First, There is no sub-prime fiasco, the people that never had money, were loaned money, they still don't have any money. The credit companies are paying for their 'risk', that's how an open market works.
No fiasco? So nobody's made a loss, no mortgage companies went under, nobody lost their homes, no stock markets got jittery, no interest rates got cut to steady the situation, no government bailouts, no financial institutions bosses lost their jobs with multi-million dollar payouts... sounds like a fiasco to me and I bet I'm not the only one who thinks that. If that's not the case then it's probably not Christmas soon either...
Lending money to people who don't have money and then charging a premium for the risk that they are likely to default puts them at an even greater risk level. What an incredibly stupid and unethical way of doing business. In the short-term they got a home, in the mid to long term it was a doomed scenario.
You're right, those people still don't have money and now some of them don't have homes. Go find, as an example, the couple who earned something like $2000 a month and, because they were poor and out of the introductory period, asked to repay $3000 a month in mortgage payments! Or look at repossessions and sub-prime heat map of Cleveland Ohio, for example. Wait, it's on this page (scroll down for interactive map)
Quote:
Originally Posted by cldnails
As for the other questions in regards to this topic thread...please let me assimilate my thoughts and I'll post back lata.
Please do, I'll be most interested to see what you come up with. I sincerely mean that
You're right, those people still don't have money and now some of them don't have homes.
LOL. That's what happens when you borrow money and refuse to repay it.
Sub-prime loans are loans to people with bad credit history. That is, people who have demonstrated in the past their unwillingness to repay loans - whether those be home loans or credit card loans or purchases made on credit.
If somebody loans money to a sub-prime loan candidate, then they should fully expect the deadbeat to be a deadbeat. So the banks lost money. That's capitalism.
And the people who didn't pay their home loans, they lost the right to live in homes that the banks owned. That, too, is capitalism.
He makes an interesting argument. I've been think column A is the more sensible approach to the problem. We may lose some money, but we stand to gain a future.
CDNails is gonna have kittens cos its not about whether global warming is man made or not. But maybe he'd like a pet
__________________
I'm not selling this space for all the doughnuts in Doughnutopia.
He makes an interesting argument. I've been think column A is the more sensible approach to the problem. We may lose some money, but we stand to gain a future.
CDNails is gonna have kittens cos its not about whether global warming is man made or not. But maybe he'd like a pet
No kittens here, I know that the Earth is warming, always has, I am just smart enough to know it's not man made.
He makes an interesting argument. I've been think column A is the more sensible approach to the problem. We may lose some money, but we stand to gain a future.
If in doubt, legislate? You could apply that to a number of debates. Would be interesting.
If in doubt, legislate? You could apply that to a number of debates. Would be interesting.
I think its more about what we stand to lose; ultimately it boils down to global economic depression vs. our current way of life being put in jeopardy (I'll put it no stronger than that). I'd rather be wrong and deal with the depression, than be wrong and face the full onslaught of global warming.
Even you John admit that temperatures are rising, yes? The only doubt in your mind is the cause. For me, it does not matter whether global warming is man made or not. Whatever the cause we need to try and do something about the temperature rise.
You say if global warming is not man made then we won't be able to do anything about it. Perhaps you are right. But should we not at least try? Are the consequences not compelling enough to try? Have we not progressed enough as a species to try to determine our own destiny?
As for the question of legislation, let us first agree that we should at least try to do something, then we can talk about how best to go about it.
__________________
I'm not selling this space for all the doughnuts in Doughnutopia.
I think its more about what we stand to lose; ultimately it boils down to global economic depression vs. our current way of life being put in jeopardy (I'll put it no stronger than that). I'd rather be wrong and deal with the depression, than be wrong and face the full onslaught of global warming.
You have presented a potentially false dichotomy. (As did the fellow in the video.)
The video, and your statements, exclude the very real possibility that global warming is not human made, and not remediable.
It also understates the worse scenario. What they are asking us to sacrifice is not only economic well being. It's freedom itself.
You and I accept that temperatures are rising. What I am saying is we should at least try to do something about it.
Should we? The global temperature average has been rising since the end of the Little Ice Age in the mid-19th century. The warming, on the similar scale as the Medieval Warm Period, has not caused catastrophic consequences to date. Why should we fix something that, to date, cannot be regarded as a problem? Should we also try to fix Summer and Winter?
And, I seriously don't see a serious plan for "fixing" global warming, even if it is human made. Does anybody seriously think that doubling or tripling gas taxes and increasing taxes on cars in a few developed nations will have any measurable effect? The proposition is laughable.
John until you accept there is a problem there is no point in discussing what we do about it because you will always turn around and say we don't need to be wasting our resources trying to tackle a problem that doesn't exist. So ...
Let us go back to a common point, we agree temperatures are rising, (irrespective of whether it is man made or not). But it seems you don't think this rise in temperatures will be a problem. Can you say how much it needs to rise before it is a problem?
__________________
I'm not selling this space for all the doughnuts in Doughnutopia.
Can you say how much it needs to rise before it is a problem?
When increased temperature creates problems, then there is a problem. Now, you could say, "but the ice is melting", and I would say, "yes, ice is melting, and it has been melting for hundreds of years".
So, when I say "problem" I means "problem other than the usual".
When increased temperature creates problems, then there is a problem. Now, you could say, "but the ice is melting", and I would say, "yes, ice is melting, and it has been melting for hundreds of years".
So, when I say "problem" I means "problem other than the usual".
You have to be careful with this line, you could end up ruling yourself out of ever being able to be convinced. In effect, no matter what evidence is presented to you, except the most catastrophic, you could turn around and say well that has happened before, its nothing unusual so I can rule it out. Have you turned yourself into a global warming denier?
__________________
I'm not selling this space for all the doughnuts in Doughnutopia.
You have to be careful with this line, you could end up ruling yourself out of ever being able to be convinced. In effect, no matter what evidence is presented to you, except the most catastrophic, you could turn around and say well that has happened before, its nothing unusual so I can rule it out. Have you turned yourself into a global warming denier?
That sounds to me like a statement one would make if there were no apparent negative effects of global warming. Indeed, an surface temperature increase of half a degree Celsius isn't likely to cause much of anything noteworthy. If it did, Summer would be a fight to survive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StrongInTheArm
Have you turned yourself into a global warming denier?
