Why if you can rent, can’t you be able to buy a house? Some monthly rents exceed in money many monthly mortgages payments.When, in the history of the US, homeownership became the exclusif privilege of a certain class of citizens(middle class and up)? What has become of the pioneer spirit that founded this country? We should see houses in the market that are accessible to all level of income. Renting should be a choice! I know low income people who worked all their life and paid in rent thousands of dollars that could have paid off a house! But nobody gave them credit.At the end of their life, without equity money to sustain their retirement, they fall in poverty, homelessness and misery, after having given society their honest contribution. Maybe we need more socialism!…Yes i’ve said it socialism, a more socialized capitalism.

It ain’t happening

Why is the FED and others unable to stop the stocks from sliding or open up the credits lines? With all the money being thrown out in to the debt abyss, you would think that we would have been able to stop the spiral.

The reason here is simple, the money being supplied to the banks, the credit lines take over of banks and whatever is unable to stop the drain and stabalize the stock markets is simple. This money has already been spent, by the banks that made bad loans already and now can only fill in the holes in their portfolios. The loans have already been made and the monies spent and lost, and the conmsumers who are not worthy of loaning money to are still unqualified as they were two weeks ago.

“I don’t know why you assume that rational utility maximizer (to use the classical economics term) would automatically make the most optimistic assumption.”

Here’s why. Bridge players often confront a situation in which making a contract requires them to assume something which may be contrary to fact–that the high cards are distributed in a particular way in the hands of their opponents. If the assumption is correct, the player can win if he follows it, but will lose otherwise. This situation, called playing a finesse, is one of the fundamentals of the game. It is entirely rational.

I believe you do behave rationally in your economic choices. What you seem not to have noticed is that the fundamentals are different for the poor, and that means what might be irrational for you can be rational for them. Compared to the poor, you generally hold an excess of high cards. You don’t need the finesse to win. You are fortunate.

The poor, unfortunate, readily accept your assumption that they may encounter adversity. In fact, they assume it. They are short of high cards most of the time. It’s what they are accustomed to. That’s why they know they are going to have to gamble–assume the cards are distributed in a certain favorable way–to escape debilitating circumstances. Holding fewer high cards than you do is a circumstance which dictates a change in tactics–you have to play the finesse. You are rational and they are rational, you are just differently situated.

In restrospect, I think your point was valid. I love On Point, and I hate to see some pompous knuckelead discourage debate among intelligent people by telling them that they don’t know what they’re talking about and they can’t even think straight, when in fact he’s the one that is ignorant. I won’t stop calling him on this.

However, I did let him drag me into juvenile tit-for-tat when the real point is that he’s toxic to any intelligent debate.

Thank you for pointing that out for me.

Peter’s thing is relating everything to his world.
It’s to black and white.

My case with the real estate market points to that it’s shades of gray.

A lot of people have been burnt and a lot who played the game by the rules. This is what Danny Schechter was saying. This is his thesis the average person in this country has been screwed and this has been happening for years.

Now Iceland is about to go bankrupt. A few months ago this country had the one of highest standards of living in Europe.

This is serious read this article and tell me the world financial market is not on the verge of hemorrhaging.

http://news.scotsman.com/uk/British-savers-denied-cash-as.4567943.jp

Peter’s thing is relating everything to his world.
It’s to black and white.

My case with the real estate market points to that.

A lot of people have been burnt and a lot how played the game by the rules. This is what Danny Schechter was saying. This is his thesis the average person in this country has been screwed and this has been happening for years.

Now Iceland is about to go bankrupt. A few months ago this country had the one of highest standards of living in Europe.

This is serious read this article and tell me the world financial market is not on the verge of hemorrhaging.

http://news.scotsman.com/uk/British-savers-denied-cash-as.4567943.jp

How you can defend insinuations by these lying crackpots that Obama is a Palestinian terrorist or compare incredibly dishonorable lies like that to anything Obama has done suggests you suffer from (a very common form of) moral stupidity.

About the show –

I find it hilarious and frustrating how so many people who seem to know what they’re talking about just got finished assuring us that the bailout last week was the answer to our problems.

The credit markets are still frozen and the global economy is sliding towards a recession — as of today.

Back when everyone was so positive we just had to go to war in Iraq, those of us who doubted the possibility of a clean quick victory were lambasted as unpatriotic defeatists.

Not to say I told you so.

But what about now? Were we just populist simpletons when we asked last week, “What will this bailout do to address the problem?”

Wow!

I want to see an investigation into how Wall Street used obscure derivative products to allow them to LAUNDER RISK. This risk-laundering allowed them to leverage risky bets far more than would have been otherwise borne by regulation or the market.

There’s a big difference between me and Peter.

I tell Peter he’s an idiot.

Peter implies that everyone else on this board are idiots.

I wish this forum had a moderator to keep this kind of stuff in check. (I am guilty of going down this path sometimes myself.)

I never said no crimes were committed. I said whatever crimes may have been committed did not cause the problem. If you think otherwise feel free to post the link.

( I’d love to own stock in Michael’s underwear company – he must go through it like crazy. )

This is too funny. An arrogant ignorant mental lightweight is telling me to get better informed.

Oh, I forgot – you know everything about everything and the rest of us are lucky if we’re smart enough to walk around.

“Nope. I’ve said repeatedly that if laws were broken people would go to jail. What I did say was that lawbreaking was not the cause of the problem, i.e., even if no laws were broken this crisis would still have occurred.”

That’s an outright lie and you know it. You and I had an argument about this, which, by the way, you lost as evidenced by the fact that now the FBI is investigating some of the culprits.

I don’t know why I think this is such great sport: making you look like a pompous ass is just too easy.