FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Another “Occupier” makes terroristic threats





jmi256
Luckily this nut job occupier was just another crazy left-winger and not an armed crazy left-winger. But I have to tip my hat to the Occupiers in Harrisburg who finally made the decision to turn in one of their own rather than risk a tragedy. I wonder if he was wearing his Guy Fawkes mask? Maybe the Occupiers are taking the Guy Fawkes thing too far.

Quote:
Man taken into custody over threats at Occupy Harrisburg

HARRISBURG—Police say a man suggesting protesters storm Pennsylvania's state Capitol was taken into custody after local members of the Occupy Wall Street protest alerted authorities.
A spokesman for the state's Department of General Services says a 35-year-old man was taken into custody on a mental health commitment.

Officials say members of the Occupy Harrisburg demonstration reported the man to police early Wednesday morning after he suggested storming the building. Investigators say the man also told the protesters he had explosives but he turned out to be unarmed.

Capitol police say the man faces charges including harassment and disorderly conduct.


Source = http://www.ydr.com/crime/ci_19156548
Hello_World
Because there is no crazy right wingers, is there? LOL.

Note that the other 'crazy leftwingers' were the ones that alerted the police...
deanhills
Hello_World wrote:
Because there is no crazy right wingers, is there? LOL.

Note that the other 'crazy leftwingers' were the ones that alerted the police...
Hillarious and well said. Except I feel really sad as they are completely making a mockery of something that should be VERY seriously dealt with and that in my opinion lies at the heart of world economy problems. Sorting out the real criminals, which are the Big Banks. Wish we could get some seriously dignified people to present the cause in a deserving way.
jmi256
Hello_World wrote:
Note that the other 'crazy leftwingers' were the ones that alerted the police...


I guess you missed this part:
jmi256 wrote:
But I have to tip my hat to the Occupiers in Harrisburg who finally made the decision to turn in one of their own rather than risk a tragedy.



You can make all the excuses you want for these mobs, but their actions speak volumes.
AsadAnsari
I just seen another on internet ..
it seems he is quit dangerous !




But why doesn't he looks alike MUZZLIM?
Hello_World
Quote:
I guess you missed this part:
jmi256 wrote:
Quote:
But I have to tip my hat to the Occupiers in Harrisburg who finally made the decision to turn in one of their own rather than risk a tragedy.


Ah sorry, yes. But then, why highlight that he was a left-winger? He was just a nut... like thousands of nuts before him, like the loony Christian nut in Norway, and so many others.

Quote:
You can make all the excuses you want for these mobs, but their actions speak volumes.

Excuse? They went to the police. Their action speaks volumes.
ocalhoun
Ah, I see the entrenched political positions are starting to take the movement seriously enough to try and discredit it.

So far we've got antisemitism, terrorism, and sexual assault... I wonder what the next accusation will be?

(And of course, there's no need to fabricate things to discredit it... in any movement so large and so unorganized there will be plenty of real problems to expose... and it only takes focusing on these to characterize the whole movement based on these events.)
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
So far we've got antisemitism, terrorism, and sexual assault... I wonder what the next accusation will be?
Racism?
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
So far we've got antisemitism, terrorism, and sexual assault... I wonder what the next accusation will be?
Racism?

Here's what these anti-OWS smear tactics are trying to distract you from:
liljp617
I really can't fathom why anybody would be opposed to OWS. Or do you truly believe corporations and corporate loopholes aren't running this nation into the ground?
handfleisch
liljp617 wrote:
I really can't fathom why anybody would be opposed to OWS. Or do you truly believe corporations and corporate loopholes aren't running this nation into the ground?
Yeah and how many simultaneous smear threads against OWS by the same serial liar is Frihost going to run, anyway?
jmi256
liljp617 wrote:
I really can't fathom why anybody would be opposed to OWS. Or do you truly believe corporations and corporate loopholes aren't running this nation into the ground?

You aren't actually naïve enough to believe that is their beef are you? They aren’t even able to articulate a clear goal, but it is obvious the idea of the mobs is acting like a Rorschach test for some to project their own “goals” upon it.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
I really can't fathom why anybody would be opposed to OWS. Or do you truly believe corporations and corporate loopholes aren't running this nation into the ground?

You aren't actually naïve enough to believe that is their beef are you? They aren’t even able to articulate a clear goal, but it is obvious the idea of the mobs is acting like a Rorschach test for some to project their own “goals” upon it.

hey JMI, it's pretty scary for right wingers when a real populist movement takes the thunder from your fake tea baggers, isn't it?
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
So far we've got antisemitism, terrorism, and sexual assault... I wonder what the next accusation will be?
Racism?

Naw, that was already covered with antisemitism...

Looks like the actual answer is...
*drumroll please*
...
Drugs!
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-130231.html


If anybody guessed that they would be accused of drug dealing next, please step forward to claim your prize.




jmi256 wrote:

You aren't actually naïve enough to believe that is their beef are you? They aren’t even able to articulate a clear goal, but it is obvious the idea of the mobs is acting like a Rorschach test for some to project their own “goals” upon it.

Ah, now at least you're making legitimate criticisms of the movement.
They are disorganized and unclear about their goals... and they are vulnerable to established interests injecting their own goals into the movement.

Would it be too much to ask that we could keep the discussion to legitimate topics like this, rather than reverting to a collective ad-hominem fallacy against the group?
Josso
Frankly, you sir, are a complete ignorant madman who thinks sourcing one article followed by massive speculation and opinion makes a good thread. DISCLAIMER: my opinion about OWS is irrelevant and ultimately my opinion about you being off your head but please don't make another thread. If you do your buying me a new monitor.


However...



That is all.
furtasacra
When the Tea Party yahoos take to the streets to protest (against what? Having a black President? The "socialist" programs that they take full advantage of to pay for the motor scooters they use to haul their bloated carcasses around?) the left makes fun of their misspelled signs.

When financially disenfranchised people take to the streets to protest the lack of regulation and government oversight that allowed the untrammeled greed and unethical behavior of the financial industry to topple the world economy, the right calls them terrorists.

Nice.
jmi256
furtasacra wrote:
When the Tea Party yahoos take to the streets to protest (against what? Having a black President? The "socialist" programs that they take full advantage of to pay for the motor scooters they use to haul their bloated carcasses around?) the left makes fun of their misspelled signs.

Have you paid any attention to the Tea Party protests at all? Or are you touched in the head? Unlike the Occupy mob that simply wants handouts for doing nothing and whatever else they seem to be pissed off about (they can’t even articulate an answer to that one), the Tea Party protested the government intrusion that runs rampant and has led to the policies perpetrated by the Democratic party, including forcing lenders to make loans to those who could not afford homes, leading to the housing crisis. Then when their idiotic policies came home to roost, the Left rolls out their “too big to fail” policies and handouts that have resulted in record deficits spending and a historic credit rating downgrade thanks to Obama and the Democrats. But instead of owning up to their stupid and harmful policies that have resulted in higher unemployment, lower consumer confidence and a slew of other piss-poor economic indicators, you people want to double down on your failures by asking for another “stimulus” package to go to campaign contributors and pet projects. How’s that first “stimulus” working by the way? Aren’t you glad Obama and the Democrats forced it down the taxpayers’ throats to avoid the unemployment rate going above 8%? Too bad it went up to 10% due to Obama and the Democrats’ mismanagement and corruption. But yeah it’s about “motor scooters” and has nothing to do with the Left’s stupid policies that have put a chokehold on the rights of taxpayers by forcing them to buy private products and services from the Democrats’ campaign contributors. Or the Obama and the Democrats’ unrestrained spending that threatens the economy with an even worse headache as the bill comes due to taxpayers. Or any of the other real policy issues. Just keep showing how “smart” you Lefties are by thinking it is about “motor scooters”. No wonder you people elect idiots. It must be the type of people you can relate to. You deserve to be led by the type of politicians you have.



furtasacra wrote:
When financially disenfranchised people take to the streets to protest the lack of regulation and government oversight that allowed the untrammeled greed and unethical behavior of the financial industry to topple the world economy, the right calls them terrorists.

Nice.

First of all, Lack of regulation and government oversight? Please tell me, exactly what regulation was lifted that led to the housing crisis and the financial crisis that resulted when people who couldn’t afford their mortgages defaulted? Do you think might have actually been government overregulation, like the Democrats’ regulations that made mortgage lender give loans to those who couldn’t afford them, just to get some votes?
Second of all, protest all you want, but when the violent, bigoted and criminal, Left-wing “Occupiers” threaten to storm a state capital to kill and maim people, yes I think it is appropriate to call them terrorists.
Bikerman
Quote:
Please tell me, exactly what regulation was lifted that led to the housing crisis and the financial crisis that resulted when people who couldn’t afford their mortgages defaulted?

Sure. It was the regulation that, amongst other things, prevented banks from lending to people who had no chance of paying it back. This was a result of the decision (by Greenspan and others) in 2000 to exempt financial derivatives from regulation.

Here is a potted history of what happened. (It may get a bit rough, but hold tight and we'll get through it).

The Overview
Before the 1990s no bank would consider giving a mortgage on a $150,000 home to someone out of work. Bankers are not stupid and they are in the business of making money, not giving it away.

The advent of the financial derivitive - based on some very clever mathematics, which was believed to take risk out of the market - suddenly meant that banks and other lenders were now very interested in doing this sort of business.

The background
A financial derivitive is based on the idea of bundling up high risk debt with low/no risk debt to give a mixture which, the mathematics predicted, could not result in a loss. The maths was done by some top-of-the-range academics, using the little-known (then) contract called an 'option'. An option is a contract to buy particular stock sometime in the future when its price hits a pre-agreed level. This allows the trader to take the risk out of the trade. The problem was in pricing the options. There was no set method of doing this, so the academics set to work to calculate one.

Markets rely to a large part on emotion - so the mathematicians had to include a massive list of variables to describe emotional states, confidence levels, expectations....and so on. Needless to say the models became hellishly complex and rather unscientific. The breakthrough came in 1968 when Myron Scholes (a prodigy) realised that he could 'cancel' many of the variables. He essentially dropped all the variables that the academics had spent so long inventing. The resulting simplification allowed the calculation of the optimum price of an option at any moment in time. The basic model used risk-cancelling (a risk in one stock is cancelled by purchasing stock which is risky in the 'opposite' direction) to balance the random fluctuations in stock prices. They called it 'dynamic hedging' - and it worked. It effectively eliminated risk from the equations. The problem was that, like the trajectory of a missile, you need to be able to calculate where you are at any instant in time. The maths didn't allow this - time increments were inherent in the formulae, which meant a 'coarseness' which was problematic.

Enter the next wonderkind - Robert Merton. He was universally recognised as a genius in financial modelling. Scholes, and his partner Fisher Black, contacted Merton and they began to work together on the problem of options. They essentially developed a calculus of risk - dividing time into infinitessimal intervals, allowing continuous calculation of risk over time - and therefore allowing risk-cancelling to be done dynamically and, effectively cancelling all risk in any options package. The three of them released their work in 1978 and the world of economist marvelled and applauded. Everyone tried to jump on the bandwaggon. The formula was entered into PDAs and traders used it to do their trading using the Black-Scholes formula (as it had been named). A whole new set of financial instruments was invented to utililise the new forumla - complex derivatives, incorporating options contracts.

Merton & Scholes got the Nobel Prize for their work (Fisher Black had died a couple of years before).

The build-up
They (Merton & Scholes) then decided to cash-in. They launched a company called LTCM (Long Term Capital Management) - a hedge fund. The reputation of the two meant that everyone was queuing to invest in their company - billions and billions of dollars. LTCM became a major player in the markets, using the dynamic hedging of the Black-Scholes formula. They were trading vast fortunes every day. They were spectacularly successful, and made fortunes for their investors. The yearly returns were unbelievable - 20%, 30%, 40%, even 50% in one year. They actually interviewed investors to decide if they would accept their cash.

In 1997 in Thailand, propery prices collapsed. This sparked a panic in the Eastern markets. The Black-Scholes model began to produce very odd results, so many traders abandoned it and went heavily into cash instead. LTCM, however, stayed with the model - they were sure they could risk-cancel, even in the panic. They initially took on debts of $100 billion to carry on hedging.

Then the killer-blow fell. In August 1998 Soviet Russia defaulted on international debts. The model now went crazy and LTCM began to loose hundreds of millions of dollars every day. They faced bankrupcy - they had 'bet', in total, 1 trillion dollars. The great and the good met, and the Federal Reserve bailed-out LTCM to avoid collapse of the company and the massive knock-on effects.

By now the worlds financial markets had been completely reorganised on the basis of these new financial instruments, based on the Black-Scholes model.

The cop-out.
Many traders still used the formula and the 'quants' (mathematical market analysts) carried on inventing more and more complex instruments. By 2000 it had reached the stage where nearly all the world's banks had massive exposure to derivatives - bundles of good and bad debt which the Black-Scholes formula said were 'safe'. Nobody knew, anymore, what these derivatives were actually worth, but nobody much cared. It was very much a case of the 'emperors new clothes' - things would be fine as long as nobody actually said that the emperor was naked.

This led to the situation where banks and other lenders were falling-over themselves to lend to anyone with a pulse. Mortages for the unemployed? Hell yes - they could be put into derivatives which cancel any risk to the lender.

Greenspan and then Bernanke decided in 2000 to exempt financial derivatives from the normal controls (which state that banks must have a certain ratio of capital to lending, just in case it goes pear-shaped). This decision, more than anything else, was responsible for the crash in 2008. This is what is generally called the great 'deregulation' - here in the UK it was called the 'Big Bang'. At the same time the world's stock exchanges were being automated, so now a majority of trading was done via terminals, rather than in the 'bear pit'.

For the next few years everyone managed to avoid mentioning the nakedness of the emperor and the bandwaggon kept going. Then, in 2008, there was a property crash in the US - people were unable to repay mortgages (predictably) in large numbers. It might still have been OK for a while, exept that someone noticed that the emperor actually was naked...Once it was actually said out loud then the collapse was absolutely inevitable.....

The rest is history.....
furtasacra
jmi256 wrote:
Please tell me, exactly what regulation was lifted that led to the housing crisis and the financial crisis that resulted when people who couldn’t afford their mortgages defaulted? Do you think might have actually been government overregulation, like the Democrats’ regulations that made mortgage lender give loans to those who couldn’t afford them, just to get some votes?


The Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (DIDMCA) abolished state caps on interest rates that could be charged for primary mortgages, giving banks incentive to approve mortgages for people with bad credit.

Before the Alternative Mortgage Transactions Parity Act of 1982 (AMTPA), all mortgages were fixed-rate amortizing loans. AMTPA allowed adjustable rates, balloon payments, interest-only loans, and optional adjustable rates, which let borrowers underpay during the first few years of the loan.

The Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 (IBBEA) eliminated barriers to interstate banking, which allowed financial institutions to locate branches in other states and to purchase or merge with banks headquartered in other states.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), also referred to as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, repealed part of Glass-Steagall. (Glass-Steagall expanded the regulatory powers of the Federal Reserve, prohibited banks from trading in corporate securities and created the FDIC.) This change allowed banking, insurance, and investment companies to merge, partner and operate freely within each other's industries. GLBA also made it possible for the financial industry to group mortgage and other portfolios, selling them as investments.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/30/real_estate/congress_subprime.fortune/
http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/03/07/Strahan.pdf

jmi256 wrote:
Second of all, protest all you want, but when the violent, bigoted and criminal, Left-wing “Occupiers” threaten to storm a state capital to kill and maim people, yes I think it is appropriate to call them terrorists.


What? I looked but found absolutely no evidence of Occupy protesters threatening an armed assault on a state capital. In what state did this occur? State of delusion? State of paranoia? State of delirium tremens? One loony doesn't count.
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
Please tell me, exactly what regulation was lifted that led to the housing crisis and the financial crisis that resulted when people who couldn’t afford their mortgages defaulted?

Sure. It was the regulation that, amongst other things, prevented banks from lending to people who had no chance of paying it back. This was a result of the decision (by Greenspan and others) in 2000 to exempt financial derivatives from regulation.

Actually, it was Clinton and the Democrats in 1999 that pressured mortgage lenders to loan money to those unable to pay back the loans:
Quote:
The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html

The rest of your entry is pretty good as far as some basic options information goes (good job, btw), but you got a few things wrong. However, it wasn’t pricing options that was the root cause (there are other pricing models that can be used, binomial pricing for example, and most firms use their own customized model rather than relying on an off-the-shelf model) , but rather the Democrats who pressured the banks to take on these risky loans. The banks then didn’t want to hold the loans themselves, so they sold them. The same is done with “safe” loans, but since the Democrats forced the mortgage lenders to take on the risky loans, the risky loans were comingled with the legit loans in the already working process. That’s what happens when Leftist policies get in the way of a free market.


Bikerman wrote:
Before the 1990s no bank would consider giving a mortgage on a $150,000 home to someone out of work. Bankers are not stupid and they are in the business of making money, not giving it away.

The advent of the financial derivitive - based on some very clever mathematics, which was believed to take risk out of the market - suddenly meant that banks and other lenders were now very interested in doing this sort of business.

Derivatives have existed for centuries and was primarily used in commodities. But financial derivatives existed beforehand. It was the Leftist policies enacted by the Democrats that forced banks to “consider giving a mortgage on a $150,000 home to someone out of work.”


Bikerman wrote:
The background
A financial derivitive is based on the idea of bundling up high risk debt with low/no risk debt to give a mixture which, the mathematics predicted, could not result in a loss.

Not correct. Derivatives can easily result in a loss. In fact, if you buy a derivative you take an immediate loss.



Bikerman wrote:
The maths was done by some top-of-the-range academics, using the little-known (then) contract called an 'option'. An option is a contract to buy particular stock sometime in the future when its price hits a pre-agreed level.

You’re wrong on the buy part. Options of course can be sold/shorted. It is the cornerstone of a well-functioning market. Without sellers you can’t have buyers.



Bikerman wrote:
This allows the trader to take the risk out of the trade. The problem was in pricing the options. There was no set method of doing this, so the academics set to work to calculate one.

There is always risk. That is inherent in a free market. “Controlled” markets attempt to remove risk, but ends up magnifying it through the Moral Hazard inherent in the Left’s “too big to fail” theory.



Bikerman wrote:
Markets rely to a large part on emotion

Markets don’t. Some investors do, though.

Bikerman wrote:
- so the mathematicians had to include a massive list of variables to describe emotional states, confidence levels, expectations....and so on. Needless to say the models became hellishly complex and rather unscientific. The breakthrough came in 1968 when Myron Scholes (a prodigy) realised that he could 'cancel' many of the variables. He essentially dropped all the variables that the academics had spent so long inventing. The resulting simplification allowed the calculation of the optimum price of an option at any moment in time. The basic model used risk-cancelling (a risk in one stock is cancelled by purchasing stock which is risky in the 'opposite' direction) to balance the random fluctuations in stock prices. They called it 'dynamic hedging' - and it worked. It effectively eliminated risk from the equations.

Where did you get this idea that risk has been eliminated? Have you ever looked at the Black-Scoles model itself? Risk is included right in the equation in the form of volatility.

I think what you are referring to is offsetting positions, which is not limited to options. It could exist in every trade, and most investing firms hedge all trades. Clinton and the Democrats forced the banks to have these risky loans on their books, so the banks had to have a way to insure against that risk. Options/future/etc. can provide insurance for investor, and most investors use it for such.

To make a really simple example, consider an investor (Bob) who holds 10 shares of stock XYZ, which is trading at $100 today (value = $1,000), but knows he has to pay for his daughter’s college tuition in a year. He can either sell XYZ today and keep his $1,000, but he losses the potential upside (the stock could go up in that year). But he also faces the risk that the company goes bankrupt and he loses everything. He could easily long a put (enter a contract to give someone the obligation to buy the stock) at a date a year from now. Of course the counter party is going to want something for taking on that risk, so they will charge Bob $5 (the $5 represents that risk). How the buyer comes up with the $5 premium is up to him; he could use Black-Scholes, binomial pricing, or even just take a guess. In a year, if the stock goes to $110, the Bob will not exercise the put he bought (it would be stupid to sell a stock for $100 when the market price is $110). The counter party kept that $5 all year long, however and will get to keep it (and if he was smart invest it). If the price goes down (say to $95), however, Bob can exercise the put he bought and deliver the shares to the counter party at the agreed price of $100. The counter party takes a loss on that transaction, but again he kept the $5 premium all year and gets to keep that (and hopefully made some money on the float).



Bikerman wrote:
The problem was that, like the trajectory of a missile, you need to be able to calculate where you are at any instant in time. The maths didn't allow this - time increments were inherent in the formulae, which meant a 'coarseness' which was problematic.

You’re right that time is factored in the Back-Scholes model, but that doesn’t mean you can find the theoretical price for a call or put for any given time. You just plug in the numbers. The problem isn’t “coarseness”, but rather risk, as I mentioned is included in volatility. However, you can modify your models (and most do) to include variances in volatility (standard deviations, etc).



Bikerman wrote:
They (Merton & Scholes) then decided to cash-in. They launched a company called LTCM (Long Term Capital Management) - a hedge fund. The reputation of the two meant that everyone was queuing to invest in their company - billions and billions of dollars. LTCM became a major player in the markets, using the dynamic hedging of the Black-Scholes formula. They were trading vast fortunes every day. They were spectacularly successful, and made fortunes for their investors. The yearly returns were unbelievable - 20%, 30%, 40%, even 50% in one year. They actually interviewed investors to decide if they would accept their cash.

In 1997 in Thailand, propery prices collapsed. This sparked a panic in the Eastern markets. The Black-Scholes model began to produce very odd results, so many traders abandoned it and went heavily into cash instead. LTCM, however, stayed with the model - they were sure they could risk-cancel, even in the panic. They initially took on debts of $100 billion to carry on hedging.

Then the killer-blow fell. In August 1998 Soviet Russia defaulted on international debts. The model now went crazy and LTCM began to loose hundreds of millions of dollars every day. They faced bankrupcy - they had 'bet', in total, 1 trillion dollars. The great and the good met, and the Federal Reserve bailed-out LTCM to avoid collapse of the company and the massive knock-on effects.

First of all, I would say if they lost their money (and other private investor money), that is their problem. No one forced them to invest, and the problem was that the Fed bailed them out. Again, it is bailouts, which the Left embraces, that is the problem. If you believe in a free market, you believe that investors who take on risk with their money should be rewarded, and if their risks with their money blow up in their faces, so be it. I have a hard time feeling sorry for some Ivy League-educated chap who gambled a $1 million of his money and lost it. He definitely doesn’t need my money to bail him out.




Bikerman wrote:
Many traders still used the formula and the 'quants' (mathematical market analysts) carried on inventing more and more complex instruments. By 2000 it had reached the stage where nearly all the world's banks had massive exposure to derivatives - bundles of good and bad debt which the Black-Scholes formula said were 'safe'. Nobody knew, anymore, what these derivatives were actually worth, but nobody much cared. It was very much a case of the 'emperors new clothes' - things would be fine as long as nobody actually said that the emperor was naked.

There is no place in the model that says any investment is “safe.” It was the Democrats who forced banks to loan money to those who could not pay them back and comingle them with healthy borrowers that was the problem.



Bikerman wrote:
This led to the situation where banks and other lenders were falling-over themselves to lend to anyone with a pulse. Mortages for the unemployed? Hell yes - they could be put into derivatives which cancel any risk to the lender.

Huh? You take a huge leap in logic here. Again, it was the Democrats, following their Leftist policies of giving houses to “the poor” that was the initial cause and they made the situation worse as their policies unraveled by lowering standards more and more. If anyone remembers those days, you saw government-run programs to “educate” potential borrowers on no-doc, no-income, no-job loans left and right. They were funneling people through their system like cows to slaughter, just to get some votes and hoping the system would stay in place just long enough for them to get out of politics.


Bikerman wrote:
Greenspan and then Bernanke decided in 2000 to exempt financial derivatives from the normal controls (which state that banks must have a certain ratio of capital to lending, just in case it goes pear-shaped). This decision, more than anything else, was responsible for the crash in 2008. This is what is generally called the great 'deregulation' - here in the UK it was called the 'Big Bang'. At the same time the world's stock exchanges were being automated, so now a majority of trading was done via terminals, rather than in the 'bear pit'.

Again, government controls are the problem, not a pricing model. The government shouldn’t be mandating any capital-to-lending ratio because with that mandate comes the insurance that the government will bail out the banks if they follow their regulations and get pinched. If banks are free to rise and fall on their own, they would have been much more conservative in their lending practices. Like you said before “Bankers are not stupid and they are in the business of making money, not giving it away.” Leftists are in the business of giving money away, and it is usually other people’s money.
jmi256
furtasacra wrote:
The Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (DIDMCA) abolished state caps on interest rates that could be charged for primary mortgages, giving banks incentive to approve mortgages for people with bad credit.

Before the Alternative Mortgage Transactions Parity Act of 1982 (AMTPA), all mortgages were fixed-rate amortizing loans. AMTPA allowed adjustable rates, balloon payments, interest-only loans, and optional adjustable rates, which let borrowers underpay during the first few years of the loan.

Huh? So now a regulation is deemed “deregulation”? Just because the word “deregulation” is in the title doesn’t mean this isn’t regulation. If you are saying this new regulation caused problems, then you are making my point for me. But I doubt you have not even considered that.



furtasacra wrote:
The Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 (IBBEA) eliminated barriers to interstate banking, which allowed financial institutions to locate branches in other states and to purchase or merge with banks headquartered in other states.

So banks opening new branches was the problem? Not the Leftist policies of forcing banks to loan money to those who had no way of paying them back, huh? Try again.


furtasacra wrote:
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), also referred to as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, repealed part of Glass-Steagall. (Glass-Steagall expanded the regulatory powers of the Federal Reserve, prohibited banks from trading in corporate securities and created the FDIC.) This change allowed banking, insurance, and investment companies to merge, partner and operate freely within each other's industries. GLBA also made it possible for the financial industry to group mortgage and other portfolios, selling them as investments.

I don’t even think you understand what you are trying to present as “evidence” means. Again, please tell me how this caused those without the means to pay for their mortgages to get them? Hint - It wasn’t; It was the Leftist policies that forced banks to make mortgages to those who could not pay them.


furtasacra wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Second of all, protest all you want, but when the violent, bigoted and criminal, Left-wing “Occupiers” threaten to storm a state capital to kill and maim people, yes I think it is appropriate to call them terrorists.


What? I looked but found absolutely no evidence of Occupy protesters threatening an armed assault on a state capital. In what state did this occur? State of delusion? State of paranoia? State of delirium tremens? One loony doesn't count.

The state was Pennsylvania (It was in the very first thread entry), and there is no deficiency of loonies in the Occupy mobs.

Quote:
Man taken into custody over threats at Occupy Harrisburg

HARRISBURG—Police say a man suggesting protesters storm Pennsylvania's state Capitol was taken into custody after local members of the Occupy Wall Street protest alerted authorities.
A spokesman for the state's Department of General Services says a 35-year-old man was taken into custody on a mental health commitment.

Officials say members of the Occupy Harrisburg demonstration reported the man to police early Wednesday morning after he suggested storming the building. Investigators say the man also told the protesters he had explosives but he turned out to be unarmed.

Capitol police say the man faces charges including harassment and disorderly conduct.
furtasacra
jmi256 wrote:


Huh? So now a regulation is deemed “deregulation”? Just because the word “deregulation” is in the title doesn’t mean this isn’t regulation. If you are saying this new regulation caused problems, then you are making my point for me. But I doubt you have not even considered that.


Deregulation means to remove government controls from an industry. This is done by passing laws that cancel out the previous laws.

You asked a question. I answered it. Just because you don't understand the answer doesn't make me wrong.

I stand by my assertion that some tiny fraction of the members of a large group behaving like violent lunatics does not make the entire movement a terrorist group. That's like saying "There are four elephants at my local zoo, therefore all of the animals in the zoo are pachyderms."

That is a somewhat unfortunate analogy, but I refuse to put in anymore effort to have a discussion with someone who obviously has no interest in what I'm saying beyond scanning for something you can use as an excuse for parroting right-wing talking points and making fallacious arguments. Good day.
Bikerman
jmi256 wrote:
Actually, it was Clinton and the Democrats in 1999 that pressured mortgage lenders to loan money to those unable to pay back the loans:
That opinion is not shared by the Federal Commission which recently reported on the matter:
"...the low interest rates brought about by the Fed after the 2001 recession; Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage finance giants; and the “aggressive homeownership goals” set by the government as part of a “philosophy of opportunity” were not major culprits."
Quote:
Bikerman wrote:
The background
A financial derivitive is based on the idea of bundling up high risk debt with low/no risk debt to give a mixture which, the mathematics predicted, could not result in a loss.

Not correct. Derivatives can easily result in a loss. In fact, if you buy a derivative you take an immediate loss.
Read what I wrote. Of course you can take a loss - BUT the theoretical model developed allowed derivatives to be hedged in a way that any market fluctuation is compensated for by changes in the portfolio.
Quote:

Bikerman wrote:
The maths was done by some top-of-the-range academics, using the little-known (then) contract called an 'option'. An option is a contract to buy particular stock sometime in the future when its price hits a pre-agreed level.

You’re wrong on the buy part. Options of course can be sold/shorted. It is the cornerstone of a well-functioning market. Without sellers you can’t have buyers.
I'm not wrong.
Quote:
In finance, an option is a derivative financial instrument that specifies a contract between two parties for a future transaction on an asset at a reference price.
Which is, I believe, what I said.
Quote:
Where did you get this idea that risk has been eliminated? Have you ever looked at the Black-Scoles model itself? Risk is included right in the equation in the form of volatility.
Err..you are confused. Volatility does not equate to risk. Yes, I have looked at the Black-Scholes. It isn't rocket science, but the maths IS complex and it takes a while. Why, have YOU looked at it? You simply solve to give the price of an option. Risk is removed because knowing the price means the appropriate position can be taken. It is generally known as delta-hedging and involves altering the number and ratio of long-short term options. You simply start with ito's lemma:

and apply a 'delta hedge' - long/sort options to eliminate the 'w' term - the uncertainty in the price. You thus arrive at a risk-free position. THAT'S the WHOLE POINT,
jmi256
furtasacra wrote:
jmi256 wrote:

Huh? So now a regulation is deemed “deregulation”? Just because the word “deregulation” is in the title doesn’t mean this isn’t regulation. If you are saying this new regulation caused problems, then you are making my point for me. But I doubt you have not even considered that.


Deregulation means to remove government controls from an industry. This is done by passing laws that cancel out the previous laws.

“Deregulation” is not accomplished by simply replacing it with another regulation. Once again, I simply don’t think you understand what you are trying to represent as “evidence.” Google is a good tool, but in the hands of someone who doesn’t understand the results it is quite useless and just makes you look like an idiot when you try to use what you find to support your argument and instead end up with egg on your face.

furtasacra wrote:
You asked a question. I answered it. Just because you don't understand the answer doesn't make me wrong.

I understand your “answer” just fine. What makes it wrong is that it simply is wrong (and a stupid argument btw).


furtasacra wrote:
I stand by my assertion that some tiny fraction of the members of a large group behaving like violent lunatics does not make the entire movement a terrorist group. That's like saying "There are four elephants at my local zoo, therefore all of the animals in the zoo are pachyderms."

Stand by whatever you want. The fact remains that the Left-wing “Occupy” mob is made up of violent and bigoted criminals whipped up into a frenzy but are too strung out to even see how idiotic they appear. I say let them stand loud and proud! The more the public sees these Left-wingers for what they are, the better.


furtasacra wrote:
That is a somewhat unfortunate analogy, but I refuse to put in anymore effort to have a discussion with someone who obviously has no interest in what I'm saying beyond scanning for something you can use as an excuse for parroting right-wing talking points and making fallacious arguments. Good day.

Translation: Waaahhh….
Apparently counting isn’t one of your strong suites, along with reading comprehension. I responded to every single one of your idiotic “arguments” and didn’t scan for “an excuse.” It’s not my fault you can’t string together an argument.





Bikerman wrote:
That opinion is not shared by the Federal Commission which recently reported on the matter:
"...the low interest rates brought about by the Fed after the 2001 recession; Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage finance giants; and the “aggressive homeownership goals” set by the government as part of a “philosophy of opportunity” were not major culprits."

I’m sure you have a source from the FCC for that, right? Given your habit of making up sources you can’t really expect anyone to take your unsourced attributions at face value.


Bikerman wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Bikerman wrote:


The background
A financial derivitive is based on the idea of bundling up high risk debt with low/no risk debt to give a mixture which, the mathematics predicted, could not result in a loss.


Not correct. Derivatives can easily result in a loss. In fact, if you buy a derivative you take an immediate loss.

Read what I wrote. Of course you can take a loss - BUT the theoretical model developed allowed derivatives to be hedged in a way that any market fluctuation is compensated for by changes in the portfolio.

No, you’re absolutely wrong. First of all, no theoretical model “could not result in a loss.” Even at first read this is bullsh*t that anyone could see. Second, I suggest you read up on how markets work. The claim that “A financial derivitive is based on the idea of bundling up high risk debt with low/no risk debt…” is simply hogwash. If you can’t get that basic definition down, your entire argument is suspect.



Bikerman wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Bikerman wrote:


The maths was done by some top-of-the-range academics, using the little-known (then) contract called an 'option'. An option is a contract to buy particular stock sometime in the future when its price hits a pre-agreed level.


You’re wrong on the buy part. Options of course can be sold/shorted. It is the cornerstone of a well-functioning market. Without sellers you can’t have buyers.

I'm not wrong.

You are absolutely wrong again. Options can be bought and sold. Back to the books for you. Try something other than Wikipedia.


Bikerman wrote:
jmi256 wrote:

In finance, an option is a derivative financial instrument that specifies a contract between two parties for a future transaction on an asset at a reference price.

Which is, I believe, what I said.

Really? I don’t see that in your comments. Again, you seem to be misrepresenting.


Bikerman wrote:
jmi256 wrote:

Where did you get this idea that risk has been eliminated? Have you ever looked at the Black-Scoles model itself? Risk is included right in the equation in the form of volatility.

Err..you are confused. Volatility does not equate to risk. Yes, I have looked at the Black-Scholes. It isn't rocket science, but the maths IS complex and it takes a while. Why, have YOU looked at it? You simply solve to give the price of an option. Risk is removed because knowing the price means the appropriate position can be taken. It is generally known as delta-hedging and involves altering the number and ratio of long-short term options.

The only thing that is “confusing” is how you can present your conclusions with a straight face. Volatility absolutely represents the risk associated with options. As the price of the underlying fluctuates (i.e. volatility), risk goes up. This is a basic part of options, so I suggest you do some more reading. Like I said, volatility is included explicitly in the Black-Scholes model. BTW, the math is not complex at all. And you never “know the price.” The model gives you a theoretical price, not an actual. Many traders, however, will construct model to determine what the price of a security “should” be, and they arbitrage the mismatch between their guess and the market price. But no anyone claiming to “know” the price of a security on a certain date in the future is selling something.

While your little detour has been amusing, it has been pointless. You tried to portray some pricing models as an example of “deregulation” but are left with an incoherent mess of an argument that is factually wrong, as well as simply misinformed. The Left wing’s policy frack ups and regulations that forced banks to give mortgages to borrowers who couldn’t afford them absolutely were the cause of the housing crisis as those borrowers predictably could not make their payments. Who would have guessed? Give people with no jobs, no savings and horrible credit histories mortgages, and they don’t pay you back you say? No, the horror!! It would be comical to see the Left’s stupid policies fail, except taxpayers are on the hook for the Left’s programs due to their “too big to fail” policies.
Ankhanu
jmi256 wrote:
The fact remains that the Left-wing “Occupy” mob is made up of violent and bigoted criminals whipped up into a frenzy but are too strung out to even see how idiotic they appear.

I suppose this is why the entire Occupy Halifax congregation opted to leave their primary location In the Grand Parade so as to not disrupt two ceremonies this week (a Dignity Day (commemorating Kristallnach) on Wednesday and Remembrance Day (commemorating veterans/soldiers) on Friday). Man, what malicious crazy bastards!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2011/10/31/ns-occupy-halifax-remembrance.html
Hello_World
Quote:
How’s that first “stimulus” working by the way?


Actually it worked pretty freaking well here in Australia...
deanhills
@jmi256. Bikerman and furtasacra in my opinion are right on about how deregulation has harmed individuals. For me it is crystal clear that in order to fix this, banks have to be regulated again.

We're in the midst of an enormous bubble where technically quite a large portion of your middle class and poor are working for the Banks - i.e. paying off loans or being unable to do that - the Banks getting their assets as a nice bonus. With deregulation there has been a massive accumulation of wealth in the hands of very GREEDY Banks after being allowed to gobble up all the smaller friendly neighbourhood banks in one take-over after the other.

Before deregulation banking was a pretty transparent business. You give your money to the bank, and you get a nice return in interest for the privilege of the bank keeping your money for you. But after deregulation, and when the Banks started to get greedy with real estate investment products and getting involved in the stock markets, the economy surrounding that all of a sudden became complicated to the extent that our money has now become the Bank's more than ours. I can't find a Bank Manager any more as all of banking these days are by phone or online and those guys who get to manage our financials are mostly invisible or unable to make big decisions, safely ensconced in ivory towers while they are creaming billions in commission of investment products that they are selling to their customers, EVEN when they know that those products may not be good for them.

I was wondering why the media was not agitating about this as well, but Ocalhoun in another thread just hit the answer right for me in that the media of course is in the pay of your large corporations.

I'm dead certain what is happening in Greece is one of the symptoms of something that has really gone very bad. Al Jazeera interviewed a house wife in Athens, and she put it very simple. She said the one day they were doing well, and the next day when they woke up they owed everyone everything, all of a sudden found they had lost properties, and they are very poor. Guess where all of that money went to? For me it all started with deregulation. Particularly when large banks were allowed to take over smaller banks left right and centre to the extent we don't have our friendly small banks to go to any longer.
handfleisch
Hello_World wrote:
Quote:
How’s that first “stimulus” working by the way?


Actually it worked pretty freaking well here in Australia...


It worked well in the US, too. Millions of Americans have jobs thanks to Obama's modest stimulus package, despite what the serial liar who started this lunatic thread thinks in his strange little right wing world.
jmi256
handfleisch wrote:
Hello_World wrote:
Quote:
How’s that first “stimulus” working by the way?


Actually it worked pretty freaking well here in Australia...


It worked well in the US, too. Millions of Americans have jobs thanks to Obama's modest stimulus package, despite what the serial liar who started this lunatic thread thinks in his strange little right wing world.


By "strange little right wing world" I assume you mean reality. I’m just curious if in your “reality” has unemployment gone down? Here in the real world, it has gone up and up thanks to Obama and the Democrats. You call this working? Obama and the Democrats got more in their "stimulus" bill that they initially asked for, and they still figured out a way to fail. They claimed the "stimulus" bill had to be passed right away without being read to avoid the unemployment rate going above 8%, but they used the money to pay off campaign contributors and on wasteful pet projects. According to Obama’s own numbers, we are supposed to be at around 6.5% now, but the unemployment rate is above 9%. Talk about greed and corruption. Now taxpayers will have to pay for the Democrats' failures while also seeing even higher unemployment thanks to Obama and the Democrats mismanagement.








@Hello_World: I thought I was clear that I was talking about Obama and the Democrats’ failed “stimulus” bill here in the US. You seem to have taken one fragment out of a larger section and tried to twist it to your own meaning.


jmi256 wrote:
Have you paid any attention to the Tea Party protests at all? Or are you touched in the head? Unlike the Occupy mob that simply wants handouts for doing nothing and whatever else they seem to be pissed off about (they can’t even articulate an answer to that one), the Tea Party protested the government intrusion that runs rampant and has led to the policies perpetrated by the Democratic party, including forcing lenders to make loans to those who could not afford homes, leading to the housing crisis. Then when their idiotic policies came home to roost, the Left rolls out their “too big to fail” policies and handouts that have resulted in record deficits spending and a historic credit rating downgrade thanks to Obama and the Democrats. But instead of owning up to their stupid and harmful policies that have resulted in higher unemployment, lower consumer confidence and a slew of other piss-poor economic indicators, you people want to double down on your failures by asking for another “stimulus” package to go to campaign contributors and pet projects. How’s that first “stimulus” working by the way? Aren’t you glad Obama and the Democrats forced it down the taxpayers’ throats to avoid the unemployment rate going above 8%? Too bad it went up to 10% due to Obama and the Democrats’ mismanagement and corruption. But yeah it’s about “motor scooters” and has nothing to do with the Left’s stupid policies that have put a chokehold on the rights of taxpayers by forcing them to buy private products and services from the Democrats’ campaign contributors. Or the Obama and the Democrats’ unrestrained spending that threatens the economy with an even worse headache as the bill comes due to taxpayers. Or any of the other real policy issues. Just keep showing how “smart” you Lefties are by thinking it is about “motor scooters”. No wonder you people elect idiots. It must be the type of people you can relate to. You deserve to be led by the type of politicians you have.
handfleisch
jmi256 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Hello_World wrote:
Quote:
How’s that first “stimulus” working by the way?


Actually it worked pretty freaking well here in Australia...


It worked well in the US, too. Millions of Americans have jobs thanks to Obama's modest stimulus package, despite what the serial liar who started this lunatic thread thinks in his strange little right wing world.


By "strange little right wing world" I assume you mean reality. I’m just curious if in your “reality” has unemployment gone down? Here in the real world, it has gone up and up thanks to Obama and the Democrats. You call this working? Obama and the Democrats got more in their "stimulus" bill that they initially asked for, and they still figured out a way to fail. They claimed the "stimulus" bill had to be passed right away without being read to avoid the unemployment rate going above 8%, but they used the money to pay off campaign contributors and on wasteful pet projects. According to Obama’s own numbers, we are supposed to be at around 6.5% now, but the unemployment rate is above 9%. Talk about greed and corruption. Now taxpayers will have to pay for the Democrats' failures while also seeing even higher unemployment thanks to Obama and the Democrats mismanagement.


Your basic cognitive faculties are broken, seeped in teabag baloney, and you are so thoroughly discredited that it's just funny watching you rant and rave. I notice you have even gone back to citing hilarious right wing sources ("pajamas media"? is that the best you can do?) to support your smear campaigns and lies.

I never said unemployment rate is down, everyone knows it has been mostly flat for a couple years now, since Obama stabilized the economy after inheriting it on the brink of collapse. I said that millions of Americans have jobs that they wouldn't have if not for Obama's policy of the stimulus, and that's true. Unemployment would have been that much worse without Obama's policies. Of course now the Republicans are blocking every jobs bill in Congress, making things much worse than they could be.

Your basic dishonestly about economic projection vs. promises has already been exposed, and yet you continue with it. Same with your simpleton's view of the housing crisis and your inability to accept the glaring facts of what deregulation has done to our economy. Your continuing labeling of "left wing" and "leftist" to basic macroeconomic solutions supported by the majority of western economists shows your tinfoil hat has overheated your brain to the (tea?)boiling point. Please keep it up, in your own small way you help undermine the right wing with every post you make while providing a lot of entertainment to boot.
deanhills
I don't know Handfleisch. As far as I can see the US has a SERIOUS unemployment problem. And those who made those people poor were the ones who got bailed out. That to me is Government backed daylight robbery, greed and corruption.
jmi256
deanhills wrote:
I don't know Handfleisch. As far as I can see the US has a SERIOUS unemployment problem. And those who made those people poor were the ones who got bailed out. That to me is Government backed daylight robbery, greed and corruption.

The Obama “stimulus” that cost us over $1 trillion and went to line the pockets of The Democrats’ campaign contributors at the expense of business owners, employers and taxpayers is not “Government backed daylight robbery, greed and corruption”, but rather daylight robbery, greed and corruption in itself. They are the ones who should have their feet held to the fire for stealing money from taxpayers to pay off their campaign contributors.
deanhills
jmi256 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I don't know Handfleisch. As far as I can see the US has a SERIOUS unemployment problem. And those who made those people poor were the ones who got bailed out. That to me is Government backed daylight robbery, greed and corruption.

The Obama “stimulus” that cost us over $1 trillion and went to line the pockets of The Democrats’ campaign contributors at the expense of business owners, employers and taxpayers is not “Government backed daylight robbery, greed and corruption”, but rather daylight robbery, greed and corruption in itself. They are the ones who should have their feet held to the fire for stealing money from taxpayers to pay off their campaign contributors.
I thought the stimulus was approved by Congress and Senate? So that is the Government isn't it? Obama could hardly take a decision on his own, he'd have had to get serious backing for that amount of expenditure before it could be approved. The Republicans approved it too. I'm beginning to wonder whether Jesse Ventura has a point with saying the US is a 2-party dictatorship.
jmi256
deanhills wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I don't know Handfleisch. As far as I can see the US has a SERIOUS unemployment problem. And those who made those people poor were the ones who got bailed out. That to me is Government backed daylight robbery, greed and corruption.

The Obama “stimulus” that cost us over $1 trillion and went to line the pockets of The Democrats’ campaign contributors at the expense of business owners, employers and taxpayers is not “Government backed daylight robbery, greed and corruption”, but rather daylight robbery, greed and corruption in itself. They are the ones who should have their feet held to the fire for stealing money from taxpayers to pay off their campaign contributors.
I thought the stimulus was approved by Congress and Senate? So that is the Government isn't it? Obama could hardly take a decision on his own, he'd have had to get serious backing for that amount of expenditure before it could be approved. The Republicans approved it too. I'm beginning to wonder whether Jesse Ventura has a point with saying the US is a 2-party dictatorship.

No, the Senate and the House were controlled by the Democrats when they forced the Obama "stimulus" down taxpayers's throats.
Hello_World
Quote:
@Hello_World: I thought I was clear that I was talking about Obama and the Democrats’ failed “stimulus” bill here in the US. You seem to have taken one fragment out of a larger section and tried to twist it to your own meaning.


Yeah, you are talking about US stimulus bill, amongst other things. I was just pointing out that it worked well here, the same basic policy.

In doing so, it suggests that other factors are at play, not the stimulus policy itself.

It also suggests that the stimulus policy may have mitigated some of the disaster of the US economy.

On the other hand, perhaps Obama chose bad options to direct the money, I don't know.

Twist that however you like.
deanhills
jmi256 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I don't know Handfleisch. As far as I can see the US has a SERIOUS unemployment problem. And those who made those people poor were the ones who got bailed out. That to me is Government backed daylight robbery, greed and corruption.

The Obama “stimulus” that cost us over $1 trillion and went to line the pockets of The Democrats’ campaign contributors at the expense of business owners, employers and taxpayers is not “Government backed daylight robbery, greed and corruption”, but rather daylight robbery, greed and corruption in itself. They are the ones who should have their feet held to the fire for stealing money from taxpayers to pay off their campaign contributors.
I thought the stimulus was approved by Congress and Senate? So that is the Government isn't it? Obama could hardly take a decision on his own, he'd have had to get serious backing for that amount of expenditure before it could be approved. The Republicans approved it too. I'm beginning to wonder whether Jesse Ventura has a point with saying the US is a 2-party dictatorship.

No, the Senate and the House were controlled by the Democrats when they forced the Obama "stimulus" down taxpayers's throats.
Right, but they still needed a number of votes from Republicans and that seems to be always negotiable on the Senate level:
http://observationalism.com/2009/02/11/the-republicans-who-voted-for-the-stimulus-bill-in-the-senate-all-three-of-them/
handfleisch
Hello_World wrote:
Quote:
@Hello_World: I thought I was clear that I was talking about Obama and the Democrats’ failed “stimulus” bill here in the US. You seem to have taken one fragment out of a larger section and tried to twist it to your own meaning.

Yeah, you are talking about US stimulus bill, amongst other things. I was just pointing out that it worked well here, the same basic policy.
In doing so, it suggests that other factors are at play, not the stimulus policy itself.
It also suggests that the stimulus policy may have mitigated some of the disaster of the US economy.
On the other hand, perhaps Obama chose bad options to direct the money, I don't know.
Twist that however you like.

About the stimulus bill, the reactionaries will never admit that millions of Americans have jobs thanks to that investment in the economy by the Obama administration. They will never admit that there is a global economic problem, that Europe is really struggling, and this is strongly affecting the US economy. They will never admit that their unfunded wars and deregulation caused Bush's near-collapse of the US economy and that it's been stabilized since Obama came in office. As you say, there are other factors at play, and the right wingers want Americans to remain ignorant of that bigger picture and in a state of amnesia about that recent history that led to the crisis.
deanhills
The little bit I've seen on the Web is that those jobs that have been created have all been of very low quality and for the service industry vs technical jobs for industry. You've got experienced engineering graduates for example doing jobs that they are overqualified for making a huge joke of the billions of dollars of investment in educating people in the sciences and engineering in the US. Most of the jobs that have been created are also temporary ones as well.

Probably time that the US should try and match the students they are educating with what industry needs. There does not seem to be a proper nuts and bolts plan in place.
Bikerman
jmi256 wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
That opinion is not shared by the Federal Commission which recently reported on the matter:
"...the low interest rates brought about by the Fed after the 2001 recession; Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage finance giants; and the “aggressive homeownership goals” set by the government as part of a “philosophy of opportunity” were not major culprits."

I’m sure you have a source from the FCC for that, right? Given your habit of making up sources you can’t really expect anyone to take your unsourced attributions at face value.
LOL...yes, the report is widely reported:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/41260178/print/1/displaymode/1098
Quote:
No, you’re absolutely wrong. First of all, no theoretical model “could not result in a loss.” Even at first read this is bullsh*t that anyone could see. Second, I suggest you read up on how markets work. The claim that “A financial derivitive is based on the idea of bundling up high risk debt with low/no risk debt…” is simply hogwash. If you can’t get that basic definition down, your entire argument is suspect.
You appear to have difficulty reading.
Quote:
The only thing that is “confusing” is how you can present your conclusions with a straight face. Volatility absolutely represents the risk associated with options. As the price of the underlying fluctuates (i.e. volatility), risk goes up. This is a basic part of options, so I suggest you do some more reading. Like I said, volatility is included explicitly in the Black-Scholes model. BTW, the math is not complex at all. And you never “know the price.” The model gives you a theoretical price, not an actual. Many traders, however, will construct model to determine what the price of a security “should” be, and they arbitrage the mismatch between their guess and the market price. But no anyone claiming to “know” the price of a security on a certain date in the future is selling something.
Really? You think the maths is not complex. Interesting. I teach maths and I find it pretty complex. Maybe you are a maths whizz who can do the partial derivatives no problem, in which case you will have no problem solving for given values, I take it?
So, if I posit a stock price of $70, with a volatility of 0.6, interest rate of 2%, expiry of 8 months and strike price of $80, you will be able to tell me the call and put prices? Of course you will also show your workings....

Of course the price is theoretical - that is what I said. The whole point is that far too much credence was given to the model by people who didn't understand the maths (and more importantly didn't understand WHY some of the underlying assumptions were invalid).

Volatility is certainly included in the model - I never said otherwise. What I said is that it does not equate to risk - which is obvious. The greater the volatility the more likelihood that a particular stock will move in favour of the investor.
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
That opinion is not shared by the Federal Commission which recently reported on the matter:
"...the low interest rates brought about by the Fed after the 2001 recession; Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage finance giants; and the “aggressive homeownership goals” set by the government as part of a “philosophy of opportunity” were not major culprits."

I’m sure you have a source from the FCC for that, right? Given your habit of making up sources you can’t really expect anyone to take your unsourced attributions at face value.
LOL...yes, the report is widely reported:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/41260178/print/1/displaymode/1098

Once again, I am glad I asked for your “source.” The article you cite does not say what you claim it does (unless of course you string together some unconnected fragments), but includes failure of REGULATION, not DEREGULATION. It’s there in the very first sentence:

Quote:
The 2008 financial crisis was an “avoidable” disaster caused by widespread failures in government regulation, corporate mismanagement and heedless risk-taking by Wall Street, according to the conclusions of a Congressional inquiry.





Bikerman wrote:
You appear to have difficulty reading.

I read just fine.



Bikerman wrote:
Really? You think the maths is not complex. Interesting. I teach maths and I find it pretty complex. Maybe you are a maths whizz who can do the partial derivatives no problem, in which case you will have no problem solving for given values, I take it?
So, if I posit a stock price of $70, with a volatility of 0.6, interest rate of 2%, expiry of 8 months and strike price of $80, you will be able to tell me the call and put prices? Of course you will also show your workings....

I haven’t had to figure out a value by hand since school, but it is not complex at all. And no, I’m not a math whiz. You just plug some numbers in. Since you don’t provide the actual stock, what probability factor you are using/assuming?



Bikerman wrote:
Of course the price is theoretical - that is what I said. The whole point is that far too much credence was given to the model by people who didn't understand the maths (and more importantly didn't understand WHY some of the underlying assumptions were invalid).

Only an idiot would use a purely theoretical number/value. Like I said, most firms might use the equation as a starting point, but customize it to factor for other variables. That is why you rarely see a put or call trading at the “theoretical” price, just as you rarely see an equity trading at its theoretical price. Now one point I agree with is that there are people out there who don’t really know what they are doing. But you see that every day. Some idiot sees his neighbor making money “in the market” and decides to plunk down the life savings on a risky stock he knows nothing about. He just knows that the stock gained 40% each year for the last three years and assumes it will continue to go up. Next thing you know, the historic 40% annual returns the stock saw for the last three years drops to -50%, and the guy wants to jump off a building. That is simply his own fault, and I definitely don’t want my taxpayer money to those who take risks and then expect me to bail them out.



Bikerman wrote:
Volatility is certainly included in the model - I never said otherwise. What I said is that it does not equate to risk - which is obvious. The greater the volatility the more likelihood that a particular stock will move in favour of the investor.

Or in the opposite direction. That is where the risk is. The higher the vol, the higher the chances that the price could swing in either direction. Vol is not one directional.
Bikerman
jmi256 wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
That opinion is not shared by the Federal Commission which recently reported on the matter:
"...the low interest rates brought about by the Fed after the 2001 recession; Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage finance giants; and the “aggressive homeownership goals” set by the government as part of a “philosophy of opportunity” were not major culprits."

I’m sure you have a source from the FCC for that, right? Given your habit of making up sources you can’t really expect anyone to take your unsourced attributions at face value.
LOL...yes, the report is widely reported:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/41260178/print/1/displaymode/1098

Once again, I am glad I asked for your “source.” The article you cite does not say what you claim it does (unless of course you string together some unconnected fragments), but includes failure of REGULATION, not DEREGULATION. It’s there in the very first sentence:
Read my quote again. Notice the quotation marks? Those indicate quotes.
If you want the entire document then it is here:
http://fcic-static.law.stanford.edu/cdn_media/fcic-reports/fcic_final_report_conclusions.pdf
The passages of relevance are
Quote:
We also studied at length how the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) affordable housing goals for the GSEs affected their investment in risky mortgages. Based on the evidence and interviews with dozens of individuals involved in this subject area, we determined these goals only contributed marginally to Fannie’s and Freddie’s participation in those mortgages. Finally, as to the matter of whether government housing policies were a primary cause of the crisis: for decades, government policy has encouraged homeownership through a set of incentives, assistance programs, and mandates. These policies were put in place and promoted by several administrations and Congresses—indeed, both Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush set aggressive goals to increase homeownership. In conducting our inquiry, we took a careful look at HUD’s affordable housing goals, as noted above, and the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). The CRA was enacted in to combat “redlining” by banks—the practice of denying credit to individuals and businesses in certain neighborhoods without regard to their creditworthiness. The CRA requires banks and savings and loans to lend, invest, and provide services to the communities from which they take deposits, consistent with bank safety and soundness.
The Commission concludes the CRA was not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis. Many subprime lenders were not subject to the CRA. Research indicates only of high-cost loans—a proxy for subprime loans—had any connection to the law. Loans made by CRA-regulated lenders in the neighborhoods in which they were required to lend were half as likely to default as similar loans made in the same neighborhoods by independent mortgage originators not subject to the law.

Quote:
I haven’t had to figure out a value by hand since school, but it is not complex at all. And no, I’m not a math whiz. You just plug some numbers in. Since you don’t provide the actual stock, what probability factor you are using/assuming?
LOL...I'll take that as a no then. 'Probability factor' is a red herring.
In case you have forgotten, the equation is:
Bikerman
Here's an interesting Horizon program on what I've been talking about:
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Once again, I am glad I asked for your “source.” The article you cite does not say what you claim it does (unless of course you string together some unconnected fragments), but includes failure of REGULATION, not DEREGULATION. It’s there in the very first sentence:

Read my quote again. Notice the quotation marks? Those indicate quotes.

I know what quotes mean, and you placed the entire portion in quotes indicating it was a direct quote. Instead it was a jumble of fragments you pieced together and then tried to pass it off as something from the Federal Commission, when it was not. You have been caught in this type of dishonest attribution in the past, which is why it sends red flags when you try to quote something without a source. In the first “source” you eventually provided, it (an article from the NY Times, btw, not the Federal Commission) it clearly said the fault lies with the regulation and regulators, not deregulation. The regulations were there, but the regulators had no clue what they were doing. Typical government shoddiness, coupled by a dishonest attempt to attribute something that was not said.

Like I said, your idea that any theoretical model would say an investment or instrument is “safe” is simply untrue. Models are a tool, and would never declare any investment to be “safe”. There is always risk. But blaming the instruments, and especially the models, is simply lazy and meant to whip up those who can’t grasp simple ideas into a frenzy. Maybe that is why it works so well with Left-wingers, I don’t know.



Bikerman wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
I haven’t had to figure out a value by hand since school, but it is not complex at all. And no, I’m not a math whiz. You just plug some numbers in. Since you don’t provide the actual stock, what probability factor you are using/assuming?
LOL...I'll take that as a no then. 'Probability factor' is a red herring.

I think that might be part of your problem. You think you are smarter than you might be, and that somehow paraphrasing some Wikipedia articles is going to cover up for your shortcomings. Probability is explicitly used, and can be determined when you use a real stock. That is why I asked for it since you are using a made-up stock. But whatever. I am sorry you think the math is so, so difficult and struggle with it.

It’s not hard at all, but I did do some rounding (usually to the 0.0001 place for consistency), so if we plugged these numbers into an options calculator, the final number may be off a bit. Like I said, you just plug in the numbers, though, and usually a trader would just go to an options calculator and plug the numbers in to get the theoretical prices. Of course, they would not think for a moment that these are the prices at the NBBO at any exchange.

Here is the formula for determining the price of a call:

C = SN(d1) – (Ke^(-rt))(N(d2))

And here are the values to input into the equation:
S = $70
t = 8/12 = .66
K = $80
r = .02
v = .6
N = .5 (since you fail to provide this, I will assume an equal possibility the price will go up or down. This number is a guess, however, so depending on what another user uses for this value, they may get a different result)



To determine d1, this equation is used:

d1 = (ln(S/K)+(r+(v^2)/2)(r)) / (v(sqt(r)))



Inputting the numbers, you get:

d1 = (ln(70/80)+(.02+(.6^2)/2)(.02)) / (.6(sqt(.02)))

d1 = -0.0019 (I rounded, so this will throw the final value off a bit)



Next, to solve for d2:

d2 = (ln(S/K)+(r-(v^2)/2)(r)) / (v(sqt(r)))

Plotting the numbers in again, you get:

d2 = (ln(70/80)+(.02-(.6^2)/2)(.02)) / (.6(sqt(.02)))

d2 = -0.2391 (I rounded again, so this will throw the final value off a bit as well)



Now it is just a matter of putting the numbers into the equation:
C = SN(d1) – (Ke^(-rt))(N(d2))

C = (70*.5(-0.0019)) – (80e^(-0.02*.66))*.5*-0.2391

C = 8.7736*




Now, to determine the price of the put you could simply use put-call parity:

C – P = S – K


You have all the values, except for the put price, so input the numbers:

8.77 – P = 70 – 80


And perform some very simple math to get:

P = -1*(70 – 80 – 8.77)
P = 18.77*


*As I mentioned, these values are mostly off a bit due to rounding and assumed probability, but the math functions the same.


If you need more help, I suggest you create a new thread in the math forum so we can get back on topic of the violent Left-wing criminals and bigots that make up the “Occupy” mobs.
Ankhanu
jmi256 wrote:
If you need more help, I suggest you create a new thread in the math forum so we can get back on topic of the violent Left-wing criminals and bigots that are occasionally within some of the “Occupy” mobs.


Edited for accuracy.
jmi256
Ankhanu wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
If you need more help, I suggest you create a new thread in the math forum so we can get back on topic of the violent Left-wing criminals and bigots that are occasionally within some of the “Occupy” mobs.


Edited for accuracy.


More like edited for spin. My characterization is correct.

jmi256 wrote:
If you need more help, I suggest you create a new thread in the math forum so we can get back on topic of the violent Left-wing criminals and bigots that make up the “Occupy” mobs.



I have yet to see any of the "Occupy" leaders come out and renounce the bigots and criminals who make up their mobs. You can try to claim that there are no leaders, but they seem quite able to open bank accounts, take in donation and spend that money, which means someone has to be coordinating that. And don’t fall over yourself trying to say it is a “collective decision.” They have set up security teams, PR spokespeople and other functions, so they are quite capable of addressing the issue of the criminals and bigots that make up their mob if they wanted to.
Ankhanu
*shrug* I've never heard support of these people either. Does this likewise mean there is clear condemnation of their actions?

To be clear, I'm not an occupier, but I'm also not blindly against the idea of accountability that appears to be the core of the movement (if not the core of all attendee's motivations). You seem to have a very strongly held stance and are not above picking out isolated instances to paint a picture about an entire group that, largely, appears to not be characterized as you have been characterizing... but some of us aren't as narrowly observing the events. A couple outliers do not define a dataset, if you will.
jmi256
Ankhanu wrote:
*shrug* I've never heard support of these people either. Does this likewise mean there is clear condemnation of their actions?


According to some, a failure to speak out against bigoted/racist comments does constitute condoning it. I know these weren’t your words*, but when Left-wingers were trying to portray the Tea Party as racists, they were more than happy to make this distinction:

Quote:
There is no implication about 'tea party protesters' en masse, merely an observation that those who observe and don't speak out are condoning. Perhaps all the attendees who saw the banners spoke out? Given that you have already accepted that some of them are racist then I really don't see your problem. I certainly did not say they were all racist - in fact I explicitly said otherwise. I'm saying that this sort of banner would not be displayed in ANY group I belong to - including bikers, many of which are extremely diverse in terms of membership. The ONLY place I would see those sorts of poster would be at a fringe Fascist (eg BNP) meeting. And I repeat - if you belong to ANY group and you see that sort of poster, then unless you speak out then I consider you are condoning it. That is my opinion and I'm happy to defend it.


So why is it ok for Left-wingers to use this “logic” as a line of attack, yet they cry foul when it is used against their own?





*I’m not trying to embarrass any one individual, so I won’t link to the direct quote. But if a mod thinks I must to adhere to the TOS, please PM me.
Bikerman
No problem - it is MY quote and I absolutely stick by it. The words are important though.
Notice 'BELONG TO'? Since Ankhanu has already clearly said he does NOT belong to the group in question then there is no issue. If members of the group have seen bigotry and do not denounce it then yes, I believe they are tacitly condoning it. I have no problem saying that, and would say it even if they WERE left-wing 'fellow travellers' which most of them certainly are not.
Bikerman
jmi256 wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Once again, I am glad I asked for your “source.” The article you cite does not say what you claim it does (unless of course you string together some unconnected fragments), but includes failure of REGULATION, not DEREGULATION. It’s there in the very first sentence:

Read my quote again. Notice the quotation marks? Those indicate quotes.

I know what quotes mean, and you placed the entire portion in quotes indicating it was a direct quote. Instead it as a jumble of fragments you pieced together and then tried to pass it off as something from the Federal Commission, when it was not. You have been caught in this type of dishonest attribution in the past, which is why it sends red flags when you try to quote something without a source. In the first “source” you eventually provided, it (an article from the NY Times, btw, not the Federal Commission) it clearly said the fault lies with the regulation and regulators, not deregulation. The regulations were there, but the regulators had no clue what they were doing. Typical government shoddiness, coupled by a dishonest attempt to attribute something that was not said.
I provided the SOURCE document - the FEDERAL FCIC REPORT. The extended quote is taken FROM THAT, not a 'times article', so I don't think you are in a position to be talking about anyone's dishonesty - especially considering that you continue to lie about the status of immigrants, after being shown beyond doubt to be wrong.

The earlier 'quote' was taken from CNN, and although my punctuation was pehaps clumsy - I think the meaning is clear to anyone who actually wishes to see it. I wrote:
"...the low interest rates brought about by the Fed after the 2001 recession; Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage finance giants; and the “aggressive homeownership goals” set by the government as part of a “philosophy of opportunity” were not major culprits."

The external quotation marks indicate that the whole thing is a quote. Within that there are two quoted phrases which are taken directly from the report. Overall the quote is a fair and accurate summary of the report. If you wish to portray that as dishonest then go ahead - I'm happy to let others judge. The simple fact is that the report (not the reporting of it) says exactly what I indicated above, as can easily be verified by READING IT.
http://fcic-static.law.stanford.edu/cdn_media/fcic-reports/fcic_final_report_conclusions.pdf

As for the maths - I certainly don't think I'm cleverer than I am - as I said, I find the Black Scholes equation (not the formula) difficult, since it is a partial derivative and quite tricky to solve.

I think you have more than a little rounding error in your calculations....my results are
10.2 and 19.5 with similar significant figures used.
handfleisch
JMI, while you're flailing about refusing to admit being hilariously wrong yet again, please explain this latest conspiracy theory of yours, the one about Soros being behind the OWS and its supposed anti-Semiticism. Please explain why Soros, who is Jewish, would orchestrate anti-Jewish movement you say is at the core of OWS. Oh, and please cite your sources for Soros and "Adbusters" being the powers behind OWS. How's Pajamas Media today, by the way?
Ankhanu
*nod* I understand that, and I do find it interesting that "representatives" have not publicly spoken out about the subject (that I've noticed at least, I may be mistaken, as my digging has not been effortive, and media coverage is quite silent on occupy matters in general). Despite the apparent silence concerning the actions of these individuals, I do think it is utter folly to assume that the occupy movement(?) is supportive of them, it seems quite antithetical to the general themes and undercurrents.

My basic point was simple, and I'm sure you understand it* : few, isolated examples of individual behaviours amongst a very large group who otherwise do not seem to exhibit the offending behaviours


* - based on your glossing treatment to characterize tea partiers, versus your cherry picking small example treatment to characterize occupiers
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
I provided the SOURCE document - the FEDERAL FCIC REPORT. The extended quote is taken FROM THAT, not a 'times article', so I don't think you are in a position to be talking about anyone's dishonesty - especially considering that you continue to lie about the status of immigrants, after being shown beyond doubt to be wrong.

Another lie. And easily shown to be a lie. I don’t need to get into this back and forth since you will employ your usual tactics of trying to weasel your way out of getting caught once again trying to say a “source” says something it doesn’t yet citing it regardless. You have been caught doing this multiple times now, in this thread and others, and it really isn’t worth getting into any more nitty-gritty than I have already exposed, but enough to simply call you out on it.
Bikerman
The Source is provided in the link. In your mind you may well believe you have caught me out numerous times...I think history says otherwise and, again, I'm content to let others make their own mind up after reading.

PS - I see where your calculation went wrong. The standard deviation value (N) is not required - the volatility index suffices. That's the trouble with just plugging figures into a formula you don't understand - monkey see monkey do....
jmi256
Ankhanu wrote:
*nod* I understand that, and I do find it interesting that "representatives" have not publicly spoken out about the subject (that I've noticed at least, I may be mistaken, as my digging has not been effortive, and media coverage is quite silent on occupy matters in general). Despite the apparent silence concerning the actions of these individuals, I do think it is utter folly to assume that the occupy movement(?) is supportive of them, it seems quite antithetical to the general themes and undercurrents.

My basic point was simple, and I'm sure you understand it* : few, isolated examples of individual behaviours amongst a very large group who otherwise do not seem to exhibit the offending behaviours


* - based on your glossing treatment to characterize tea partiers, versus your cherry picking small example treatment to characterize occupiers


The media has been silent? Maybe it is because I live in New York, but the Occupy mob is completely fawned over by the media here, and they print/broadcast stories daily trying to spin the Occupy mobs in a positive light. But most people aren’t biting. All you have to do it take a walk down to the World Trade area where the park is to see these animals for yourselves. I have been there three times already (I have also been to the Occupy protests in Boston and Chicago), and each time I am filled with disgust at these people living and acting like animals, fear for the future of this nation as these people will eventually have some type of place in society, shame that the country I came to and have served would produce animals like these who can only think of handouts and theft as means of succeeding rather than hard work and determination, and anger at politicians and unions (specifically teacher unions) who have fostered a mentality of helplessness and impotence in these people so that they think actually believe they are so worthless, broken and insignificant that they don’t matter and are unable to better themselves and their situations without the hand of Big Government. As much as I get upset at these people, I almost want to cry for them; they really do not understand what they are doing or what they are representing, but the Left-wing is more than happy to use these simpletons.

But their actions and hatred are 100% in line with the Left-wing Occupy mob, which at its heart is all about pitting one group, whether it be Jews, whites, bankers, “the rich”, or whoever else they decide to target, against another.
And these Left-wing Occupy bigots are not just a few, isolated examples. Here is another Occupy poster boy putting his bigotry on full display. We even get a twofer as he tries to link 9/11 Truther conspiracies with his anti-Semitic bigotry. He even seems to claim no Jews died on 9/11.




EDIT to address this nonsense:
Bikerman wrote:
PS - I see where your calculation went wrong. The standard deviation value (N) is not required - the volatility index suffices. That's the trouble with just plugging figures into a formula you don't understand - monkey see monkey do....

The calculation is fine. I told you it might be slightly off due to rounding, but if I used the full calculations it would be spot on. I understand the formula quite fine, and just because you have to paraphrase Wikipedia and can’t find it there doesn’t mean it is not correct. My point about plugging numbers is that you claimed the math was so, so hard that even you, the Holy O’Bikerman, teacher of Maths and whatever else you think you are so smart in, would have difficulty understanding the math and therefore it is complex. That simply is not the case and plenty of people understand the math quite well, and understanding it shows that the math is not a culprit as it is in your fantasy. Risk is inherent in any investment and to claim some model to determine a theoretical price makes an investment “safe” shows your lack of understanding of basic finance.
handfleisch
Bikerman wrote:
The Source is provided in the link. In your mind you may well believe you have caught me out numerous times...I think history says otherwise and, again, I'm content to let others make their own mind up after reading

Did you expect JMI to give up his long-held belief in a false tenant of the right wing church of BS? He has said so many times that the housing crisis was caused by Democrats forcing banks to give housing loans to the unqualified, he simply can't admit that it's all a big lie. He's never admitted being wrong, and he's been oh so wrong on so many things.

Hey JMI, prove to us you're not a clown and deal with this passage from the official report. I will even highlight it for you. What part of "not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis" do you not understand?
Quote:
In conducting our inquiry, we took a careful look at HUD’s affordable housing goals, as noted above, and the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). The CRA was enacted in to combat “redlining” by banks—the practice of denying credit to individuals and businesses in certain neighborhoods without regard to their creditworthiness. The CRA requires banks and savings and loans to lend, invest, and provide services to the communities from which they take deposits, consistent with bank safety and soundness.
The Commission concludes the CRA was not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis. Many subprime lenders were not subject to the CRA. Research indicates only of high-cost loans—a proxy for subprime loans—had any connection to the law. Loans made by CRA-regulated lenders in the neighborhoods in which they were required to lend were half as likely to default as similar loans made in the same neighborhoods by independent mortgage originators not subject to the law.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
He has said so many times that the housing crisis was caused by Democrats forcing banks to give housing loans to the unqualified, he simply can't admit that it's all a big lie. He's never admitted being wrong, and he's been oh so wrong on so many things.
I don't blame the Dems or the Republicans, both are in the pay of the large financial institutions. But I do agree with JMI that the crisis happened as a result of easy loans.

Quote:
In the years leading up to the crisis, significant amounts of foreign money flowed into the U.S. from fast-growing economies in Asia and oil-producing countries. This inflow of funds combined with low U.S. interest rates from 2002–2004 contributed to easy credit conditions, which fueled both housing and credit bubbles. Loans of various types (e.g., mortgage, credit card, and auto) were easy to obtain and consumers assumed an unprecedented debt load.[8][9] As part of the housing and credit booms, the amount of financial agreements called mortgage-backed securities (MBS), which derive their value from mortgage payments and housing prices, greatly increased. Such financial innovation enabled institutions and investors around the world to invest in the U.S. housing market. As housing prices declined, major global financial institutions that had borrowed and invested heavily in MBS reported significant losses. Defaults and losses on other loan types also increased significantly as the crisis expanded from the housing market to other parts of the economy. Total losses are estimated in the trillions of U.S. dollars globally.

Source: Wikipedia - Subprime Mortgage Crisis

I thought this satirical show describes the subprime crisis rather well:
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
He has said so many times that the housing crisis was caused by Democrats forcing banks to give housing loans to the unqualified, he simply can't admit that it's all a big lie. He's never admitted being wrong, and he's been oh so wrong on so many things.
I don't blame the Dems or the Republicans, both are in the pay of the large financial institutions. But I do agree with JMI that the crisis happened as a result of easy loans.

Quote:
In the years leading up to the crisis, significant amounts of foreign money flowed into the U.S. from fast-growing economies in Asia and oil-producing countries. This inflow of funds combined with low U.S. interest rates from 2002–2004 contributed to easy credit conditions, which fueled both housing and credit bubbles. Loans of various types (e.g., mortgage, credit card, and auto) were easy to obtain and consumers assumed an unprecedented debt load.[8][9] As part of the housing and credit booms, the amount of financial agreements called mortgage-backed securities (MBS), which derive their value from mortgage payments and housing prices, greatly increased. Such financial innovation enabled institutions and investors around the world to invest in the U.S. housing market. As housing prices declined, major global financial institutions that had borrowed and invested heavily in MBS reported significant losses. Defaults and losses on other loan types also increased significantly as the crisis expanded from the housing market to other parts of the economy. Total losses are estimated in the trillions of U.S. dollars globally.

Source: Wikipedia - Subprime Mortgage Crisis

You miss the main point. Scroll up and reread. JMI blames the housing crisis on the false idea, constantly parroted in the right wing media, that laws forced banks to give loans to unqualified people. He's now seen the proof that this is simply not true and he's trying to pretend that it is, that black is white and up is down.
ocalhoun
jmi256 wrote:
Ankhanu wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
If you need more help, I suggest you create a new thread in the math forum so we can get back on topic of the violent Left-wing criminals and bigots that are occasionally within some of the “Occupy” mobs.


Edited for accuracy.


More like edited for spin. My characterization is correct.

I am still waiting for evidence that these things are more common in the occupy movement than in other movements, or more common than in the population as a whole.

So far, you've only provided anecdotal evidence, which is pretty useless for making that kind of determination.
Bikerman
jmi256 wrote:
EDIT to address this nonsense:
Bikerman wrote:
PS - I see where your calculation went wrong. The standard deviation value (N) is not required - the volatility index suffices. That's the trouble with just plugging figures into a formula you don't understand - monkey see monkey do....

The calculation is fine. I told you it might be slightly off due to rounding, but if I used the full calculations it would be spot on. I understand the formula quite fine, and just because you have to paraphrase Wikipedia and can’t find it there doesn’t mean it is not correct. My point about plugging numbers is that you claimed the math was so, so hard that even you, the Holy O’Bikerman, teacher of Maths and whatever else you think you are so smart in, would have difficulty understanding the math and therefore it is complex. That simply is not the case and plenty of people understand the math quite well, and understanding it shows that the math is not a culprit as it is in your fantasy. Risk is inherent in any investment and to claim some model to determine a theoretical price makes an investment “safe” shows your lack of understanding of basic finance.

Nope, the calc is wrong. You don't understand the maths at all. To understand the maths you have to understand HOW the formula is arrived at. You start with the partial differential and have to substitute a boundary condition.
If you understood the maths you would know why the formula has a natural log term, why is it v^2 and not v or v^3, and so on. Unless you can derive it you don't understand it at all - you simply plug numbers into a formula and pretend.

As for eliminating risk, it is explained very clearly and in fairly simple terms in the horizon video I provided above. I'm certainly not an economist and have never claimed to be, but neither are you, and I at least understand the basics of the maths, whereas you plug numbers (and get it wrong).
It isn't a 'rounding' error - again you would know that if you had a feel for maths, and you'd know that simplyfying/rounding to 3 sig fig CANNOT make a difference anywhere near the magnitude here.
jmi256
Bikerman wrote:
Blather, b*tch and moan, and more typical Bikerman BS….

Like I said, since you fail to grasp simple math from your Wikipedia paraphrasing, I suggest you go to the math forum for some remedial help. I am not here to help you grasp simple concepts that you should have learned in high school, and I am not going to waste my time any more teaching you something you claim to know. Hint: 1 + 1 = 2, but 1 * 1 = 1. That should keep you busy for a while. If you are able to eventually get that, 1^(1*1) = 1 will simply blow the mind of someone as remedial as you, and it should keep you busy. LOL. I feel really sorry for you that you can’t grasp the concepts, but I feel really, really sorry for those you claim to teach.

ocalhoun wrote:
I am still waiting for evidence that these things are more common in the occupy movement than in other movements, or more common than in the population as a whole.
So far, you've only provided anecdotal evidence, which is pretty useless for making that kind of determination.

Sure. Since you asked for it, I will provide some threads that highlight examples of criminality of the Left-wing Occupy mob for you to comment on. As far as I know crime stats aren’t published on a daily basis, but there are plenty of examples of the violent Left-wing bigots (sorry for being redundant), criminals and perverts in many of the cities they have infested.
Bikerman
ROFLMAO - You are funny Smile
You really shouldn't try putting your maths into practice though...your 'rounding errors' could cost you a packet Sad

If you ever decide to do some proper maths instead of formula feeding, I'll show you WHY 1+1 = 2, then you'll understand it properly. It isn't as simple as you think, and the proper proof will be a bit beyond you yet, but you might grasp the basics...
catscratches
jmi256 wrote:
Sure. Since you asked for it, I will provide some threads that highlight examples of criminality of the Left-wing Occupy mob for you to comment on. As far as I know crime stats aren’t published on a daily basis, but there are plenty of examples of the violent Left-wing bigots (sorry for being redundant), criminals and perverts in many of the cities they have infested.
You're going to remedy your dependence on anecdotal evidence with... more anecdotal evidence?
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
You miss the main point. Scroll up and reread. JMI blames the housing crisis on the false idea, constantly parroted in the right wing media, that laws forced banks to give loans to unqualified people. He's now seen the proof that this is simply not true and he's trying to pretend that it is, that black is white and up is down.
OK thanks for setting me right. I'd rather say that the absence of law in this case created a situation where banks had to give loans to unqualified people. They are in conflict as they have to make their share holders happy and show a profit as well as look after the interests of their clients. If you are employed by a bank to sell mortgage backed securities, then that is what you have to do. And if your salary depends on lucrative commissions then you'll go full out promoting those investments, even when you know they are basically worthless.
handfleisch
deanhills wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
You miss the main point. Scroll up and reread. JMI blames the housing crisis on the false idea, constantly parroted in the right wing media, that laws forced banks to give loans to unqualified people. He's now seen the proof that this is simply not true and he's trying to pretend that it is, that black is white and up is down.
OK thanks for setting me right. I'd rather say that the absence of law in this case created a situation where banks had to give loans to unqualified people. They are in conflict as they have to make their share holders happy and show a profit as well as look after the interests of their clients. If you are employed by a bank to sell mortgage backed securities, then that is what you have to do. And if your salary depends on lucrative commissions then you'll go full out promoting those investments, even when you know they are basically worthless.

I have to set you right some more. When the banks were deregulated to allow things like derivatives and other complicated financial devices, the banks were basically profiting every time someone couldn't pay their mortgage. Many regular homeowners were fooled into re-mortgaging their homes, people who had no trouble before, and ended up losing their homes.

It sounds crazy and it is, but billions of dollars were made by bankers and Wall Street types who wanted people to be unable to pay their mortgages. After a few years of that, the housing crisis exploded, but the rich had already gotten richer.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
It sounds crazy and it is, but billions of dollars were made by bankers and Wall Street types who wanted people to be unable to pay their mortgages. After a few years of that, the housing crisis exploded, but the rich had already gotten richer.
Thanks for the update. I think I saw a very good YouTube about this too. I still can't believe these bankers got away with it.
Ankhanu
deanhills wrote:
I still can't believe these bankers got away with it.


I can Razz This is the meat and potatoes of capitolism, really. It should come as no surprise that riches are made by exploiting others... the only trick it covering up exactly how you're exploiting them.
deanhills
Ankhanu wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I still can't believe these bankers got away with it.


I can Razz This is the meat and potatoes of capitolism, really. It should come as no surprise that riches are made by exploiting others... the only trick it covering up exactly how you're exploiting them.
No. This is something different. Banks in the business of flogging investment products to their clients when they know they are sub-standard. AND earning huge commissions. All of the MONEY went into commissions. And when the vault became empty, Government baled out its own selection of the BIG Banks pumping some more money into the vaults. And those guys are still earning commissions. As though there is no yesterday. If ever there is a reason for a revolution - then this is it. Who wants to support a political system (regardless of the parties and Presidents) that supports that kind of robbery?
ocalhoun
catscratches wrote:
jmi256 wrote:
Sure. Since you asked for it, I will provide some threads that highlight examples of criminality of the Left-wing Occupy mob for you to comment on. As far as I know crime stats aren’t published on a daily basis, but there are plenty of examples of the violent Left-wing bigots (sorry for being redundant), criminals and perverts in many of the cities they have infested.
You're going to remedy your dependence on anecdotal evidence with... more anecdotal evidence?


My thoughts exactly.

I'm asking for statistical evidence of increased crime rates.
--Because that's the only kind of evidence that can actually be used to determine if what you say is true or not.
Ankhanu
deanhills wrote:
No. This is something different. Banks in the business of flogging investment products to their clients when they know they are sub-standard. AND earning huge commissions. All of the MONEY went into commissions. And when the vault became empty, Government baled out its own selection of the BIG Banks pumping some more money into the vaults. And those guys are still earning commissions. As though there is no yesterday. If ever there is a reason for a revolution - then this is it. Who wants to support a political system (regardless of the parties and Presidents) that supports that kind of robbery?

I'm not immediately seeing how what you're saying is different from the basics of capitolism; earn capitol. The means by which capitol is earned should not reduce your own. You don't get earns through selling goods/services for the same price (or less) than you produce them, they must be sold at a higher value. Selling a shoddy product at an inflated price does this quite nicely (in the short term).
Bikerman
The difference in this case is, I think, the complicated nature of the instruments being bought & sold meant that very very few people had any sort of handle on actual risk as opposed to the formulaic risk that has been the source of previous debate.
Then it developed into 'emperor's new clothes' territory. All the bankers/brokers with half a brain probably knew there was something really bad here, but the money was flowing, the quants said 'it is not magic, just maths' and so everyone kept their mouth shut and agreed that it was a mighty fine suit, whilst the clever ones were hedging the hedges by quietly shifting their own moola into something less flashy but solid - guilts, the gold market, commodities - that sort of thing.

I think the Horizon programme has it pretty much on the money - the only remarkable thing being that the programme was made in 1999 at the time of the much earlier 'mini' crash, yet the analysis holds up exactly for the current one.
Related topics
Bus driver pushes passenger off bus into traffic
The Middle East Conflict
Good Games for the Nintendo DS
Animal Testing...ethicial? or not.
What should I do?
Steven Seagal vs Chuck Norris
anti-ISLAM movie WTF? (a neutral post)
Google Adsense
2012
Is Atheism a Religion?
Is it right to override a government after disasters?
My "Faith" is in myself
Another Lefty Doesn’t Get His Way; Makes Death Threats
Would you kill a child if it meant preventing war?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.