weekender

Im not defending anybody but it isnt neglegence if you make an opinion on the information supplied. I realize im getting pretty granular here but does any of us know how they decide a rating? I do not. I assume they request information from the issuer and combine it with public information. If their decision is based on bad info that isnt there fault. That very well could have been the case here. If so, the ratings agencies will be free of responsibility. Its pretty common with other securities and thats why i bring it up Again, im not defending anyone so if you think i am reread my post before responding to me. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

i believe its so everyone is informed of the company they are keeping. just my interpretation. This way you can leave if your not comfortable with people armed and drinking. if concealed you dont have the option to leave because you dont know. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Dr David Gunn's family would disagree with you. he was NOT murdered by Mormons, i know that but i think you could have found a better example to use to show non violent protest. Anti abortion activist have used terrorism. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Virginia agrees with you. You are allowed into the alcohol serving establishment with your concealed gun, but you are not allowed to drink while carrying a concealed gun. oh, thanks. common sense prevails. That could actually be quite fun. I would enjoy being a sober guy in a bar packing, surrounded by drunkards with beer muscles and poor judgement. Or is it just me? "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

my gut tells me drinking and having a gun doesnt mix. if this law past in my state i would be very selective where i drank. no more dives with my buddies to watch the booze bags sloppy fist fighting in the parking lot. I'm not anti gun, fyi. I own more than most. Just not a big drinker around them. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

shah>I simply took out an 80-10 loan. I only put down 10% of the value for I lacked the $60k needed. But 10% down was something I could do not as an investment but as a home. As a means to help our economy. The way i read this is you bought a home you could not afford properly. You made a mistake, which everyone does from time to time. Your now paying for it. I'm sorry to see your in a bad place. BUT your last sentence is a bit humorous to me. Are you implying you bought the property as a means to help our nation? Well gee thanks, we need more martyr's like you. Good luck and i mean that sincerely. But, c'mon, man up and admit you made a mistake and do what is in your powers to fix it. dont try to convice others that your motives for buying the home was anything altruistic and/or patriotic. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

You have a tendency to word things in a way that implies your situation is the standard for everyone. Not sure if that is your intent but your wording is quite definite. for example, "no can refinance for those who are aware of modern economic theory this is a true and very sad catch 22." There is no room in that statement for other people reality. I do not agree with your assumption. My situation is similair but yet very different. I bought a home in your price range and time. Put about 30% down. refied it during the crisis with no problem. i'm currently trying to sell it and have plenty or room between what i want and what i most likely will get. Spending 300k dollars is a very big decision. I feel many people took it too lightly in the last few years. I doubt they will make the same mistakes again. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

billvon, "I think that one of the reasons we HAVE a modern moral system is that some things are now illegal. We have grown up in an age without child labor so we look upon that as outrageous - and the reason we don't have labor laws is that there are laws against it. " I think your point shown above could very well be true. However, i dont really care why. My point is that TODAY it would be considered outrageous and not tolerated. Even without regulation we would not live in The Jungle. Our quality of life would erode, for certain but not back to the 19th century. Not in my opinion. " So we rely on laws passed by our representatives to make that happen. Free markets and morals do not protect us against child labor; such laws do. " You and i will have to disagree on your last sentence. i do believe that free markets and modern morals afford us some protections. The regulations are NOT the only reason people do the right thing. IMO, of course "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Right now it seems like the free market is demanding ground beef for the lowest price possible. How else to explain the use of the reprocessed "leavings" put into most fast food burgers? It only saves 3 or 4%, but at what cost to quality/safety? All to maintain the 99c hamburger. No, Americans have long shown to be extremely price conscience, and large vendors like McDonald's, Walmart, and the big grocery chains are making the meat industry find ways to deliver, just as Home Depot did with cheaper (and less durable) tools. Food, Inc. is perhaps the best documentary showing the problems with the food industry now. It also feels to me like the frequency of outbreaks of food illness is increasing, though that's always subject to selective memory problems. I'm paying my way out of the problem. And you would suggest that is the free market in action. The problem is that aside from needing the money, there just isn't enough supply from more reliable means. The vast majority will have to continue to get their food from these suspect sources. I understand your point. its pretty clear and reasonable. Here is where you and i will never agree. You feel the food supply is not very safe. i feel its the safest in the history of mankind. As i stated before, it can improve but i'm very comfortable with it. Before people make assumptions. I'm not completely inexperienced in the industry. My family was in farming and my father was in food processing. I've seen the inside alot of processing factories as a child. (no, my dad did not have me working a machine, hah). Ive seen it and still feel quite safe. maybe because being raised by farmers i understand how important food prep is. Or im a evil ignorant capitalist. Probably a bit of both. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Billvon- your story of the media exposing abuses is exactly what i'm talking about. right there in the story its mentioned that regulators were present and did nothing. It was only stopped when private citizens refused to accept the practice. Please read my response to kelpdiver and the rest of my posts. you will understand that i understand the need for regulation. I am just of the opinion we are not being protected from living in the Jungle solely by gov't regulators. Free markets and our modern moral system affords us plenty of protections. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

we still see rather egregious actions, like that samonella problem with peanut butter manufacturing 2 years ago killed at least 8. That plant was shipping out product that tested positive, absolutely no regard for safety. As the food inspection process has become more of a spot check and an after the fact investigation, we're seeing exactly what we get from free market versus regulation. to quote myself, "to be clear. im not against regulations. i undertand there are dishonest people. I just also understand that in this modern world the free market provides us plenty of protections. How many people refuse to eat dirty water dogs? Does any reasonable adult think that the only reason we get safe food is because the regulators demand it? no, its alos because the free markets demand it." Hopefully after ready that you will see i do not believe in regulation vs free market. You need a combination. However unlike others, I do not believe, even without regulation, we would return to the 19th century. Modern society would not tolerate those abuses. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

The problem is greater than just taxing the rich, agreed. I do think the tax code should try to be fair. Tax as income when it its income. If a PM at a bulge bracket bank gets a bonus for 10mill its taxed as income. If he starts his own fund he now gets a % of profit and its taxed as capital gains, which is less. Technically/legally its capital gains but any reasonable person would agree that it is income on the part that isnt his own money. There is room there for change. to be clear, NOT advocating the change in capital gains tax rates. keep them low, ive already payed my taxes on it, thank you. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Sinclair's fiction resulted in a "secret" presidential investigation that despite being leaked in advance to the meat packing industry basically confirmed the abuses. That report led to the Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, which established the Bureau of Chemistry that would become the Food and Drug Administration in 1930. Leopards don't change their spots. The free market existed in 1890. its not 1890. morals have changed. current society would not tolerate the abuses of that period. regulations are not the only thing keeping us from living in the Jungle. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Ha ha. I've been working longer than you have been out of diapers. Well you certainly are not a young person, since i'm middle aged. Your comments sounded so much like my college age nephews and neices that i assumed you were some idealistic young college kid. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

You might prefer to collect unemployment but there are a lot of people who work in poultry processing plants today that take significant risks because it is all they can get (partially because many of them are illegal). I live in an area w/ major poultry processing industry and have met any number of people who have worked in the poultry plants. Would they revert back to Sinclair times w/out regulations? Very unlikely, but they are not exactly paragons of safe workplaces today. They are also not exactly paragons of safe food handling practices either. That is with regulations in place, although only sporadically enforced (again because most of the workers are illegal here). i'm glad you agree that they wouldnt revert back to the fictional world of Sinclair's novel. We have the safest food supply in the history of mankind. Could it improve? sure but even without inspections, which i agree we should have, it would remain high. People would not tolerate getting sick and grocers who sold tainted food would go out of business. So would the processors. to be clear. im not against regulations. i undertand there are dishonest people. I just also understand that in this modern world the free market provides us plenty of protections. How many people refuse to eat dirty water dogs? Does any reasonable adult think that the only reason we get safe food is because the regulators demand it? no, its alos because the free markets demand it. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

I dont argue against all regulation. You comment is unfair. The SEC and Finra have very important jobs. many dishonest people exist and you need people who are willing to dedicate themselves to protecting others. I have the utmost respect for our nations regulators. Unlike yourself, i personally know many. My comments on the financial industry are not based on an academic exercise but real world experience. I do not support alot of regulation because it isnt effective and hurts the financial markets which are essential to the prosperity of this nation. Like i said, graduate and get a job. You tune will change too. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

As I see it BOTH parties voted on Nafta, it was started by Bush 1, signed by Clinton, and about a 55/45 vote in congress( rep's the majority). both parties had their hand in it. The epa regulations were to be followed by all involved but like everything else the feds forgot to enforce that. What I don't understand is why the left (the party of everything green) would not stand up and enforce the EPA clause in the treaty? or why nobody enforces that? The WTO doesn't have many epa regulations nor do they enforce them, why would the left or right here alow that when it concerns imports here to the US? The left is all about green but they align themselves with world groups that don't do "green" why? Just because someone (or some other nation) is an asshole doesn't mean we all have to be assholes. All the regulations you don't like (OSHA, EPA, FDA, USDA, SEC, etc.) came about because of some abuse by greedy capitalists. There is absolutely no reason to believe that in the absence of regulations, 21st Century capitalists would be any different from 19th Century abusers like Collis Huntington, Charlie Crocker, Ralston's Ring, the food industry documented by Upton Sinclair, or 20th Century abusers like Hooker Chemical and the nice folks responsible for the attached photo. How about its no longer the 19th century and morals evolve. Children aren't tolerated in the workplace not because of the law but because parents wouldnt stand for it. You honestly think children would be in coal mines today if the law was lifted? also, nor would anyone in todays world work in the fictional meat processing plants Sinclair wrote of. The factory would be shut down not by laws but because it couldnt profit in a modern world without employees. I personally would collect unemployment before i risk my limbs in a factory. Who uses the term capitalist? Your still in school arent you? you need to not take everything your college prof tells you so serious. graduate, get a job and then come back and let me know what you think of evil capitalist. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

The markets are driven to the dollar for economic reasons not political. The UN is over thinking this and its obviously political. People will leave the dollar when it is no longer the best option. its that simple. No one cares what the UN proposes. Its an academic exercise by people with too much time on their hands. Not one banker in the world is seriously considering this. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

the volatility shouldnt stump you. The regulators over the years have done away with market makers. They were always the buyer of last resort. In the old days, 8 years ago or so, each stock would have several market makers trading the name. if the stock got hit, at some point they would step up with a bid from their own account. the system worked but regulators hated how they kept their spreads. they felt it was to wide and costing retail investors money. So now its too costly to make a market and you have stocks whipping around. the other major difference is the speed. market makers could only do so much at a time and it slowed the pace down. programs work in fractions of a second. no person can keep up so the swings become greater. PM's and Traders, who would normally step in before things got crazy just cannot keep up. Im not saying it could be better the old way or blaming regulators. times change. Markets need to be fair and orderly. Technology changes everything including the financial markets. Regulators are acting on behalf of the general public, not the market makers. It is what it is. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Only the rich benefit from the stock market? Like all those rich public employee's? I am embarrassed for you. your last few comments have proven you lack the part of your brain that enables you to be. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

the largest institutional funds are the state teachers and state employee funds. right behind them are the massive brand name mutual funds that cater exclusively to the retail public. normal people. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

You must be getting tired. I keep waiting for you to get exhausted and walk away like most reasonable people have. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

it's certainly costing us a ton to pay for the bankers poor choices... (meanwhile all you can do is you whine about other peoples children) Which bankers are you so mad at. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/26/lula-attacks-white-bankers-crash Not really a response to my questions but I do appreciate you narrowing it down to only white bankers. So i guess the bankers at Ramirez and Kaufman Bros(non white minority banks) are in the clear. they will be relieved to know that they have been excused from blame in your mind. Or do they not exist, after all if your guy hasn't met them then they dont actually exist, right? someone should tell their customers that they don't exist. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

it's certainly costing us a ton to pay for the bankers poor choices... (meanwhile all you can do is you whine about other peoples children) Which bankers are you so mad at. Just curious because it is such a broad term. Commercial bankers, like your local bank? the guys who give car and home loans to people? or is it the bankers that raise capital for small firms to grow? like IPO's and secondaries? or bankeres that create short term debt for companies to make payroll every week? or bankers who underwrite bonds for communities to build bridges and tunnels? or the Monopoly man? i hate him too! With his fancy suit and bags of money. I just know he is a crooked bastard. Do you know what a banker is or are you just using it as a general term to describe anyone you dont like who works in finance? You do know that Mortgage PM's who bought bad loans and lost the firms tons of money aren't actually bankers? they are Portfolio Managers and/or Traders who work in banking. If i was as angry as you, thats who i would be angry at. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

That's simply not true, because it allowed banks to trade in them. Here's another article that can explain it in more detail that I have time to type. http://seekingalpha.com/article/71265-the-credit-bubble-deregulation-gone-wild i understand your point now. you are saying that the banks would not have been permitted to transact in this type of derivative pre Reagen. I guess thats true because banks were not permitted to transact in any number of transactions reserved for broker dealers. who is to say the broker dealers would not have just created them on their own? operating away from the commercial banks. if the demand and profit were there i think they would have. and it would have been a mess just with different people. we are getting into "what ifs" not productive. thanks for clearing your point up "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante