|Survival of the Fittest :))Page 2 of 2 (1, 2)|
|Oh, and The Housing Bubble: ("AMERICAN CASINO" by Leslie****urn is a good place to start,but there's lots more.)|
With the collapse of the money-for-nothing snow-job of the dot-com collapse, investors and savers alike ran to real estate for protection from failing business, creating their own bubble and fortune without creating anything of material value. Financial services exploded in profitability, but the steam began to run out of the market because there were n no more suckers to buy those over-valued homes.
The working poor - the most hard-working people in America - were targeted by the mortgage industry. Why do you think those mortgages were "sub-prime?" Researchers have shown that most of those people targeted in poor neighbourhoods COULD have qualified for prime mortgages with much better terms - terms they could afford!
Of course, not having education or experience in the complex deals they were pushed into, they bought into raw deals. When they were barely able to pay as their payments balooned and their property values inevitably sank, their debt was downrated - though they had missed no payments - and their payments raise again and again. Still, most of them kept paying more and working extra jobs -****urn documents that about 90% of foreclosures came not from job losses but from - drum roll - MEDICAL CATASTROPHE!
What's the proof that the financial industry knew this? They sold Credit Default Swaps, which are bets that people would go bankrupt and default. See THE BIG SHORT by Michael Lewis, in which (as in AMERICAN CASINO) people who placed those bets expressed amazement that the law even allowed them to to it.
Don't be the sucker who blames the victim while being raped by the criminal.
ED "smokin' mad" BEAR
|Survival of the Fittest :))|
Posted: 4/17/2010 6:07:21 AM
|No, Jeffrey, I don't believe in a "nanny state" - but I don't believe in fools whose lives are being ruined by those richer than they dumping their anger on others.|
And the topic of this thread, "Survival of the fittest," as expressed in "Social Darwinism," specifically speaks to the idea that people DESERVE the fate they have, and that people who can't climb over other people are "inferior."
Have none of you ever stopped to think that the ability to take money from other people, or to amass money by any means at all, is the only human value or ability worth rewarding?
Guess what - today's news features US DoJ efforts to prosecute large financial institutions for selling mortgages and derivatives they knew would fail?
Hey, for almost a year, I, too, was saying, "let these greedy idiots go broke." Then the investigative reports began to appear, and the "what the hell happened" books.
These people were TARGETED. Mortgage brokers and homebuilders with inventory on hand literally went door-to-door, telling them they couldn't afford NOT to buy into a bubble. These people had no way to understand what they were being told - not being financial wizzes - but their TV sets were telling them this was their chance for a great future.
If those home values had kept going up - and it is completely impossible for them to have kept going up forever, let alone in an obvious boom caused by flight from productive equity - the sub-prime mortgages they did not have to buy (most could qualify for normal mortgages) they would still have found their payments swelling as the discounted first year or two at artificially low rates was replaced by the real costs, and as interest rates rose from depressed levels. The instruments they were sold were deliberately designed to take their money and their houses.
If Reagan and the first Bush hadn't gutted the anti-trust laws and eliminated the fairness doctrine in media, this could not have happened. If deregulation of derivatives and allowing investment banks to ignore deposit rules had not been permitted, no banks would have been "too big to fail," and those fools would have paid the price of their greed rather than their victims - the US taxpayers. From the thirties to the nineties, mismanaged banks failed and they were sold to other banks. They got what they deserved. And the Financial Services industry did not devour so much of US output that few enterprises could survive their greed.
I was glumly not surprised to see a series of interviews with "Tea Party" demonstrators this week, in which they defended the social services and entitlements THEY received as the government making them save their own money because they wouldn't do it themselves. Somehow, they didn't see this as "nanny state" intervention.
STOP BLAMING THE POOR, and look who's got their vacuum in your bag. Could YOU "bootstrap" yourself if you couldn't read? If a robber's bullet damaged your brain, and he had no assets to sue for? If you had just been thrown out of a polygamous commune so that the richer men could monopolize all the women and their welfare payments? If your father gave you HIV while he raped you? If you had three kids (hardly an excessive number) and a nice house and your husband was killed by a hurricane? If you went broke from frivolous prosecutions? If your business failed because your grandparents' homeland was at war with your country and nobody would do business with you?
People get crappy parents. Most parents are crappy. Most of them had kids because they were too stupid not to.
BY THE WAY: That filmmaker's name is C0C|ED BEAR
|Survival of the Fittest :))|
Posted: 4/18/2010 5:12:03 AM
|No contest, Snotsure... that was hyperbole and I should not have expected everyone to treat it as such. Some of you may be drinking coffee.|
The point was, and is, that kids don't come with an instruction manual; over half of children are, by whatever measures we have, "unplanned," and neither nature nor nurture control our lives any more than the stars do.
There's a reason we have compulsory universal education: people who can't look after themselves are a drag on society. It's an investment in our human capital. It's shortsighted and selfish to try to keep people down to be able to take advantage of them.
Not only don't we know everything it takes to make a "good" human, we can't even agree on what such a person should be like. But we do know that the number of people who refuse to benefit from opportunity is small, particularly among the young, and the full-time leeches of our society take so little compared to its leading successes - some of whom are luck, some hard-working and more than a few crooked.