His magic underwear give him a moral compass. I can only imagine the pressure that’ll be placed upon him and the bribery or extortion offered. One can hope he’ll switch parties.
Banks actually forecast getting bailed out by the government in the event of a stock market collapse brought on by their own recklessness. There is a term used among the more powerful and influential to describe most of us, the Precariat, the precarious proletariat.
Thanks for the fresh post. I won't quibble with many of your points, even if I may not agree in full. I will say your statement on banks is 100% false. I work and have worked in senior roles that focus heavily on loss reserves, lending standards, recession planning, etc. There is not one situation where we have ever forecasted government funds or counted on them. In fact, the whole process is covered by Basel III rules, and was recently even enhanced on what is called the CECL accounting rules, which require banks to reserve even more than ever before. And there are some very, very fundamental misunderstandings about TARP that I would be happy to correct if people ever have questions.
Second, this term "precariat"...who are these rich and powerful people that describe most of us that way? I have never heard this before.
ultimately all banks and credit bureaus forecast being bailed out for poor decisions. If this was a true capitalism all those financial institutions that are too big to fail would fail and be replaced by something else. Since financial institutions doing business in the US know that they will receive a bailout based on every major disaster since the savings and loan scandal they effectively use the sure bet of a bailout life vest to take riskier decisions than they should that benefit stockholders and the board of directors at the cost of taxpayers.
Okay, few things... 1. I am aware of the academic word 'precariat' which as you point out refers to that class of people just above the transient line. The way you framed your original statement, I read it as though you're saying the "elites" use it as a slur, sort of like if I call the people who work for me "plebs" or "commoners". The concept of precariat seems to have originated in a field of study, not in a board room or wine tasting.
2. While I can't necessarily speak for every bank, I can have worked at or closely with at least 7 of the top 10 largest consumer lenders (not institutional lending). These companies absolutely do not include 'bailout' as part of their credit loss forecasting. I can't say whether Freddie or Fannie do as I do not have deep experience in the mortgage space. Now if you want to argue that credit risk decisions they make IMPLICITLY assume some sort of bailout, that's a fairly esoteric argument. But there was a generation of leaders between the S&L bailout and TARP. And the S&L business is nothing like large bank consumer lending. I can tell you that in no way did I or anyone ever think about bailout when I was a senior credit officer. And I held a very senior role at one of these institutions until 2010. I worked through the the down turn in the early 2000's and the recession in 08. It would be completely insane to assume that the gov't would bail out a bank individually. None of these banks would have been bailed if they were the only one and not associated with a total market crash. I would have been walked to the door if I tried to use an assumption of gov't funding as part of vintage analysis.
3. You need to draw a line between credit bureaus and banks. From a business perspective they have zero in common. Credit bureaus are simply data engines and repositories, a central place for lenders to essentially share information. Large banks do not use credit scores. I know that's counter to popular belief, but the sophisticated ones do not. We had our own credit and risk modeling and we bought data from bureaus to feed our own algorithms. Now I'm not saying that there was no overlap between the two. Someone with a 785 is going to be a good risk generally speaking, but that's because of all of the underlying payment history, debt to credit ratios, debt to income ratios, etc., that drive the standard FICO scores.
4. Regarding TARP, there's a lot to it, but most believe that all the banks needed the cash. This is fundamentally untrue. My bank did not. We had enough in reserves to ride out the worst of the crisis and still keep the loan losses in line. However, the Fed and the Bush and Obama administration did not want to signal to Wall Street which banks were strong and which were weak, creating a market run on those banks. So many banks had to take the money and paid it back as soon as they were allowed to do so. It's easy to speculate which ones needed it vs didn't, based on the numbers that were released in subsequent quarterly earnings. Certain ones absolutely did, but it's nearly the number that anyone thinks. And TARP was fully paid back even by the weakest banks, with interest. Although if you calculate it, it was probably a minimal profit for the gov't/people.
Whew.. that was a lot. Wrote it while in a meeting. It's a bit of a pet peeve to say the banks caused the crisis in 2008. They didn't. Everyone was complicit, from the buyer to the real estate agent, to the broker, to the bundler to the underwriter. I can sleep at night knowing that neither I or my company ever had anything to do with mortgage lending and bundling.
Naw... voters have shown pretty clearly they do not want Bernie, and he didn't get young people out to vote like his entire premise was.
Too bad, that a social democratic approach isn't accepted by the voters in this election. (guessing this has more to do with Bernies and the goal of winning over Trump and not political position in itself).
But Bernie (with AOC, Warren and others) has pushed it into the spotlight and hopefully young people that are able to look past "american exceptionalism" and to the horizon and see what other countries are doing and have done and they will force change to humane social safety nets and reforms. The main goal for health care will maybe one day not be profits for stock holders.
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
I just caught a snippet of Warren on ABC World News. She was asked what role gender played, and she gave a great answer -- if she said it played a role, she would be called a whiner. If she said gender played no role, women everywhere would ask her what planet she's on. I was a Klobuchar supporter until Monday night, and she would have been a fantastic president. But Warren would have been an absolute delight to watch in a debate against Trump.
I wish Harris hadn't made such poor calculations in her strategy. And Tulsi Gabbard, doesn't she have similar military credentials as Mayor Pete? But we make fun of her? I'm glad so many women ran. They were all fantastic. I hope women continue to run and run and run until we truly own 50% or more of our government's offices and positions.
Women comprise more than half of the voters so it seems the anti woman vote is not gender specific.
I liked Harris at first but she made a terrible choice on M4A.
I liked Tulsi at first but she made a terrible choice on Putin.
I liked Amy throughout and wish she did better with voters.
I was indifferent about Liz but her actions on the dna test, on her promise to serve her full term, and her blaming the billionaire for all the world's problems...well...enough said.
Suburban voters in PA will be moved by memes. They usually spend the evening on twitter after cooking dinner, helping teh kids with homework, catching up with the spouses, etc. After that, it's all social media gifs and memes.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
This is Bernie's last stand. He should run Green if he doesn't get the Dem nomination. My maximum chaos pipe dream is still alive.
R- Trump D- Biden L- Amash G- Sanders
Bernie's last stand was three and a half years ago. He should have walked away when his head held high when he had the opportunity. Now he's just embarrassing himself, and his supporters.
Stop trying to make third party a thing. We are two party system. Our checks and balances are in the three branches of government. And Sanders running as a green is going to cost Democrats the other two branches. We already lost two supreme Court Justices and a slew of federal court appointments. we can't afford to make the same mistake again.
You don't have to respond to everything like you've been given 30 seconds to shout at the camera on Hardball
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
I just caught a snippet of Warren on ABC World News. She was asked what role gender played, and she gave a great answer -- if she said it played a role, she would be called a whiner. If she said gender played no role, women everywhere would ask her what planet she's on. I was a Klobuchar supporter until Monday night, and she would have been a fantastic president. But Warren would have been an absolute delight to watch in a debate against Trump.
I wish Harris hadn't made such poor calculations in her strategy. And Tulsi Gabbard, doesn't she have similar military credentials as Mayor Pete? But we make fun of her? I'm glad so many women ran. They were all fantastic. I hope women continue to run and run and run until we truly own 50% or more of our government's offices and positions.
Women comprise more than half of the voters so it seems the anti woman vote is not gender specific.
I liked Harris at first but she made a terrible choice on M4A.
I liked Tulsi at first but she made a terrible choice on Putin.
I liked Amy throughout and wish she did better with voters.
I was indifferent about Liz but her actions on the dna test, on her promise to serve her full term, and her blaming the billionaire for all the world's problems...well...enough said.
support Biden and each of these women will have a prominent role in the next administration
Wtf was that all about? Did spiritual supply the funding for that to happen?
Rather be supporting opposing the dairy industry, than be okey with jumping on supporting Trump opposing anyone that isn't white.
sooooo you're fave candidate is from and represents a state that has dairy as a pretty major employer in Ben And Jerrys, Vermont cheese, milk bottlers and associated products.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Nothing is stopping socialists democrats from starting their own party, starting a grass roots movement, and getting elected up and down the ballot from dog-catcher to president. At which point, they would replace one of the two major parties, and we would still fundamentally have a 2-party system.
What if Monicas Apple-party has one third of the seats in congress and one third of the senate. And the republicans and democrats have one third each?
For the hundredth time, our checks and balances are within the 3 branches of government. We are not a multi-party system. We are not set up that way.
So what happens?
Considering you have yeas and nays on votes, you probably have a parliamentary style coalition building for actual legislation. This is all well and good. However, where it would show up more directly is in the electoral college. If there are three candidates and no one gets 270 (majority) of the electoral votes, then the House of Reps gets to pick the president. The last time this happened was 1824. Because of that situation, the multi-party system faded away in the US.
Fail to see the problem..(?)
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Nothing is stopping socialists democrats from starting their own party, starting a grass roots movement, and getting elected up and down the ballot from dog-catcher to president. At which point, they would replace one of the two major parties, and we would still fundamentally have a 2-party system.
What if Monicas Apple-party has one third of the seats in congress and one third of the senate. And the republicans and democrats have one third each?
For the hundredth time, our checks and balances are within the 3 branches of government. We are not a multi-party system. We are not set up that way.
So what happens?
Considering you have yeas and nays on votes, you probably have a parliamentary style coalition building for actual legislation. This is all well and good. However, where it would show up more directly is in the electoral college. If there are three candidates and no one gets 270 (majority) of the electoral votes, then the House of Reps gets to pick the president. The last time this happened was 1824. Because of that situation, the multi-party system faded away in the US.
Wtf was that all about? Did spiritual supply the funding for that to happen?
Rather be supporting opposing the dairy industry, than be okey with jumping on supporting Trump opposing anyone that isn't white.
sooooo you're fave candidate is from and represents a state that has dairy as a pretty major employer in Ben And Jerrys, Vermont cheese, milk bottlers and associated products.
Yeah, ALL for the worker arent you.....
What level of arguing is this on...
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Nothing is stopping socialists democrats from starting their own party, starting a grass roots movement, and getting elected up and down the ballot from dog-catcher to president. At which point, they would replace one of the two major parties, and we would still fundamentally have a 2-party system.
What if Monicas Apple-party has one third of the seats in congress and one third of the senate. And the republicans and democrats have one third each?
For the hundredth time, our checks and balances are within the 3 branches of government. We are not a multi-party system. We are not set up that way.
So what happens?
Considering you have yeas and nays on votes, you probably have a parliamentary style coalition building for actual legislation. This is all well and good. However, where it would show up more directly is in the electoral college. If there are three candidates and no one gets 270 (majority) of the electoral votes, then the House of Reps gets to pick the president. The last time this happened was 1824. Because of that situation, the multi-party system faded away in the US.
Fail to see the problem..(?)
With the House choosing the President?
Yes.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Nothing is stopping socialists democrats from starting their own party, starting a grass roots movement, and getting elected up and down the ballot from dog-catcher to president. At which point, they would replace one of the two major parties, and we would still fundamentally have a 2-party system.
What if Monicas Apple-party has one third of the seats in congress and one third of the senate. And the republicans and democrats have one third each?
For the hundredth time, our checks and balances are within the 3 branches of government. We are not a multi-party system. We are not set up that way.
So what happens?
Considering you have yeas and nays on votes, you probably have a parliamentary style coalition building for actual legislation. This is all well and good. However, where it would show up more directly is in the electoral college. If there are three candidates and no one gets 270 (majority) of the electoral votes, then the House of Reps gets to pick the president. The last time this happened was 1824. Because of that situation, the multi-party system faded away in the US.
Fail to see the problem..(?)
With the House choosing the President?
Yes.
I guess your opinion on that would change based on who controls the House, wouldn't it? Or do you think it's generally the right situation for the House to have the final say in who is the president?
I think this is pretty reasonable. Not that Bloomberg or anybody should be expected to give everyone a million dollars. But the premise of "Here's what Bloomberg spent on ads, and here's other things he could do with that amount of money" is sound enough for me.
lol...Timothy Burke. Well I guess there's still an audience for those Deadspin guys...albeit a small one.
Nothing is stopping socialists democrats from starting their own party, starting a grass roots movement, and getting elected up and down the ballot from dog-catcher to president. At which point, they would replace one of the two major parties, and we would still fundamentally have a 2-party system.
What if Monicas Apple-party has one third of the seats in congress and one third of the senate. And the republicans and democrats have one third each?
For the hundredth time, our checks and balances are within the 3 branches of government. We are not a multi-party system. We are not set up that way.
So what happens?
Considering you have yeas and nays on votes, you probably have a parliamentary style coalition building for actual legislation. This is all well and good. However, where it would show up more directly is in the electoral college. If there are three candidates and no one gets 270 (majority) of the electoral votes, then the House of Reps gets to pick the president. The last time this happened was 1824. Because of that situation, the multi-party system faded away in the US.
Fail to see the problem..(?)
With the House choosing the President?
Yes.
I guess your opinion on that would change based on who controls the House, wouldn't it? Or do you think it's generally the right situation for the House to have the final say in who is the president?
If it means people have decided to have more than two parties representing, then yes on both I guess. If that is how the the law is and you do not want to change it (like it being the majority of votes choosing President (usually called "the popular vote") and removing the 270 threshold). People voted in the people into congress? So it would be a classic case of Representative democracy(?)
In Sweden, the prime minister is chosen by a majority in the parliament (a majority of the 349 votes). And we have "universal" healthcare. So seems to work decently. Even though I understand it is not exactly the same.
Or maybe I am misunderstanding completely your post. I'm tired. I'm leaving work in 30 minutes. I wasn't even suppose to work today.
and in before: THAT IS NOT HOW AMERICA WORKS.
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Comments
Romney is generally a good man.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
Too bad, that a social democratic approach isn't accepted by the voters in this election. (guessing this has more to do with Bernies and the goal of winning over Trump and not political position in itself).
But Bernie (with AOC, Warren and others) has pushed it into the spotlight and hopefully young people that are able to look past "american exceptionalism" and to the horizon and see what other countries are doing and have done and they will force change to humane social safety nets and reforms. The main goal for health care will maybe one day not be profits for stock holders.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Women comprise more than half of the voters so it seems the anti woman vote is not gender specific.
I liked Harris at first but she made a terrible choice on M4A.
I liked Tulsi at first but she made a terrible choice on Putin.
I liked Amy throughout and wish she did better with voters.
I was indifferent about Liz but her actions on the dna test, on her promise to serve her full term, and her blaming the billionaire for all the world's problems...well...enough said.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
support Biden and each of these women will have a prominent role in the next administration
(except Tulsi, she's terrible)
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
lol...Timothy Burke. Well I guess there's still an audience for those Deadspin guys...albeit a small one.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
In Sweden, the prime minister is chosen by a majority in the parliament (a majority of the 349 votes). And we have "universal" healthcare. So seems to work decently. Even though I understand it is not exactly the same.
Or maybe I am misunderstanding completely your post. I'm tired. I'm leaving work in 30 minutes. I wasn't even suppose to work today.
and in before: THAT IS NOT HOW AMERICA WORKS.