly the same as the 1950's, and the execs are simply demanding more money (though that may be the case for some companies).

 

[RDD_1210]

I have read Chicago Tribune articles that claim high gas prices are due to "a growing economy." Then a few days later they tried to paint growing gas prices on hybrid vehicles.

Progressives are just grasping at straws now...

They'll do anything and say anything to justify high oil prices...

And their followers will buy into it hook line and sinker. As we have seen on these boards.

That's why progressivism is a mental disorder.

They'll believe just about anything just as long as it comes out of the correct pie-hole.

I bet one could do a study and conclude that democrats will believe anything a democrat says but if a republican said the exact same thing they would write it off as a lie.

It would be an interesting study that is for sure.

The irony is strong with this one.

 

[RDD_1210]

No, in Venezuela gas is cheap because they drill it themselves...

It has nothing to do with subsidization.

Really Mr. Nick, is this a serious statement? You're saying that Venezuela doesn't subsidize it's gas, and that $0.07/gal is some sort of natural market price "because they drill it themselves"? You're making me laugh. On top of it, you're accusing me of making things up?

You are completely, 100% mistaken. The Venezuelan government dishes out billions of dollars every year to keep the price of gas in their country artificially low. There's no debate.

The idea that supply and demand plays any role in Gas prices here in the US is laughable...

This statement of yours Nick, is what's laughable.

"Supply and Demand doesn't play a role" in the price of US gas? Are you crazy or something, and is this a serious comment?

This is vintage Mr. Nick.

To be fair, I actually think he may have some actual mental limitations. I don't mean that as a put down, my brother is the same way. Only difference is my brother doesn't think the democrats are his enemy and trying to ruin the country.

 

[Jarhead]

Banks hold 70% of all oil futures.

I find it HILARIOUS that conservatives champion CAPITALISM, when CAPITAL is what is buying oil futures, inflating the price, then selling at a profit. THAT is the VERY DEFINITION of capitalism.
You pay about $700 out of pocket EVERY YEAR due to this speculation. Good going.


The issue of unbridled and unregulated oil derivatives speculation by a handful of big banks is not a new issue. A June 2006 US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report on “The Role of Market Speculation in rising oil and gas prices,” noted, “…there is substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that the large amount of speculation in the current market has significantly increased prices.”
Behind The Oil Price Rise

Remember ENRON?
This is the remnants of how you legalized Enron's shennanigans.
But heaven forfend we clean it up. NO! House Republicans have fought EVERY effort to re-regulate the financial sector.

Bet your ass didnt want regulations when you were making all kinds of money in the market. Where were the cries for regulation when you saw dot com stocks explode? Where was the call for regulation when people were getting low interest loans AND taking large sums of cash out when they closed?

Or is it GREAT when you are making money but "i been cheated" when you lose money?

At a craps table...try that. Grab your chips when you are winning...and then complain about the odds when you lose.

See how far that gets you.

******* jeaolous sore losers.

 

[Jarhead]

You have issue with a job in the sector Exxon would be a part of, yet you also claim working for Burger king is not an option
I am confused

Yes, I have an issue with giant corporations' decades of undercompensation despite impressive productivity and output, outsourcing of good entry and mid-level jobs (purely for greed) and replacing those living-wage jobs with thousands of low-wage McJobs in their place, which is the type of job growth we're mainly seeing these days. Remeber when Romney's company, Bain, would take apart a viable corporation that paid living wages, dismember it and replace those good-paying with crappy Staples retail jobs? Like that.

So yoiu have an iussue with companies that apply principles of efficiency to maximize profits. Interesting.

Curious...when you buy something of value, do you shop around? Why is it OK for you to maximize your capital, but not ok for others to do so?

Do you not negotiate when you buy a car? You do realize that the lower you negotiuate, the more money you are taking from the commmission of the salesman. Why are you allowed to do that, but others are not?

Or are you going to lie and say "I never negotiate"?

 

[KevinWestern]

So yoiu have an iussue with companies that apply principles of efficiency to maximize profits. Interesting.

Curious...when you buy something of value, do you shop around? Why is it OK for you to maximize your capital, but not ok for others to do so?

Do you not negotiate when you buy a car? You do realize that the lower you negotiuate, the more money you are taking from the commmission of the salesman. Why are you allowed to do that, but others are not?

Or are you going to lie and say "I never negotiate"?

I know you weren’t addressing me, but I just wanted to chime in and say that the only time I have a problem with companies maximizing profits is when the path to those profits create negative externalities that the company doesn’t clean up or fix.

For instance,

1.) let’s say Company A’s profit maximizing move is to manufacture in a way that pollutes the environment (because it’s cheaper if they don’t need to be clean), yielding the company $5 million/year in profits. However, this method actually creates $6 million worth of damage to the environment every year, that the company is not required to clean up. Does society end up with a net win here? No, we end up with a -$1 million loss.

2.) Think about profit maximization with the recent banking crash. It was in the spirit of profit maximization that many financial firms made extremely risky bets (with huge sums of money) to get extraordinarily rich. If the market crashed – so what – if they were smart enough they'd be able to get out in time, scot-free. When the market did crash (the negative externality of those risky bets), society lost big time when many of the folks running the companies maximizing profits slithered out billionaires. Overall, there was a huge net loss to society (despite the fact certain individuals got rich).

These are just a few examples of how profit maximization doesn’t necessarily work out so great for society, and one of the reasons why we need government to play a role in regulating our marketplace – balancing out unfair negative externalities.

 

[JRK]

No, in Venezuela gas is cheap because they drill it themselves...

It has nothing to do with subsidization.

Really Mr. Nick, is this a serious statement? You're saying that Venezuela doesn't subsidize it's gas, and that $0.07/gal is some sort of natural market price "because they drill it themselves"? You're making me laugh. On top of it, you're accusing me of making things up?

You are completely, 100% mistaken. The Venezuelan government dishes out billions of dollars every year to keep the price of gas in their country artificially low. There's no debate.

The idea that supply and demand plays any role in Gas prices here in the US is laughable...

This statement of yours Nick, is what's laughable.

"Supply and Demand doesn't play a role" in the price of US gas? Are you crazy or something, and is this a serious comment?

This is vintage Mr. Nick.

To be fair, I actually think he may have some actual mental limitations. I don't mean that as a put down, my brother is the same way. Only difference is my brother doesn't think the democrats are his enemy and trying to ruin the country.

RDD you avatar will not allow you to ever be take seriously.
Freedom of speech is fine, but hate of any form is not
I wish you godd luck as I add you to my ignore list

 

[JRK]

So yoiu have an iussue with companies that apply principles of efficiency to maximize profits. Interesting.

Curious...when you buy something of value, do you shop around? Why is it OK for you to maximize your capital, but not ok for others to do so?

Do you not negotiate when you buy a car? You do realize that the lower you negotiuate, the more money you are taking from the commmission of the salesman. Why are you allowed to do that, but others are not?

Or are you going to lie and say "I never negotiate"?

I know you weren’t addressing me, but I just wanted to chime in and say that the only time I have a problem with companies maximizing profits is when the path to those profits create negative externalities that the company doesn’t clean up or fix.

For instance,

1.) let’s say Company A’s profit maximizing move is to manufacture in a way that pollutes the environment (because it’s cheaper if they don’t need to be clean), yielding the company $5 million/year in profits. However, this method actually creates $6 million worth of damage to the environment every year, that the company is not required to clean up. Does society end up with a net win here? No, we end up with a -$1 million loss.

2.) Think about profit maximization with the recent banking crash. It was in the spirit of profit maximization that many financial firms made extremely risky bets (with huge sums of money) to get extraordinarily rich. If the market crashed – so what – if they were smart enough they'd be able to get out in time, scot-free. When the market did crash (the negative externality of those risky bets), society lost big time when many of the folks running the companies maximizing profits slithered out billionaires. Overall, there was a huge net loss to society (despite the fact certain individuals got rich).

These are just a few examples of how profit maximization doesn’t necessarily work out so great for society, and one of the reasons why we need government to play a role in regulating our marketplace – balancing out unfair negative externalities.

The housing buuble had many things go wrong
The problem one cannot get past with that event is that S&P had those securities rated as no risk
No matter how we discuss those events, that fact cannot be removed
At the end it was all about cash flow as well as the credit market going under water in a manner of weeks
The bubble was caused by all who were involved in it, not just the banks

Your point(s) are very good ones, it does no-one any good as the housing bubble has showed us to have the ending it did
Shorting those securities, then the investment banks just piled on and made it ten times worse
Leverging that debt was the risk that should have been seen, but that debt was not leverged until those securities went under water
Greed, yes, but at the end of the day those securities where of value at the start,as was the millions of jobs it helped create

Bring back the value of those investments, the credit crises as well as the housing market will recover
It is the smoking gun

Good thread that I agree with, but if you do the 5 why to establish the root cause to me the only thing that prevents that event is hard to find.
repossesed assets with value only harm those who lost that asset. The problem with the bubble lies there

 

[KevinWestern]

So yoiu have an iussue with companies that apply principles of efficiency to maximize profits. Interesting.

Curious...when you buy something of value, do you shop around? Why is it OK for you to maximize your capital, but not ok for others to do so?

Do you not negotiate when you buy a car? You do realize that the lower you negotiuate, the more money you are taking from the commmission of the salesman. Why are you allowed to do that, but others are not?

Or are you going to lie and say "I never negotiate"?

I know you weren’t addressing me, but I just wanted to chime in and say that the only time I have a problem with companies maximizing profits is when the path to those profits create negative externalities that the company doesn’t clean up or fix.

For instance,

1.) let’s say Company A’s profit maximizing move is to manufacture in a way that pollutes the environment (because it’s cheaper if they don’t need to be clean), yielding the company $5 million/year in profits. However, this method actually creates $6 million worth of damage to the environment every year, that the company is not required to clean up. Does society end up with a net win here? No, we end up with a -$1 million loss.

2.) Think about profit maximization with the recent banking crash. It was in the spirit of profit maximization that many financial firms made extremely risky bets (with huge sums of money) to get extraordinarily rich. If the market crashed – so what – if they were smart enough they'd be able to get out in time, scot-free. When the market did crash (the negative externality of those risky bets), society lost big time when many of the folks running the companies maximizing profits slithered out billionaires. Overall, there was a huge net loss to society (despite the fact certain individuals got rich).

These are just a few examples of how profit maximization doesn’t necessarily work out so great for society, and one of the reasons why we need government to play a role in regulating our marketplace – balancing out unfair negative externalities.

The housing buuble had many things go wrong
The problem one cannot get past with that event is that S&P had those securities rated as no risk
No matter how we discuss those events, that fact cannot be removed
At the end it was all about cash flow as well as the credit market going under water in a manner of weeks
The bubble was caused by all who were involved in it, not just the banks

Your point(s) are very good ones, it does no-one any good as the housing bubble has showed us to have the ending it did
Shorting those securities, then the investment banks just piled on and made it ten times worse
Leverging that debt was the risk that should have been seen, but that debt was not leverged until those securities went under water
Greed, yes, but at the end of the day those securities where of value at the start,as was the millions of jobs it helped create

Bring back the value of those investments, the credit crises as well as the housing market will recover
It is the smoking gun

Good thread that I agree with, but if you do the 5 why to establish the root cause to me the only thing that prevents that event is hard to find.
repossesed assets with value only harm those who lost that asset. The problem with the bubble lies there

I think the housing collapse was a testament to overextending ourselves. We created homes, businesses, and jobs that never should have existed because there was simply not enough (real) money to pay for them.

Bad loans were being handed out, and why? Because the banks were allowed to sell off their risk. I can give a loan to X, but be insulated from taking the hit when X doesn't pay me back; I think the Glass-Stegall repeal was one of the primary reasons this was even an option for the banks.

Perhaps Washington is to blame for the disaster for (1) making/repealing laws in a way that produces perverse incentives for the marketplace, and (2) not keeping a good handle on fraud that was occurring leading up to the crash (why were so many crappy loans able to go out so quickly?).

 

[JRK]

I know you weren’t addressing me, but I just wanted to chime in and say that the only time I have a problem with companies maximizing profits is when the path to those profits create negative externalities that the company doesn’t clean up or fix.

For instance,

1.) let’s say Company A’s profit maximizing move is to manufacture in a way that pollutes the environment (because it’s cheaper if they don’t need to be clean), yielding the company $5 million/year in profits. However, this method actually creates $6 million worth of damage to the environment every year, that the company is not required to clean up. Does society end up with a net win here? No, we end up with a -$1 million loss.

2.) Think about profit maximization with the recent banking crash. It was in the spirit of profit maximization that many financial firms made extremely risky bets (with huge sums of money) to get extraordinarily rich. If the market crashed – so what – if they were smart enough they'd be able to get out in time, scot-free. When the market did crash (the negative externality of those risky bets), society lost big time when many of the folks running the companies maximizing profits slithered out billionaires. Overall, there was a huge net loss to society (despite the fact certain individuals got rich).

These are just a few examples of how profit maximization doesn’t necessarily work out so great for society, and one of the reasons why we need government to play a role in regulating our marketplace – balancing out unfair negative externalities.

The housing buuble had many things go wrong
The problem one cannot get past with that event is that S&P had those securities rated as no risk
No matter how we discuss those events, that fact cannot be removed
At the end it was all about cash flow as well as the credit market going under water in a manner of weeks
The bubble was caused by all who were involved in it, not just the banks

Your point(s) are very good ones, it does no-one any good as the housing bubble has showed us to have the ending it did
Shorting those securities, then the investment banks just piled on and made it ten times worse
Leverging that debt was the risk that should have been seen, but that debt was not leverged until those securities went under water
Greed, yes, but at the end of the day those securities where of value at the start,as was the millions of jobs it helped create

Bring back the value of those investments, the credit crises as well as the housing market will recover
It is the smoking gun

Good thread that I agree with, but if you do the 5 why to establish the root cause to me the only thing that prevents that event is hard to find.
repossesed assets with value only harm those who lost that asset. The problem with the bubble lies there

I think the housing collapse was a testament to overextending ourselves. We created homes, businesses, and jobs that never should have existed because there was simply not enough (real) money to pay for them.

Bad loans were being handed out, and why? Because the banks were allowed to sell off their risk. I can give a loan to X, but be insulated from taking the hit when X doesn't pay me back; I think the Glass-Stegall repeal was one of the primary reasons this was even an option for the banks.

Perhaps Washington is to blame for the disaster for (1) making/repealing laws in a way that produces perverse incentives for the marketplace, and (2) not keeping a good handle on fraud that was occurring leading up to the crash (why were so many crappy loans able to go out so quickly?).

When those loans were made most never seen the value falling as it did. I have a friend in Ga that had a 400,000 home that went to a 250,000 home in a matter of months
Thats the issue. Thats whats killing the credit market
Someone borrows 60% of there value and then in a manner of months that loan is up-side down on value
The same happens with the banks, there balance sheet goes upside down, the vultures then began to short there stock
Tarp no matter what has been said about the ORIGINAL tarp was an economy saver, not the GM BHO tarp (he ended up with more than GWB used)
If the value of real estate remained the same, no real harm would have come form it. In Florida land went thru the roof in months, leveled out, then went down just as fast with 100,000s of thousands caught with an upside down loan
Here we are today