Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Capitalism      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 251
CapitalismPage 11 of 14    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)
I just have to jump in. I have no idea why I opened the door again in the first place.

Yes, Elizabeth Warren says she loves capitalism. I love capitalism. You're the only one who keeps trying to pretend that you're the only one who does. That was kind of why I was hoping you wouldn't watch this because you would deliberately try to misconstrue the whole thing.

Anyway, the "Clean Card" initiative (not "Green Card" - I'm guessing I understood what she said a whole lot better than you, seeing as I actually heard what she said) was supposed to be an open, transparent credit card. Major financial players all agreed that what they are now doing is unsustainable. But none of them could afford to abandon the current deceptive practices on their own. That's where government can play a beneficial role. Protecting consumers and protecting the banks themselves from short term greed which will inevitably lead to long term pain. The banks themselves acknowledged it.
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 252
Capitalism
Posted: 5/26/2011 4:43:53 PM

Yes, Elizabeth Warren says she loves capitalism. I love capitalism. You're the only one who keeps trying to pretend that you're the only one who does. That was kind of why I was hoping you wouldn't watch this because you would deliberately try to misconstrue the whole thing.
people like you kill me, good lord as im rolling my eyes.

misconstrue what? except the legislation part she's pretty much dead on, what I dont agree with is legislation to protect consumers ? because some are dumb enough not to use common sense? If one doesn't live on credit one doesn't have that problem its really simple, the ones that complain are the ones that lives on credit, I dont see how that's the credit cards companies fault?

I believe that financial markets, there should be transparency , I believe that 100% but its funny that some of these greedy investors that invested when they were making 30, 40 , 50% or more things were hunky dorey but as soon as the market corrected them selves now its " lets hang the bankers mentality" or we need more legislation .

You should be asking why credit companies charge the rates that they do? if you are one that pays your balance every month and doesnt carry a balance, does the interest rate really matter to you?

Markets are risky, as Buffett says " understand what you're investing in" I have no sympathy for a person that plays the markets and doesn't understand what they are doing? ask most folks that lost money in the markets, most of them have never read a balance sheet of a company, a proxy statement or even know who is the management, their goals for the company etc, but they are quick to blame everyone but themselves when things go wrong and they have to take a hair cut .

I know a ton of people who are investors and wouldn't invest in things they do not understand whether is CDO's,Microcap Stocks, small caps, mid caps, futures and option you name it
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 253
Capitalism
Posted: 5/26/2011 5:18:08 PM

I believe that financial markets, there should be transparency

The only way to achieve this transparency across the board, without a certain company attempting it voluntarily at their own disadvantage, is through-- get this-- legislation.

I know a ton of people who are investors and wouldn't invest in things they do not understand whether is CDO's,Microcap Stocks, small caps, mid caps, futures and option you name it

In your opinion, then, how should average working stiffs invest for their retirement, assuming they aren't financial whizzes?
 427cammer
Joined: 3/1/2008
Msg: 254
view profile
History
Capitalism
Posted: 5/26/2011 7:26:25 PM

Who would:
-dine at a new, uninspected restaurant
-buy experimental, uninspected drugs
-buy an uninspected car from a new manufacturer
-fly in an uninspected plane, maintained by uninspected mechanics, with uninspected pilots flying it?

Show of hands, please.

Okay... one by one:

-yeah, assuming the restaurant passed my own visual inspection... and the smells coming from the kitchen were good... why not? I've seen lots of skanky establishments that have managed to stay in business for years even with government mandated inspections. Unless a person is willing to foot the bill as a taxpayer, we have to realize that there are not enough government inspectors to visit every restaurant more than a couple of times a year... I'm not willing to pay that bill... and the fact that a restaurant has managed to pass an inspection at some point in the last couple of months doesn't hold much sway for me.

-no... but I try and avoid drugs, whether untested or not, at all times. Even with FDA approval, I hear about pharmaceutical horror stories all the time. And there are a hundred million people who are quite content to do their own experimenting with drugs.

-yes... I have enough confidence in my own mechanical skills that I could recognize workmanship when I see it.

-I would prefer that an aircraft was properly maintained, and properly piloted.

flyguy: And I assure you, I deal with government regulations ALL THE TIME.

I've got a bit of experience with the type of regulations you're speaking of. My dad is a pilot, who for twenty years owned his own helicopter business (before that he was a heavy equipment operator, and then a welder, and then a trucker).

I've flipped through some of Dad's catalogs for helicopter parts and was amazed at the outrageous prices for equipment that has little or no effect on the airworthiness of a machine. Prices are often a hundred times more expensive than you'd expect. I was told that this is because of regulations governing the manufacturers and aircraft operators. I could give you specific examples, but my post is already meandering.

Many of the regulations dealing with aviation safety seem quite redundant and uneccesary, and some are counter-productive... in short, typical of what you'd expect to find when you let paper-pushers run the show. It is absolutely imperative that an aviation company have complete confidence in their personnel, but labour laws may prevent bad people from being fired.

I have a sneaking suspicion that these same regulations are what drive medical costs into the stratosphere.... how much would you expect to pay for a simple set of scissors... and then how much do you think a hospital pays?
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 255
Capitalism
Posted: 5/26/2011 8:08:34 PM

I've flipped through some of Dad's catalogs for helicopter parts and was amazed at the outrageous prices for equipment that has little or no effect on the airworthiness of a machine. Prices are often a hundred times more expensive than you'd expect. I was told that this is because of regulations governing the manufacturers and aircraft operators.

Yes, getting tangential to the core of the discussion, but I will add this:

Things that seem unrelated to airworthiness are deceptive. Seat cushions have to pass standards for fire resistance, for example. Also consider that weight is a HUGE concern in aircraft materials. Furthermore, legal liability concerns are also factored into cost-- that would occur regulations or not-- unless a society doesn't want to give ANY legal recourse for damages done and lives lost.

In any case, I get the feeling that you are a "less regulations" person, not a "self-regulating market" person. When it comes to air commerce, those types start to look pretty ridiculous.
 427cammer
Joined: 3/1/2008
Msg: 256
view profile
History
Capitalism
Posted: 5/26/2011 10:05:03 PM

Furthermore, legal liability concerns are also factored into cost-- that would occur regulations or not-- unless a society doesn't want to give ANY legal recourse for damages done and lives lost.

It is largely the fault of our governments and their laws (regulations) that a small oversight by one employee could leave a corporation on the hook for a hundred million dollar lawsuit. Unfortunate as it is accidents happen...

From 1903 to 1969 your country accomplished a staggering achievment in landing a man on the moon. I believe it was largely due to unrestrictive government forces (and the resulting mindset of society as a whole) that this was possible. Many of the problems facing the world today might be better handled if industry felt freer to move forward. If some mistakes were made and lives were lost, we'd be better of as a society to say "oh well... mistakes happen". Our planet has 6 billion people living here... we're not running out any time soon.

If Obama were to say tomorrow "We're going to put a man on the moon again", how long do you think it would take to happen? I can't rember for certain, but didn't one of the last couple of guys already say it at some time? Anyways, I'm not holding my breath...
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 257
view profile
History
Capitalism
Posted: 5/27/2011 5:29:48 AM
It would be wise to be careful about how you perceive the lawsuits you speak of. Remember that the purposefully ignorant NEWS media types, will mal-report such lawsuits, and do their best to make it SEEM that insane injustice has been done in one direction or another. Getting us riled up is what sells news, and garners promotions for reporters.
From what I have myself seen, huge payouts do not GENERALLY happen because of a single employees' wayward behavior. They result when the company has been shown to have failed to do anything whatsoever to prevent employee abuses, and usually because they have established a business culture that encourages abuses. As with all things, there will be occasions where the courts err in one direction or another, but it is a MYTH that businesses all live in fear of random lawsuits.

As to the relative accomplishment of the Moon landing, and comparing it to current efforts and accomplishments, that too has tons of self-worshiping myths mixed in. A large part of the glamor people recall about that time, is a direct result of the fact that it WAS primarily a "publicity stunt" project on the part of the United States, to make up for the Soviets being the first to succeed in putting up an artificial satellite. In a way, despite all the grand words written, and the genuine bravery of the people who accomplished the feat, it was truly a less meaningful accomplishment than was the building of the national highway system. The entire Moon program was designed around getting there as fast as possible, and planting a flag. The goal was never to actually DO anything with the moon once we got there, as is clear from the fact that we DIDN'T do anything with it.
 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 258
Capitalism
Posted: 5/27/2011 5:31:56 AM

I have a sneaking suspicion that these same regulations are what drive medical costs into the stratosphere.... how much would you expect to pay for a simple set of scissors... and then how much do you think a hospital pays?


I really doubt that there is such a thing as a government regulation requiring hospitals to pay exorbitant prices for items that can be bought at normal prices in the open market.

If hospitals and other institutions pay higher prices for those items I suspect that there might be some old fashioned corruption going on between hospital and institutional administrators and the representatives of their corporate suppliers.

I'm sure that many of us will remember the days, during the Reagan administration, when the military used to buy toilet cover seats for $500.00 a piece, even though there wasn't any regulation requiring that type of arrangement.
 427cammer
Joined: 3/1/2008
Msg: 259
view profile
History
Capitalism
Posted: 5/27/2011 7:23:41 AM
Igor:
You're right in that most of my perception on lawsuits does come from the media; my perceptions also tell me that major media is usually not pro-corporation (and definitely there are exceptions). I've worked enough in hazardous industry to know that very little of the truth in an accident ever reaches corporate headoffices... let alone the media. People generally have a "cover my ass" attitude right from the grunts all the way to the bigwigs... in my country at least (I've seen that we have a lot more safety regulations than almost any other country) this is largely because of government involvement. I disagree with you that corporations don't live in fear of lawsuits.

I brought up the moonlanding event as an example of what would seem as a completely magical ammount of technology that arrived in just 70 years. From the Wright brothers all the way into the 50's this technological advancement was driven primarily by entrepeneurs. I agree that the moonlanding was a publicity stunt, and probably not that much different than NASA even today (although I'd love to see it again). You're country did achieve unimaginable heights in a decade... and all that while a devastating war was going on and without bankrupting itself.

If the enviromentalists are correct about the dire straits our planet is in, we really only have two solutions:

1)everyone should move back into a cave... and possibly our population will drop by 75% in the next twenty years... or...

2)we hope for a seemingly magical progress in technology. Where we're at now isn't going to cut it... not even close.

If hospitals and other institutions pay higher prices for those items I suspect that there might be some old fashioned corruption going on between hospital and institutional administrators and the representatives of their corporate suppliers.

If I was running a hospital, I would try and find suppliers who would give me product at a reasonable price. If somebody under me was taking kickbacks and buying grossly overinflated products, they wouldn't have a job for very long.

I have no idea about the hospitals in your country... here my government almost exclusively covers medical costs. And yes, a hospital probably wouldn't be allowed to send someone over to Staples to get scissors for patient care, they would have to come from a government approved supplier.

We have very little transparency about healthcare costs up here... there's kind of an attitude "Don't you worry your pretty little head about it... Alberta Healthcare's picking up the tab for this one". I'm left with mostly anecdotal evidence about how our tax dollars are wasted... like:

I have a friend who lost his Dad to cancer a couple of years ago. His doctor had told my friend that they were giving hime 4-5 morphine patches (like a nicotine patch) a day (at $1100 a pop)... this continued for a month. I was left thinking "somebody really needs to introduce this hospital to a heroin dealer..."
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 260
view profile
History
Capitalism
Posted: 5/27/2011 2:24:16 PM
One of my brothers is an accountant, and though I don't even WANT to understand all the ins and outs of accounting, I do talk to him enough to know that when I hear stories of $900 toilet seats (it wasn't $500, I remember the story), and hugely expensive hammers, and foot stool rubber bumpers that cost $200 and so forth, that there's more to the story than meets the eye.
SOMETIMES the hospital is really paying THAT much for a pair of scissors. But it is also not paying JUST for the scissors, it is paying for guaranteed germ free, sealed since manufacture scissors, with SPECIFIC stiffness and SPECIFIC medically dictated characteristics. THAT is what makes them more expensive than scissors from Kmart.
IN ADDITION, when it comes time to ACCOUNT for the cost of an item, many people in both private industry AND government, include various other actual COSTS in the figure they report for the cost of something. When one is calculating how much it costs to use something like a pair of MEDICAL scissors, you can't JUST count the amount paid for a single unit of scissors ordered in bulk from an appropriate company. You also have to add in how much it cost to SHIP them, how much to STORE them, how much to NOTE THAT THEY WERE NOW IN STOCK, how much to CARRY THEM TO THE DOCTOR WHO WANTED THEM, and so forth. By the time you count all those things, the report for how much that pair of scissors cost might seem outrageous, compared to an apparently identical set seen online somewhere; but you are comparing Apples, to Apple Pie served fresh and hot on a plate by a waiter in a nice restaurant.
And again, our fellow peasants in the reporting and political world LOVE to pretend that none of those other factors exist (unless they go into a hospital themselves, in which case, if they DO see a doctor grab a pair of Kmart scissors out of his pocket and start to cut...they'll scream to the whole world that the doc is trying to kill them outright).
Now I'm not saying that every instance of $900 toilet seats was valid. I do happen to know that the one in question back then wasn't just a $25 seat from Home Depot, it was required to function normally during a 3G turn in a jet aircraft, and it had to be designed to fit exactly on a specially designed toilet. Home Depot STILL doesn't sell any seats that can do that, and it's been a good quarter of a century since that story broke. Maybe $900 was a bit high, but I don't think it was AS high as was touted at the time.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 261
Capitalism
Posted: 5/27/2011 5:18:08 PM

You're right in that most of my perception on lawsuits does come from the media; my perceptions also tell me that major media is usually not pro-corporation...

I don't see how one perception goes with the other-- the media publicized lawsuits apparently give you sympathy for the legal liability of corporations, yet you also perceive the media as not being "pro-corporation"?
 FrankNStein902
Joined: 12/26/2009
Msg: 262
Capitalism
Posted: 5/27/2011 7:04:33 PM

I too deal with government regulations and most of it is a waste of time and energy.

Which regulations would you consider the biggest waste of time and energy?
 427cammer
Joined: 3/1/2008
Msg: 263
view profile
History
Capitalism
Posted: 5/28/2011 4:24:13 AM

I don't see how one perception goes with the other-- the media publicized lawsuits apparently give you sympathy for the legal liability of corporations, yet you also perceive the media as not being "pro-corporation"?

I could have phrased it better, but yeah... I view most media as having a leftist slant (to varying degrees) and yet I hold mostly conservative viewpoints. Do you find that exceedingly rare? Not me.... I've seen many on here who have claimed the exact inverse of my statement to be true of their own perceptions. Show me an article from mainstream media that you think is right-leaning and I'll tell you whether I agree or not.

I base most of my conservative views on real world experiences, but up here we don't see near as much of the lawsuit driven mentality that there is in the US (I think it's at least partially because of our universal healthcare... no matter how badly a hospital screws up it's next to impossible to win a huge settlement from a court system that is owned by the same entity that owns the hospitals).... therefore I get almost all of my information on this topic from the media.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 264
view profile
History
Capitalism
Posted: 5/28/2011 6:25:28 AM
I find the primary media AS A WHOLE, to be neither pro, or anti corporation. It looks to me as though a better description of their behavior, which better fits the facts, is that they tend to be "pre-set pattern" oriented.
Essentially, reporters and producers of the news (obviously and especially including those with a heavy conservative or liberal slant), have a small collection of "story templates" in their minds, which they forcibly try to make whatever they are reporting about fit into. In the mainstream media, the 'story templates' tend to be less rigidly politically oriented than, for example, Fox News tends to be, but will APPEAR to those who are sensitive to false reporting about their own pet peeves, to be slanted entirely against their side.
Examples of classic 'story templates', include BOTH the "Big Corporation Picks on the Little Guy Because They Are Greedy **stards," AND the "Thoughtless Peasant Whines About Imagined Mistreatment and Expects a Free Ride From the Rest Of Us" ones, along with a small assortment of "Isn't This Cute" slots to add comic relief. There are probably only a dozen or so story templates in their entire system, which is why the news seems so repetitive.
The important thing to realize is, that MOST mainstream media, ESPECIALLY since Reagan, absolves themselves from being biased, NOT by doing any research, NOT by actually learning to use THOUGHT to augment their duties, but simply by, as MECHANICALLY AS THEY CAN MANAGE, "reporting" stories using these unimaginative and inaccurate "templates."
It is also human nature, that when you hear something that has been tailored to, or only coincidentally favors your existing prejudices, you will mentally label it as "accurate and fair," even though it is mechanically adjusted that way. When you hear a report that you correctly recognize as mechanically adjusted, because it FAILS to match your prejudices, you will see it as a purposeful effort to mislead on behalf of the other side. Thus, I have seen it as a constant, that my LEFT-leaning friends see all LEFT leaning reports as fair and balanced, and my RIGHT-leaning friends see all RIGHT-leaning reports as fair and balanced. I myself, as a student of communications games, see ALL of the reports as mechanical and flawed.
Here in these forums, one can easily find similar examples, where the conservative folks refuse to recognize the slant in the stories that cater to them, just as the liberals (or other anti-conservatives) refuse to see the slant in the stories that go to THEIR side of things. Each is only aware of the defects in EACH OTHERS reporting. Thus, it isn't possible to submit examples of slanted reporting to someone demanding such, unless the slant SUPPORTS their prejudices.
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 265
Capitalism
Posted: 5/28/2011 9:05:31 AM
Which regulations would you consider the biggest waste of time and energy?-frankNstein902
I was a partner in mortgage brokerage firm in 1995 to about 2004 in Ontario, We did Residential, ICI(Industrial, Commercial and Investment Real Estate) and Construction financing.

My firm did some construction financing in the province of Alberta,where I met my then girlfriend, who was a real estate agent in Calgary Alberta, we provided construction financing for builders My then girlfriend sold the properties, Our rates Prime Plus 1% the average rate for financing was Prime plus 3.5%, and we did a lot of business, I ended up arranging the take out financing as well and for 40% of the buyers I arranged the financing, I used my points I accumulated from sending a lot of my business to a financial Institution called First Line Mortgage which is Owned by C.I.B.C ( Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce) because I had over a million points accumulated I decided to use them as a marketing piece for anyone that bought one of the homes from this builder and took our mortgage their mortgage rate was 5% fixed rate , the going rate at that time was 7.25% if you had excellent credit 8.25% if you barely qualified.

Well Other Alberta Mortgage brokers complained to the Alberta Mortgage Broker Association and the Provincial regulatory bodies and they end up sending us a nasty warning that We could be fined $50, 000.00 per transaction because 1) I didn't have a Alberta License ( even though we have a license in Ontario and get this I was allowed to do the Construction financing but not the take out financing? and they still placed restrictions 2) my practice was unfair to the other Mortgage brokers in that city? all I did was provide a better rate for the consumer, none of the consumers complained as a matter of fact we got so many referrals from it. so tell me what did I do wrong?

I ended up scraping the other projects because of this friggen dumb ass regulation , I could of continued but I would of lost a lot of money, the profits from the projects was not worth it, even though it was a healthy profit I would of been fined, I would of had to hire lawyers and the lawyers we had at the time were the best in Litigation , they would of charged me so much fees I could of claimed them as dependents.Even if we won the other side would of appealed and so on and so on.

If I was in America and did this, I would of been indicted under the " anti trust " laws, that is one example of government regulation that is a waste of time, and I wont even get into my factoring business that I ended up selling because of silly regulations, when all I'm doing is saving clients money and NO Clients complained, just the competition.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 266
Capitalism
Posted: 5/28/2011 11:03:39 AM
Hi.

Well Other Alberta Mortgage brokers complained to the Alberta Mortgage Broker Association and the Provincial regulatory bodies and they end up sending us a nasty warning that We could be fined $50, 000.00 per transaction because 1) I didn't have a Alberta License

You were operating as a mortgage broker without a license. That couldn't have come as a shock to you.

I used my points I accumulated from sending a lot of my business to a financial Institution called First Line Mortgage which is Owned by C.I.B.C ( Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce) because I had over a million points accumulated I decided to use them as a marketing piece for anyone that bought one of the homes from this builder and took our mortgage their mortgage rate was 5% fixed rate , the going rate at that time was 7.25% if you had excellent credit 8.25% if you barely qualified.

Now, let me just get this straight:
You're dead set against crony capitalism.
But, you used your relationship with CIBC to arrange loans 3 points less than other brokers could offer them. That means that the project you financed could both charge slightly higher than market value and sell out faster. So your relationship with CIBC would get even stronger. Which means that you could do it again. You would effectively force every other mortgage broker out of the new construction townhouse/condominium market.
But you really, really hate crony capitalism because it distorts the market.
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 267
Capitalism
Posted: 5/28/2011 11:38:26 AM

You were operating as a mortgage broker without a license. That couldn't have come as a shock to you.
as usual you missed my point, since reading isn't something you do to often I'm assuming you're doing this because you like to argue for the sake of arguing, go back and re read what I posted S L O W L Y this time,I didn't have a license in Alberta because 1) I didn't live in Alberta and was unfamiliar with the laws out there and by the way I was doing financing in Saskatchewan and didnt need the license there, Im not sure if thats the case today and 2) I was doing the construction financing how do you explain that one genius?




Now, let me just get this straight:You're dead set against crony capitalism.
But, you used your relationship with CIBC to arrange loans 3 points less than other brokers could offer them. That means that the project you financed could both charge slightly higher than market value and sell out faster. So your relationship with CIBC would get even stronger. Which means that you could do it again. You would effectively force every other mortgage broker out of the new construction townhouse/condominium market.
But you really, really hate crony capitalism because it distorts the market.
before you open your mouth and try to sound intelligent, try and at least understand how the mortgage brokerage industry works first and how the construction financing industry works, then lets have a conversation. Crony capitalism FFS!!! show me where back then I needed government assistance to run my business?

People like you can open your mouth and offer all kinds of opinion but you know nothing about the industry, Its like me commenting on the aviation industry I know nothing about aviation and how the industry works nor will I pretend to know.

 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 268
Capitalism
Posted: 5/28/2011 12:04:43 PM
You were operating without a license and got slapped. It doesn't matter that you were licensed in another province. Surely to God even you can understand that.

You had a crony relationship with CIBC. A relationship your competitors didn't have. Who the hell said anything about government? Your relationship with the bank allowed you distort the market.

I know next to nothing about construction financing or mortgage brokerages. The scary thing is that you have done this for 40 hours a week for years and I apparently know more about the legalities of it than you.
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 269
Capitalism
Posted: 5/28/2011 12:19:17 PM

You were operating without a license and got slapped. It doesn't matter that you were licensed in another province. Surely to God even you can understand that
you're a little slow I see, did you miss the part about the " construction financing" and how I undercut the competition. Imagine that I came up with a product/service which save my clients money and I made money, and the only ones that got their panties in a knot was the competition, booo hoooo hoooooo

Sport do you know the meaning of " crony capitalism?"





You had a crony relationship with CIBC. A relationship your competitors didn't have. Who the hell said anything about government? Your relationship with the bank allowed you distort the market.
Now I know you dont know what you're talking about, stick to what you do best ...making outlandish statements like the ones I quoted above. Oh tell me again how I distorted the market? clients saving money.... wow that's a distortion, yeah what's on tap again?




I know next to nothing about construction financing or mortgage brokerages. The scary thing is that you have done this for 40 hours a week for years and I apparently know more about the legalities of it than you.
again you missed my point, which Like I said earlier doesn't surprise me, my special relationship with CIBC isn't special sport, its because at the time I was a top producer, the banks rewards all top producers and top firms with bonus points so we can do things like buy down rates, pay for legal fees, etc, on top of the perks of Free Appraisals so the client doesn't pay for it out of their pockets, the banks set it up, MCAP, Scotia, ING,First National,TD Canada Trust and a few others do the same thing, but CIBC is far the best program and the Clients love it, so If some broker or competition isnt good enough to be up there, that's my fault? pleaseeeeeee

So I should team up with my goddaughter and start a computer software business and compete with Microsoft's etc, and If we cant make it I will run to the DOJ and demand Microsoft to share its profits because we cant make it? what a good idea Halftime dad, you're a genius dude, well done I will notify all business people to do that
 427cammer
Joined: 3/1/2008
Msg: 270
view profile
History
Capitalism
Posted: 5/28/2011 12:55:28 PM

Essentially, reporters and producers of the news (obviously and especially including those with a heavy conservative or liberal slant), have a small collection of "story templates" in their minds, which they forcibly try to make whatever they are reporting about fit into.

I can agree with you on this for the most part.

I've seen you comment recently in another thread about the guy winning a lottery and still collecting foodstamps. Now this would fit your "Thoughtless Peasant Whines About Imagined Mistreatment and Expects a Free Ride From the Rest Of Us" scenario... your comment concerning the piece seemed to imply that this type of thing shouldn't be reported on because politicians would use it as fodder that would make it harder for deserving people to receive foodstamps... I can understand your concerns here to.

I do disagree that this type of thing should not be reported on... the story seemed to be correct and even reported impartially.... is it anyones' fault other than his own (and the government's) that the facts reflect so poorly on him? I disagree with you as well that fixing these types of problems in government ends up being more costly than leaving it alone.

In the different areas I've worked over the years I'm repeatedly amazed at how much wastefulness happens. I've seen a lot of this in big industry and it's not even compareable to what happens in government. While cutting $1 million here or $10 million there is viewed as inconseqential to many, the government has it's fingers in thousands of different pies... pretty soon those cuts could add up to some pretty serious money. The people we elect to represent us are in a large part lawyers, make them write and vote on laws that are going to save taxpayers a million dollars at a time... it's what we pay them for (and all those small cuts in hudreds of different areas would not seem near as drastic or hurtful as major cuts in just 4 or 5 places).

^^^^About ten years ago a largish company wanted me to come subcontract to them on an exclusive basis. They offered me a ten page contract which I disagreed with... I came back with a single handwritten page as a counteroffer (I've got the handwriting of a 9 yr old, so I doubt I come across as very professional). Then they come back with a 12 page contract; this one I took to a lawyer to see if it matched up with my demands. He said it was good; I then asked "what was wrong with my contract?".... nothing, apparently it was legally binding and covered everything they did with much less words. I think it could be a good thing if we demanded of our representitives to Keep It Simple Stupid.

I myself, as a student of communications games, see ALL of the reports as mechanical and flawed.

I generally find you to be more well-rounded and more thoughtful and considerate than many posters here, I think you're being boastful here. What you're essentally saying is "I'm the one who can see ALL the flaws in your thinking. Why don't you think like me?"
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 271
Capitalism
Posted: 5/28/2011 1:13:24 PM
... 2) I was doing the construction financing how do you explain that one genius?

Do you even pay attention to what you type... genius?

My firm did some construction financing in the province of Alberta,where I met my then girlfriend, who was a real estate agent in Calgary Alberta, we provided construction financing for builders My then girlfriend sold the properties, Our rates Prime Plus 1% the average rate for financing was Prime plus 3.5%, and we did a lot of business, I ended up arranging the take out financing as well and for 40% of the buyers I arranged the financing, I used my points I accumulated from sending a lot of my business to a financial Institution called First Line Mortgage which is Owned by C.I.B.C ( Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce) because I had over a million points accumulated I decided to use them as a marketing piece for anyone that bought one of the homes from this builder and took our mortgage their mortgage rate was 5% fixed rate , the going rate at that time was 7.25% if you had excellent credit 8.25% if you barely qualified.

You were operating as an unlicenced mortgage broker... BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION...

... 1) I didn't live in Alberta and was unfamiliar with the laws out there and by the way I was doing financing in Saskatchewan and didnt need the license there, Im not sure if thats the case today ...

So YOU didn't do your homework and got caught with your pants down... And that's the fault of "gov't regulation"...?!? Now THERE is some REAL financial genius at work...

you're a little slow I see, did you miss the part about the " construction financing" and how I undercut the competition.

Your claims of just doing "construction financing" are nothing more than a sham to cover your own bad judgement... An attempt to "squeeze through a loophole" because you got caught by your own bad judgement... See again your OWN ADMISSION that you were acting as an unlicenced mortgage broker...
 Cdn_Iceman
Joined: 12/1/2010
Msg: 272
Capitalism
Posted: 5/28/2011 1:17:44 PM
ho hummm ho hummmmmm Mungo Joe.
so that fact that I was allowed to construction financing as a " UN licensed mortgage broker" says?

Yep a lesson learned in 1995, so I should of fraudulently got a Alberta address , get a license and still undercut most of the mortgage brokers in that city, thanks for the tip, do you have any more tips for me? since you know everything bud.



 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 273
Capitalism
Posted: 5/28/2011 2:09:22 PM

ho hummm ho hummmmmm Mungo Joe.
so that fact that I was allowed to construction financing as a " UN licensed mortgage broker" says?


I would suppose that the quoted fact says much more about the writer than the laws of Alberta...

I would have thought a "financial genius" would know that 'construction finance' lending to property developers is NOT the same thing as a permanent, conventional 'residential mortgage' for purchase of an existing property... Your 'construction financing' was NOT as you try to portray it (as if you were providing a "construction-to-permanent" mortgage to Joe Homeowner who wanted to build one home), THIS quote proves it...

we provided construction financing for builders My then girlfriend sold the properties ... bought one of the homes from this builder and took our mortgage


Imagine that I came up with a product/service which save my clients money and I made money, and the only ones that got their panties in a knot was the competition, booo hoooo hoooooo

Ho-humm, indeed... Clearly another case of someone getting caught with their pants down and turning into a "whiney baby" because their high-priced lawyer couldn't "skate them through" on a long-shot at a loophole... Now it's all about "poor little me" and "righteous indignation" over "gov't regulation" because you got caught...

so I should of fraudulently got a Alberta address , get a license and still undercut most of the mortgage brokers in that city

No... You SHOULD have incorporated in Alberta and acquired the proper licences... but I guess it is easier to act the aggrieved party and whine and cry about "poor little me, trod upon by evil gov't regulators"...
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 274
view profile
History
Capitalism
Posted: 5/28/2011 3:10:47 PM
427cammer: Minor things...

"your comment concerning the piece seemed to imply that this type of thing shouldn't be reported on" ...I did not mean to imply such. I joined in bemoaning that the incident itself would likely result in more, rather than less unpleasantness, owing to the habits of politicians, and the common limited quality of reporting. I actually support LOTS of reporting of pretty much everything, within reasonable limits (such as that I do think SOME things ought to be secret for the sake of the safety of soldiers and such).

re:I myself, as a student of communications games, see ALL of the reports as mechanical and flawed. you"I think you're being boastful here. What you're essentally saying is "I'm the one who can see ALL the flaws in your thinking. Why don't you think like me?"
Not what I intended to put across. Rather I intended that I am suspicious and cautious about reporting, due to having witnessed so many misrepresentations, exaggerations, assumptions, and so forth. I said somewhere else, that seeing through that someone is not telling the truth, doesn't mean one knows what the truth actually IS. I make no claims to superior insight, but I am, I think, better off than anyone who so believes in one favorite source of "news" that they accept what ever is said as described. It's part of my Historians training as well, we are encouraged to keep in mind that pretty much anyone, even those TRYING to be impartial, will have a bit of a slant to what they say happened in a given situation.

In this Capitalist thread, I am still learning lots of things, asking questions, and also putting in cautions here and there, to nudge forward the idea of caution all around. It is NOT my intention at all to say that "everything is really alright as it is," though I imagine it might seem so, when I keep opposing the more extreme-sounding measures some propose.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 275
Capitalism
Posted: 5/28/2011 4:30:53 PM

Show me an article from mainstream media that you think is right-leaning and I'll tell you whether I agree or not.

I could talk at length on this multifaceted and complex subject, but I don't really believe that this is the appropriate thread for media analysis. In light of that, I will say this:

-what media outlets choose NOT to report on betrays even more of their bias than what and how they DO report, but it is much harder to pin down what ISN'T being said

-I recommend that you watch the movie "The Insider." It's very well done and based upon real events.

-search through the ample threads here on media analysis; I'm sure you will find several valid points made in opposition to yours

-last, but not least, follow the $$$
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Capitalism