Palin Power! Politics Thread

by **Woody** » Tue Sep 16, 2008 22:32:58

jeff2sf wrote:It's not as simple as either FTN or LaX makes it out to be. Hank Paulson is approximately 500 times smarter than FTN (chill out, he's probably 600 times smarter than me). There is no one size fits all approach.

Flop, just go to business school and get it over with.

by **FTN** » Tue Sep 16, 2008 22:36:37

jeff2sf wrote:It's not as simple as either FTN or LaX makes it out to be. Hank Paulson is approximately 500 times smarter than FTN (chill out, he's probably 600 times smarter than me). There is no one size fits all approach.

Flop, just go to business school and get it over with.

jesus i didnt say it was simple.

but it needs to be fixed.

one solution isn't possible. many solutions are.

by **Woody** » Tue Sep 16, 2008 22:38:04

Listen man, move back to joboggi-ville. The Boston FTN is freaking me out. Or maybe it's the avatar.

by **FTN** » Tue Sep 16, 2008 22:46:34

Woody wrote:Listen man, move back to joboggi-ville. The Boston FTN is freaking me out. Or maybe it's the avatar.

im in boggi-ville now

by **drsmooth** » Tue Sep 16, 2008 23:15:03

Laexile wrote:If they can't afford them, why are they taking them out in the first place? People want to blame the banks for trying to make a quick buck, but don't the people who took out the loans also share in the responsibility for the financial collapse? I know everyone wants to blame corporate greed, but there was enough greed to go around.

lax, please don't go all WSJ editorial page on us here. The securitizers of mortgages could not have fattened themselves so thoroughly, so reliably, so generously, without their steady fix from the easy-home-mortgage pipeline. This was largely - almost exclusively - a top-down con.

And that's conceding the foul bipartisan hypocrisy of it all.

Look around you - who's more like you; people who want some kind of roof they can call their own, or Richard Fuld, or John Thain, or Henry Paulson? Why are you so eager to be the lapdog of the latter set?

by **TenuredVulture** » Tue Sep 16, 2008 23:34:16

jeff2sf wrote:It's not as simple as either FTN or LaX makes it out to be. Hank Paulson is approximately 500 times smarter than FTN (chill out, he's probably 600 times smarter than me). There is no one size fits all approach.

Flop, just go to business school and get it over with.

Um, with all the I-Banks closing, is that really such a hot idea? I suppose there's going to be lots of work for risk analysts. But really, law school, and specialize in bankruptcy law.

by **jeff2sf** » Tue Sep 16, 2008 23:37:29

TenuredVulture wrote:
jeff2sf wrote:It's not as simple as either FTN or LaX makes it out to be. Hank Paulson is approximately 500 times smarter than FTN (chill out, he's probably 600 times smarter than me). There is no one size fits all approach.

Flop, just go to business school and get it over with.

Um, with all the I-Banks closing, is that really such a hot idea? I suppose there's going to be lots of work for risk analysts. But really, law school, and specialize in bankruptcy law.

He's already kiboshed the law degree, and if there's less I banks/deals, there are less jobs for lawyers to work with the banks on said deals. Bottom line, there are worse things to do than ride out the next couple of years (especially given he couldn't start till next Sept.) in school.

by **TenuredVulture** » Tue Sep 16, 2008 23:48:51

jeff2sf wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:
jeff2sf wrote:It's not as simple as either FTN or LaX makes it out to be. Hank Paulson is approximately 500 times smarter than FTN (chill out, he's probably 600 times smarter than me). There is no one size fits all approach.

Flop, just go to business school and get it over with.

Um, with all the I-Banks closing, is that really such a hot idea? I suppose there's going to be lots of work for risk analysts. But really, law school, and specialize in bankruptcy law.

He's already kiboshed the law degree, and if there's less I banks/deals, there are less jobs for lawyers to work with the banks on said deals. Bottom line, there are worse things to do than ride out the next couple of years (especially given he couldn't start till next Sept.) in school.

I just think things are going to be tight for MBAs for awhile.

Actually, my brother in law, who really is a risk analyst, is doing well right now. He's got an MPA in public finance or something like that, and an undergrad degree in Econ. He worked for the Fed for awhile, and then went into the private sector. He also studied a lot of history.

by **Woody** » Tue Sep 16, 2008 23:50:24

TenuredVulture wrote:
jeff2sf wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:
jeff2sf wrote:It's not as simple as either FTN or LaX makes it out to be. Hank Paulson is approximately 500 times smarter than FTN (chill out, he's probably 600 times smarter than me). There is no one size fits all approach.

Flop, just go to business school and get it over with.

Um, with all the I-Banks closing, is that really such a hot idea? I suppose there's going to be lots of work for risk analysts. But really, law school, and specialize in bankruptcy law.

He's already kiboshed the law degree, and if there's less I banks/deals, there are less jobs for lawyers to work with the banks on said deals. Bottom line, there are worse things to do than ride out the next couple of years (especially given he couldn't start till next Sept.) in school.

I just think things are going to be tight for MBAs for awhile.

Thank god I'm on the 5-6 year program!

by **WilliamC** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 00:35:14

I am so bored. Let's debate!

by **Bucky** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 00:45:27

by **Laexile** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 02:22:04

drsmooth wrote:
Laexile wrote:If they can't afford them, why are they taking them out in the first place? People want to blame the banks for trying to make a quick buck, but don't the people who took out the loans also share in the responsibility for the financial collapse? I know everyone wants to blame corporate greed, but there was enough greed to go around.

lax, please don't go all WSJ editorial page on us here. The securitizers of mortgages could not have fattened themselves so thoroughly, so reliably, so generously, without their steady fix from the easy-home-mortgage pipeline. This was largely - almost exclusively - a top-down con.

And that's conceding the foul bipartisan hypocrisy of it all.

Look around you - who's more like you; people who want some kind of roof they can call their own, or Richard Fuld, or John Thain, or Henry Paulson? Why are you so eager to be the lapdog of the latter set?

I don't see where I excused the corporate greed here, nor do I see where I disputed any of Floppy's points. I wasn't trying to "get" his points. I wasn't even commenting on them. I was providing my take with something that hadn't been presented. It's nice to see how he starts a debate with me and then shuts it off by calling me a partisan hack.

I believe in personal responsibility. I've taken out two mortgages in my life, understood the terms, and determined how I'd pay for them. I know people who wanted to get into the hot Los Angeles real estate market and make big bucks who couldn't afford the house they were buying. It didn't matter. They were going to make money hand over fist. They knew what they were getting into. No bank hoodwinked them. So when they defaulted why should I have any more sympathy than I do for Countrywide?

But no, I have no sympathy for banks that were giving out loans they knew the people couldn't repay, especially the loan officer who viewed the big commission knowing that if the person defaulted it wouldn't be his problem. I do have sympathy for employees who acted honestly and are losing their jobs over this. The reality is that people who couldn't afford homes were willing accomplices in this mess. They helped create the current situation. Why should I excuse them either?

by **drsmooth** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 08:12:05

Laexile wrote: The reality is that people who couldn't afford homes were willing accomplices in this mess. They helped create the current situation. Why should I excuse them either?

I'm not asking you to excuse them, I'm suggesting you consider more closely what sort of entities are capable of generating the opportunity for you to not excuse them.

Hint: it ain't individuals or families shopping for home loans.

by **TenuredVulture** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 09:24:04

I had a dream about Sarah Palin last night. No, not that kind of dream. It was lunch. In my dream, she wasn't hot at all (not even GILF hot) and she was rude and nasty.

by **Houshphandzadeh** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 09:25:36

I would think the GILF would have to be significantly hotter than the MILF to earn that status.

by **TenuredVulture** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 09:27:23

Houshphandzadeh wrote:I would think the GILF would have to be significantly hotter than the MILF to earn that status.

Anyway, the point is that in my dream, there was no sexual frisson whatsoever. She was scary and old.

by **TenuredVulture** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 09:35:07

Not to change the tone, but Bush's hiring of Hank Paulson for Sec Treas might be almost as good a move as Gillick not resigning Wagner.

Alas, Ben Bernanke's appointment may rank with, well, maybe not the Eaton acquisition. Maybe the Abreu trade.

by **uncle milt** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 09:38:29

Woody wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:
jeff2sf wrote:
TenuredVulture wrote:
jeff2sf wrote:It's not as simple as either FTN or LaX makes it out to be. Hank Paulson is approximately 500 times smarter than FTN (chill out, he's probably 600 times smarter than me). There is no one size fits all approach.

Flop, just go to business school and get it over with.

Um, with all the I-Banks closing, is that really such a hot idea? I suppose there's going to be lots of work for risk analysts. But really, law school, and specialize in bankruptcy law.

He's already kiboshed the law degree, and if there's less I banks/deals, there are less jobs for lawyers to work with the banks on said deals. Bottom line, there are worse things to do than ride out the next couple of years (especially given he couldn't start till next Sept.) in school.

I just think things are going to be tight for MBAs for awhile.

Thank god I'm on the 5-6 year program!

ha! you're dumb. don't worry, so am i. jeffasfr2f is not. he went to uva for grad school, and penn.

by **BuddyGroom** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:35:05

Bill O'Reilly wants the next administration to "really watch" the big oil companies and other big corporations, but not increase regulation, so "the folks" don't get hurt.

He's not running for any office, but what does "really watch" mean if it does not mean regulate? And, fwiw, consumer groups "watch" these corporations all the time - and the O'Reillys and Hannitys of the world ridicule their findings.

I still contend that liberals are less stuck to their ideology than conservatives. With big problems like we're facing now, whether in Iraq or in the financial sector, if there's a solution that seems like it will work out best, liberals generally will support it. Conservatives still need to be sure the solution won't violate conservative principles (even if conservative views - like regulation bad, free, unfettered markets good - helped create the problem in the first place). So, for example, their first argument against almost any plan to address the problem of people lacking medical insurance is to call out "socialized medicine" or "government-run healthcare" without seriously considering whether the plan would improve the situation.

by **jeff2sf** » Wed Sep 17, 2008 10:50:40

BuddyGroom wrote:
I still contend that liberals are less stuck to their ideology than conservatives. With big problems like we're facing now, whether in Iraq or in the financial sector, if there's a solution that seems like it will work out best, liberals generally will support it. Conservatives still need to be sure the solution won't violate conservative principles (even if conservative views - like regulation bad, free, unfettered markets good - helped create the problem in the first place). So, for example, their first argument against almost any plan to address the problem of people lacking medical insurance is to call out "socialized medicine" or "government-run healthcare" without seriously considering whether the plan would improve the situation.

That's ridiculous. You guys both suck at it. You both suck really bad and really hard at it.

Archived

Palin Power! Politics Thread

Sarah Palin: Great VP pick, or the greatest VP Pick?