AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@old europe,

No, pages and pages and pages of commentary backed up with link after link after link, at least one dealing specifically with AIG, and him not being able to back up a single opinion disputing my point of view constitutes beating somebody in a debate.

Yes, I did get tired of every question answered resulting in another question while every request for support for his continual denials and insulting remarks or assertions was ignored or disregarded or simply answered with another question. It is obvious he was reading none of the information I was providing and had no intention of backing up his memorized talking points, most of which he probably doesn't understand since he refused to provide an explanation for them when requested to do so.

The man--I presume he is a man--obviously worhips the ground Barack Obama walks on and bases his politics and opinions on the blindest of faith. And, when he is finally challenged to put some evidence where his mouth is, he dissolves into an elementary schoolyard taunting mentality with a string of insults and deprecating remarks that are presumably supposed to devastate me.

And that's when I know I won the debate.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

No, pages and pages and pages of commentary backed up with link after link after link, at least one dealing specifically with AIG, and him not being able to back up a single opinion disputing my point of view constitutes beating somebody in a debate.

Yes, I did get tired of every question answered resulting in another question while every request for support for his continual denials and insulting remarks or assertions was ignored or disregarded or simply answered with another question. It is obvious he was reading none of the information I was providing and had no intention of backing up his memorized talking points, most of which he probably doesn't understand since he refused to provide an explanation for them when requested to do so.

The man--I presume he is a man--obviously worhips the ground Barack Obama walks on and bases his politics and opinions on the blindest of faith. And, when he is finally challenged to put some evidence where his mouth is, he dissolves into an elementary schoolyard taunting mentality with a string of insults and deprecating remarks that are presumably supposed to devastate me.

And that's when I know I won the debate.

Moronic. I read everything you posted and provided on many occasions logical and well-thought out structures for my arguments. You did none of this. You can't even answer simple questions about the financial crisis, I mean, the most basic questions. Referring someone to a link is the same thing as admitting you don't understand it.

I explained in detail every step of the problem and was exceedingly patient with your absolute refusal to do the same. As of this post you still cannot show a clear path of how AIG and other companies became involved in the crisis!

I wonder if you can find anyone else who thinks you 'won' the debate. I don't know how you think you can win something, when you won't answer the most basic of questions about it...

Nothing, nothing that I can do could possibly devastate you more than your own posting, does, Fox. Truly. When it comes to insulting you, you do 95% of the work every single time.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

You're welcome to use my link here to answer Cyclop's question. It's one of several I used to answer his AIG question if he had bothered to read any of those links:

http://able2know.org/topic/113196-225#post-3588113

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Yes, Williams article was the crux of why we promote the market system. Simply it is the elegance of the market. The hallmark of elegance is "simplicity".
I always recall the elegance of the pressure regulator on old steam engines. You know, it is the thing with the two metal balls attached to a mechanism such that the higher pressure of steam the faster the mechanism spins. The faster the balls spin the more they fly outwards. The more they fly outwards the more they close the valves for the steam outlet. But as they close the valves, the less steam output and therefore the less the balls spin and fly outwards. The less the balls fly outwards the more the steam comes thru the valve which then speeds up the balls forcing them to repeat the self regulating process--elegant self regulation. Granted, Williams points to the myriad ways and small infinity of possible outcomes that demands a self regulating system. Inherent in the self regulation comes predictability"the life blood of investing.

JM

2 Replies

@JamesMorrison,

And what, pray tell, is this radio chit chat supposed to prove?

From Foxie's post: Transcript from Public Radio: blah blah blah...

0 Replies

@JamesMorrison,

JamesMorrison wrote:

Yes, Williams article was the crux of why we promote the market system. Simply it is the elegance of the market. The hallmark of elegance is "simplicity".
I always recall the elegance of the pressure regulator on old steam engines. You know, it is the thing with the two metal balls attached to a mechanism such that the higher pressure of steam the faster the mechanism spins. The faster the balls spin the more they fly outwards. The more they fly outwards the more they close the valves for the steam outlet. But as they close the valves, the less steam output and therefore the less the balls spin and fly outwards. The less the balls fly outwards the more the steam comes thru the valve which then speeds up the balls forcing them to repeat the self regulating process--elegant self regulation. Granted, Williams points to the myriad ways and small infinity of possible outcomes that demands a self regulating system. Inherent in the self regulation comes predictability"the life blood of investing.

JM

But when the government gets in there and starts meddling with the regulation, the predictablility becomes distorted. A whole bunch more money flooding into any part of the system changes the ratios. The more buyers there are, the higher the prices can go, and its easy to become complacent and think that those rising prices are reliable. So not only do poor folks who can't afford them buy a lot of houses, but folks begin investing in them driving up the prices further as well as the market. Banks are making out like bandits, and entities like AIG can write a lot of insurance undergirding the risk. And when the bubble bursts, credit freezes, loans default, people owe more on their houses than they are worth, the insurance companies can't cover their losses, and the whole system collapses.

Perhaps it is a form of greed that drives it. Adam Smith and Walter Williams describe it as each person in the system looking to his/her own interests and taking what benefit is to be had. Nobody intends to hurt anybody else in the process, but neither is anyone concerned about anybody else separate from looking to his/her own interest, but that creates that marvelous invisible phenomenon of contributors and beneficiaries that makes an economy work. Without ability of people to benefit from it, there would be no system at all.

The government brought it down when the government forced the element of too many beneficiaries who could not contribute to it into the system.
What distorted and broke the process was the government

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

No, pages and pages and pages of commentary backed up with link after link after link, at least one dealing specifically with AIG, and him not being able to back up a single opinion disputing my point of view constitutes beating somebody in a debate.

Well, if you understood the content of the articles you were linking to, it shouldn't be so hard to sum it up in one or two sentences when asked a specific question, right?

The last couple of pages, all I saw was Cyclo saying that, okay, let's assume you are right about the CRA and Clinton and the government forcing banks into subprime mortgages - but how did AIG end up in the middle of this mess?

Your only answer was that it's all in the articles. And when you refer us to something you have posted, it's something as vague as this here:

Quote:

Right, well, Lehman, Merrill, Washington Mutual, AIG -- what all of these firms have in common is investments tied to risky mortgages. Now AIG is an insurer, but it sold contracts to protect bond investors against losses from subprime and other risky investments. And as those investments have lost value, AIG has lost a ton of money.

That's really vague, isn't it? It's like saying "well, everything's connected, you know?"

Foxfyre wrote:

Yes, I did get tired of every question answered resulting in ............

But you didn't answer the question.

Foxfyre wrote:

It is obvious he was reading none of the information I was providing and had no intention of backing up his memorized talking points, most of which he probably doesn't understand since he refused to provide an explanation for them when requested to do so.

Well, you didn't provide any kind of explanation. By your own standards, that must mean you don't know what you're talking about.

That said, even the information you were providing was so vague that it was of little value. Again: if you knew what you were talking about, it shouldn't be hard to sum it up in one or two sentences. Instead you're posting page after page after page trying to avoid answering the question by posting stuff like the above.

Or like this:

Foxfyre wrote:

The man--I presume he is a man--obviously worhips the ground Barack Obama walks on and bases his politics and opinions on the blindest of faith. And, when he is finally challenged to put some evidence where his mouth is, he dissolves into an elementary schoolyard taunting mentality with a string of insults and deprecating remarks that are presumably supposed to devastate me.

You're filibustering. You're avoiding the question.

Foxfyre wrote:

And that's when I know I won the debate.

Well, you also know what an article is about by merely reading the headline, right?

3 Replies

@old europe,

And of course, this here

Quote:

AIG is an insurer, but it sold contracts to protect bond investors against losses from subprime and other risky investments. And as those investments have lost value, AIG has lost a ton of money.

is part of the answer, but doesn't even start to describe the practices AIG was engaging in. AIG is an insurance company. It's business model is to insure risky investments.

Neither those contracts nor the fact that those subprime mortgages defaulted was the problem. Or at least not just that.

---

Also, I'd like to see somebody try to make the case how the government threatened AIG into what it was engaging in. I'd really like to see that argument.

0 Replies

@old europe,

OE, I did answer every question. If you guys can't read the answers, that is not my problem. I did summarize it into one sentence and asked Cyclops to rebut it. He couldn't. Where I get frustrated is when Cyclop and you or anybody else just keep asking question after question and ignore the answers while refusing to offer anything in rebuttal.

Now then. Please prepare a summary of the last few days of this debate and show me where I have not answered questions or responded to points directed to me. And please show me where Cyclop answered the one question--that's ONE question--directed at him or made any attempt to rebut the one single sentence that I specifically requested that he rebut.

And then tell me that he won the debate.

4 Replies

@Foxfyre,

To OE: You think writing insurance to protect bond investors is vague? Really? Most of us know what bonds are and what insurance is. I suppose Cyclop probably doesn't know that and perhaps I needed to explain it. Do you understand it? Should I explain it to you?

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre, thanks for the link. This little excerpt answers Cycloptichorn's initial question. However, the entire quote you posted is just as you characterized. So far as I can tell, it has only one major--haha--short coming. It says what the MALs either cannot or will not believe and therefore will be rejected because they think anything they cannot or will not believe is from an unreliable source.

Thanks again!

Please keep up your good work!

Quote:

http://able2know.org/topic/113196-225#post-3588113
Lehman, Merrill, Washington Mutual, AIG -- what all of these firms have in common is investments tied to risky mortgages. Now AIG is an insurer, but it sold contracts to protect bond investors against losses from subprime and other risky investments. And as those investments have lost value, AIG has lost a ton of money.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

OE, I did answer every question. If you guys can't read the answers, that is not my problem. I did summarize it into one sentence and asked Cyclops to rebut it. He couldn't.

Well, you're probably referring to this here:

Foxfyre wrote:

I will repeat that government meddling with the free market system and the government's using of the CRA to put pressure on lending institutions to make risky mortgages, sometimes highly risky mortgages, was the catalyst for the housing bubble and subsequent collapse.

If not, then I'll ask you to refer us to the one sentence that answered Cyclo's question.

If yes: AIG is not a lending institution. AIG didn't make risky mortgages. AIG is an insurance company. Even if the government was using the CRA to pressure banks into making subprime mortgages, this wouldn't have affected AIG.

Your answer doesn't match the question.

Foxfyre wrote:

Where I get frustrated is when Cyclop and you or anybody else just keep asking question after question and ignore the answers while refusing to offer anything in rebuttal.

Well, it's really just one question, and you haven't answered it yet.

Foxfyre wrote:

Now then. Please prepare a summary of the last few days of this debate and show me where I have not answered questions or responded to points directed to me. And please show me where Cyclop answered the one question--that's ONE question--directed at him or made any attempt to rebut the one single sentence that I specifically requested that he rebut.

And then tell me that he won the debate.

See? You're filibustering again. All these posts, all these long-winded arguments, all this whining and complaining in lieu of a simple, one- or two-sentence answer to the question....

0 Replies

@genoves,

Quote:

At this time, the Dow is down 223 points. Obama has proven to be FDR dejavu.

This downturn will last at least five years as it did during the time of FDR UNLESS Obama is defeated soundly in 2010 and not re-elected in 2012.

If we are so lucky. As I have been saying if people think 2008 was bad they have a treat instore for them in 2009. Optimists say this recession will have lifted by the end of 2010, they are wrong. Given the market's feeling about Obama's new budget, meddling in the mortgage market (Haven't we just seen this ****?), nationalizing of the banks, and judges being allowed to rip up mortgage contracts and ...you know, its almost like somebody gave the Dems a book on how to approach an economical solution and they decided to do the opposite.

JM

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Apparently not, Ican. OE thinks I'm filibustering....CI thinks it's bla bla bla....and Cyclop who claims that he read all those links obviously either didn't read this one or he didn't understand it when he did.

The numbnuts are trying to change the subject by suggesting the government forced everybody in the system to participate in the system. It didn't. All it had to do was lean really hard on lending institutions to take loans from people who had little or no chance of repaying them and to be sure that Fannie Mae and Freddice Mac gave the appearance of being able to protect those lending institutions. That created an illusion of prosperity that could not be sustained but the government also was giving out false information that everything was just fine. Remember Barnie Frank's now infamous line that Fannie Mae might not be the best investment in the world right now but it didn't need close scrutiny or something like that. It all began and gradually swelled from the CRA until it grew into a bubble that had to burst.

And the result is the mess we have now. And yes, I have posted this little summary several times now and each time it has been pooh poohed by the Left.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

To OE: You think writing insurance to protect bond investors is vague? Really?

Yes, really. AIG is an insurance company. Writing insurance to protect bond investors is what it does or could conceivably do.

You have not shown that you know how this practice caused any kind of problem.

Foxfyre wrote:

Most of us know what bonds are and what insurance is. I suppose Cyclop probably doesn't know that and perhaps I needed to explain it. Do you understand it? Should I explain it to you?

Yes. Please explain. Please explain why insuring the subprime mortgages was problematic. Please explain how AIG managed to make hundreds of billions of dollars in deficit, when the other AIG departments are still making profits. Please explain how the AIG-backed MBSs ended up being AAA rated when they were really repackaged subprime mortgages.

I'd like to see the answer to that.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Foxfyre, thanks for the link. This little excerpt answers Cycloptichorn's initial question.

No, it doesn't. AIG is an insurance company. They insure investments. They insure high-risk investments.

Insuring CDOs that mainly consisted of subprime mortgages alone wasn't the problem.

0 Replies

@old europe,

Me to!

0 Replies

@old europe,

AIG sold billions in insurance policies underwriting those bonds. When the bonds began to crash and the insureds began filing claims, AIG was paying out billions instead of taking in billions. And because AIG's own stock was falling in the process and a declining economy resulting in fewer people needing insurance of any kind, it didn't have enough to cover the claims.

Remember that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were bundling high risk loans with a few good loans to give the bundles respectability and pawning them off on the banks. A whole bunch of little investments became big huge chunks of investments. As long as the housing values kept going up, there was no problem. But when the housing values plunged and all those loans started defaulting, that's when the house of cards collapsed.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Explain it?

Wow.. you are being snotty. The last pages have been filled with people asking you to explain it in your own words and now you want to be snotty and ask "Should I explain it?"

EXPLAIN IT FOX..
PLEASE..

DO it in YOUR words and lets see if it makes SENSE.

I would love to hear your explanation of how AIG was forced to write insurance by Clinton. I would love to hear your explanation of how AIG did its underwriting for the insurance. I would love to see you explain the process and how it was Clinton's fault.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Fox, you're missing the point completely.

Quote:

I did summarize it into one sentence and asked Cyclops to rebut it. He couldn't.

But I did. You just didn't accept my rebuttal. And when I attempted to accept your summary for the purposes of moving on with the conversation, you refused to do so.

OE has hit the nail right on the head and you just can't see it at all, it is truly amazing. I told you right from the beginning what the problem was: greed on the part of investors and businesses.

AIG was basically committing fraud when they issued Credit-Default swaps, but put no actual money behind them. They were allowed to do this because the Bush SEC decided that credit-default swap market did not warrant regulation or attention, despite the fact it was twice as large as the stock market itself(!). Can you imagine a market that large with NO regulation whatsoever? It was an environment which was fertile for fraud and abuse and everybody knew it.

AIG took more and more money for these swaps, and even took 'triggers' on their contracts, which FORCED them to pay out if certain factors happened; all because that raised the values of their swaps even higher and higher! Their analysts knew the whole thing was a farce and so did the management. They didn't give a **** b/c they are all rich and fat and happy now, having made many millions on this stuff for years. The vast majority of them will avoid any prosecution for their acts, even though they have helped collapse the largest economy in the world.

Y

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know