First NATIONAL City Bank -- Nationalization Upon Us?

Heineken Helen · January 2009

soulsinging wrote:

soulsinging wrote:

Heineken Helen wrote:

Ahhh... I see we're back to the whole 'taking my words, ignoring them completely and inserting new words in their place to somehow support your argument'. Good for you soulsinging if that's the route you wanna take... I'd rather discuss the topic at hand :?

Pot, meet the kettle. Still haven't read my post explaining my views on the topic at hand to discuss them, have you? Nope, you read the first sentence, quoted it, ignored and deleted the 5 paragraphs following and then tell me I'm guilty of selective reading to avoid discussing the topic. That's rich.

*crickets*chirp*crickets*

Helen? I thought you wanted to discuss the topic at hand, like I tried to do?

See my post that you quoted. I read your post and, if you'd read my posts and my opinions on the subject, you'd know there was nothing further to discuss. I said something is not right about all this and that I don't know what. You can give me as much 'proof' to the contrary as you like... which were just a few examples of how maybe things ARE as they seem... but still none of it adds up.

soulsinging · January 2009

Heineken Helen wrote:

See my post that you quoted. I read your post and, if you'd read my posts and my opinions on the subject, you'd know there was nothing further to discuss. I said something is not right about all this and that I don't know what. You can give me as much 'proof' to the contrary as you like... which were just a few examples of how maybe things ARE as they seem... but still none of it adds up.

If you truly wanted to discuss things, as you claim, you'd have read my post and commented on the topic "at hand." You keep saying you don't know what's going on, perhaps you ought to try reading up on it then before claiming you want to discuss things, especially when your discussion simply is "I don't know." So, again, you don't know anything about what's going on here, you just know that whatever I am posting is probably wrong? Pray tell, read that post of mine and tell me where it falls short so that I can explain the holes and help you understand the situation a bit better.

Heineken Helen · January 2009

soulsinging wrote:

Heineken Helen wrote:

See my post that you quoted. I read your post and, if you'd read my posts and my opinions on the subject, you'd know there was nothing further to discuss. I said something is not right about all this and that I don't know what. You can give me as much 'proof' to the contrary as you like... which were just a few examples of how maybe things ARE as they seem... but still none of it adds up.

If you truly wanted to discuss things, as you claim, you'd have read my post and commented on the topic "at hand." You keep saying you don't know what's going on, perhaps you ought to try reading up on it then before claiming you want to discuss things, especially when your discussion simply is "I don't know." So, again, you don't know anything about what's going on here, you just know that whatever I am posting is probably wrong? Pray tell, read that post of mine and tell me where it falls short so that I can explain the holes and help you understand the situation a bit better.

Where did I say you're probably wrong? A gut feeling is just that... and a conspiracy theory is a theory... which is why I don't debate them.. cos I accept that IF THERE WERE PROOF... it would no longer be a feeling or a theory :? how hard is that to comprehend?

At least I CAN accept that I don't know everything

If you like, I could continue and offer stupid one off examples to 'prove my point'... but that's not how I work! And I don't adjust myself to suit other peoples posting styles either. 8-)

soulsinging · January 2009

Heineken Helen wrote:

Where did I say you're probably wrong? A gut feeling is just that... and a conspiracy theory is a theory... which is why I don't debate them.. cos I accept that IF THERE WERE PROOF... it would no longer be a feeling or a theory :? how hard is that to comprehend?

At least I CAN accept that I don't know everything If you like, I could continue and offer stupid one off examples to 'prove my point'... but that's not how I work! And I don't adjust myself to suit other peoples posting styles either. 8-)

Fair enough. Just don't say you want to discuss a topic that a few posts later you say you won't debate because you have no proof.

Heineken Helen · January 2009

soulsinging wrote:

Heineken Helen wrote:

Where did I say you're probably wrong? A gut feeling is just that... and a conspiracy theory is a theory... which is why I don't debate them.. cos I accept that IF THERE WERE PROOF... it would no longer be a feeling or a theory :? how hard is that to comprehend?

At least I CAN accept that I don't know everything If you like, I could continue and offer stupid one off examples to 'prove my point'... but that's not how I work! And I don't adjust myself to suit other peoples posting styles either. 8-)

Fair enough. Just don't say you want to discuss a topic that a few posts later you say you won't debate because you have no proof.

I said I'd rather discuss the topic at hand than go down your route of getting personal and being offended that I 'ignored certain points'. Doesn't mean I WANT to discuss the topic at hand... just that I'd RATHER do it than the latter. You keep trying to turn threads into some kinda personal battle or something. If I don't have an answer or don't know the answer, I'm not gonna make something up... so stop trying to continue something that isn't happening.

soulsinging · January 2009

Heineken Helen wrote:

Doesn't mean I WANT to discuss the topic at hand... just that I'd RATHER do it than the latter.

Wow, you should be a lawyer

Flutter Girl · January 2009

I'm glad I stopped arguing with the guy...he's too apathetic. I'd just have gotten frustrated

melodious · January 2009

RM291946 wrote:

History shows that when we are left alone by the government, the economy is better, there is more job growth, and everyone is happier for it. When the government takes too much control over everything, the economy gets stunted and businesses start closing.

didn't obama state in his speech, he was for self reliance...laizezz faire has always been a great philosophy.

*good tidings for your girlfriends branch....

DriftingByTheStorm · February 2009

Markets are now at 7000, and aiming towards 6000 (or 750 headed to 650 S&P)
and
IT LOOKS LIKE CITI WILL CONVINCE THE FED TO GO AHEAD AND BUY 40% OF ITS COMMON STOCK.

Nationalization IS INDEED upon us.

The government is REFUSING TO LET MARKETS WORK.
REFUSING TO LET BAD BUSINESS FAIL.

AND IS GOING TO DRAG US ALL DOWN THE TUBES WITH THESE ENORMOUS FINANCIAL BLACK HOLES.

Say goodbye to your 401k's folks.
Go grab a copy of The Creature From Jekyll Island or maybe The Case Against The Fed and LEARN WHY THIS IS HAPPENING so you won't be herded in to more false solutions. Also, MAYBE YOU'LL BE MAD AS HELL!

OutOfBreath · February 2009

Nationalization may be the only viable option in the end to stabilize the situation. (Yes, I know, the status quo system should just lay down and die, but that's not going to happen. Ever.)

It's long since beyond right/left politics. Now it's just grabs for things that might work in the sense that it prevents complete disaster. And nationalization has worked in the past. Both Sweden and Norway nationalized troubled banks in the late 1980s, and sold them again when they had stabilized and was profitable again. It ended up actually benefitting tax payers, as they got back the investment they took to save it. Actually, they profited slightly. They had to slam money on the table initially of course, but it ended up being win-win, and no cost in the end.

Well, except for the shareholders that lost their investment of course. Then again, as a norwegian economist has pointed out recently, if the bank is about to go broke, that money stands to be lost anyway. So in such a situation, nationalization may be a win-win scenario, or at least neutral-win. If it works, of course. But it has worked before.

Of course, all of this must be excruciatingly painful for free market zealots to behold. But there is no danger of the world going communist suddenly. Every country has been clear that they see this is temporary necessities. The market will return, although probably with a different set of playing rules and some added safety valves. The "Washington consensus" of hands-off economic policies will probably not gain poopularity for a long time after this. Some of us dont see that as necessarily a bad thing.

Peace
Dan

soulsinging · February 2009

OutOfBreath wrote:

Nationalization may be the only viable option in the end to stabilize the situation. (Yes, I know, the status quo system should just lay down and die, but that's not going to happen. Ever.)

It's long since beyond right/left politics. Now it's just grabs for things that might work in the sense that it prevents complete disaster. And nationalization has worked in the past. Both Sweden and Norway nationalized troubled banks in the late 1980s, and sold them again when they had stabilized and was profitable again. It ended up actually benefitting tax payers, as they got back the investment they took to save it. Actually, they profited slightly. They had to slam money on the table initially of course, but it ended up being win-win, and no cost in the end.

Well, except for the shareholders that lost their investment of course. Then again, as a norwegian economist has pointed out recently, if the bank is about to go broke, that money stands to be lost anyway. So in such a situation, nationalization may be a win-win scenario, or at least neutral-win. If it works, of course. But it has worked before.

Of course, all of this must be excruciatingly painful for free market zealots to behold. But there is no danger of the world going communist suddenly. Every country has been clear that they see this is temporary necessities. The market will return, although probably with a different set of playing rules and some added safety valves. The "Washington consensus" of hands-off economic policies will probably not gain poopularity for a long time after this. Some of us dont see that as necessarily a bad thing.

Peace
Dan

Fuck shareholders.

First NATIONAL City Bank -- Nationalization Upon Us?

Comments

Categories