Thread: Why I support the 1%

How shocking, more ignorance. Obviously the only way anyone has ever climbed a ladder is by good old fashioned networking. There is absolutely no oppressive financial institution turning us into debt slaves. >.>

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

How shocking, more ignorance. Obviously the only way anyone has ever climbed a ladder is by good old fashioned networking. There is absolutely no oppressive financial institution turning us into debt slaves. >.>

Hey Omnis. There probably is one. I'm not denying that. But you know what? I don't really care. I know which side I intend on being on after all is said and done so I'm okay with it. The lazy protestors could be balancing their check books or reading books on how to invest in assets instead of screaming "unfair!"

When I get burglarized I don't blame myself, I go after the burglar. I may buy a better lock but that's the equivalent of regulating the market.

I don't care for the whole 100% of you.

Originally Posted by Seroquel

I don't care for the whole 100% of you.

You're free to leave the planet.

Interesting. When you said in the Occupy thread, "I support the 1%. I really do.", I thought you were being sarcastic, implying that the debts you're paying are actually supporting the 1%, not you.

Found this gem on the BBC news comments today:

Originally Posted by Hypocritical pleb

No doubt Brandson will outsource British jobs to India the second he gets his hands on this business. More unemployed, more poverty, more money for the rich and misery and suffering for the poor.

Death to capitalism!!

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

When I get burglarized I don't blame myself, I go after the burglar. I may buy a better lock but that's the equivalent of regulating the market.

- Somebody offers to lend you £10,000 for £500 a year.
- You accept.
- A year passes and they ask for their £500.
- HELP I HAS BEEN BURGLED

?

Although Jeff doesn't seem to be arguing for the validity of loans, he also seems to think that

- Running a business in an atrocious manner
- Forcing the populace of the country (by threatening them with forced incarceration) to pay to keep your business in profit via your pocket politicians
- Staying put at taking gigantic sums of said money for your good work

is fine, which is also a crock of shit.

Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer

Interesting. When you said in the Occupy thread, "I support the 1%. I really do.", I thought you were being sarcastic, implying that the debts you're paying are actually supporting the 1%, not you.

No, I was being serious in that thread.

Originally Posted by Xei

Found this gem on the BBC news comments today:




- Somebody offers to lend you £10,000 for £500 a year.
- You accept.
- A year passes and they ask for their £500.
- HELP I HAS BEEN BURGLED

?

Although Jeff doesn't seem to be arguing for the validity of loans, he also seems to think that

- Running a business in an atrocious manner
- Forcing the populace of the country (by threatening them with forced incarceration) to pay to keep your business in profit via your pocket politicians
- Staying put at taking gigantic sums of said money for your good work

is fine, which is also a crock of shit.

My burglar metaphor was about the bail-outs, not just the predatory lending by itself.

Oh good, more stupidity. Jeff, your post has got to be one of the stupidest posts I have ever seen on Dreamviews ED.

The 99% are not upset at those who worked hard and got rich. They are upset over the breakdown of democracy. Why should the 1% get more say in government? Why do the 99% get one vote, but Goldman Sachs can give a senator a few million dollars bribe to get them to vote their way, or pass through a law that they wrote? (They are called "campaign contributions" but we all know what they really are Why should Goldman Sachs be allowed to write laws, specifically designed to make their profits larger, at the expense of the borrowers? Why should Goldman Sachs not be fined billions and have their executives jailed for trashing the EU economy by helping Greece hide over half of it's debt with shifty (illegal) bookkeeping? Why should hundreds of billions of dollars of American taxpayer money be pumped into these banks that are failing due to their own shortsidedness and mistakes that they already made in the 1920s and 1970s?

Maybe you should stop sitting in front of the TV for hours watching fox news and educate yourself on what Occupy actually wants. You did say you support education right? You are no longer credible in political discussions, since you obviously talk before educating yourself, so don't bother with a rebuttal.

And also... aren't you an inheritance brat like me? I seem to remember that you already are the 1%. I am the 1%, standing with the 99%. History will judge you by what you do with your money, not by how much you have.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

My burglar metaphor was about the bail-outs, not just the predatory lending by itself.

In what sense was it 'predatory lending'? How can lending even be predatory? It's the mutually agreed giving of money. -_-

The purpose of businesses who lend is to make a profit. If they couldn't do this they wouldn't be able to exist.

If somebody offers you a large amount of money for an annual fee, that is their prerogative. If you think it's a terrible deal, say no to them. That is your prerogative. If you think it's a good deal, say yes. It's not rocket science, and it's not sinister.

If you later find that you aren't actually able to pay the fee, that is entirely your fault, and you should never have accepted the deal.

And what exactly happens in this circumstance? You go bankrupt, and the lender loses all their money. Again, what do you think is wrong with this; why do you think the lender would desire this?

What happened pre crisis was not predatory lending, it was stupid lending. The debtors were stupid and greedy, and the creditors were completely stupid.

There is nothing morally wrong with the lending itself. The natural outcome should have been that the people in debt who couldn't pay go bankrupt and lose their assets, and those who lent the money lose everything (with the additional outcome that the remaining lenders are less stupid and incompetent).

The thing that was morally wrong is that this did not happen, and instead of the lenders losing their money, they were reimbursed through the general public being forced to pay for them.

If have the sense to agree with this then you are economically right wing, congrats.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Oh good, more stupidity. Jeff, your post has got to be one of the stupidest posts I have ever seen on Dreamviews ED.

The 99% are not upset at those who worked hard and got rich. They are upset over the breakdown of democracy. Why should the 1% get more say in government? Why do the 99% get one vote, but Goldman Sachs can give a senator a few million dollars bribe to get them to vote their way, or pass through a law that they wrote? (They are called "campaign contributions" but we all know what they really are Why should Goldman Sachs be allowed to write laws, specifically designed to make their profits larger, at the expense of the borrowers? Why should Goldman Sachs not be fined billions and have their executives jailed for trashing the EU economy by helping Greece hide over half of it's debt with shifty (illegal) bookkeeping? Why should hundreds of billions of dollars of American taxpayer money be pumped into these banks that are failing due to their own shortsidedness and mistakes that they already made in the 1920s and 1970s?

Maybe you should stop sitting in front of the TV for hours watching fox news and educate yourself on what Occupy actually wants. You did say you support education right? You are no longer credible in political discussions, since you obviously talk before educating yourself, so don't bother with a rebuttal.

And also... aren't you an inheritance brat like me? I seem to remember that you already are the 1%. I am the 1%, standing with the 99%. History will judge you by what you do with your money, not by how much you have.

Well, that's fine Jeff, but that also means you don't get to be mad if the masses storm your home, decapitate you, and parade through the streets with your head on a pike.



Joking aside, I guess you don't really understand the protesters, because most of the people sucked into bullshit pop culture aren't exactly likely to take to the streets in support of a cause.

Originally Posted by Xei

In what sense was it 'predatory lending'? How can lending even be predatory? It's the mutually agreed giving of money. -_-

The purpose of businesses who lend is to make a profit. If they couldn't do this they wouldn't be able to exist.

If somebody offers you a large amount of money for an annual fee, that is their prerogative. If you think it's a terrible deal, say no to them. That is your prerogative. If you think it's a good deal, say yes. It's not rocket science, and it's not sinister.

If you later find that you aren't actually able to pay the fee, that is entirely your fault, and you should never have accepted the deal.

And what exactly happens in this circumstance? You go bankrupt, and the lender loses all their money. Again, what do you think is wrong with this; why do you think the lender would desire this?

What happened pre crisis was not predatory lending, it was stupid lending. The debtors were stupid and greedy, and the creditors were completely stupid.

There is nothing morally wrong with the lending itself. The natural outcome should have been that the people in debt who couldn't pay go bankrupt and lose their assets, and those who lent the money lose everything (with the additional outcome that the remaining lenders are less stupid and incompetent).

The thing that was morally wrong is that this did not happen, and instead of the lenders losing their money, they were reimbursed through the general public being forced to pay for them.

If have the sense to agree with this then you are economically right wing, congrats.

Sounds like your drawing absolute lines around words because I didn't use the same one you would have. Typical.

Predatory Lending is called that because it's done with the expectation that the person receiving the loan will most likely NOT BE ABLE TO PAY FOR IT. You can blame a small percentage of the population for taking on mortgages they obviously couldn't afford but many, many more people had full-time jobs that they were laid off not long after the crisis stuck and it escalated from there. Many people who even paid their mortgages on time every time received foreclosure notices because the banks were basically mass distributing the foreclosures.

If you know the way this country's financial system works you'd know that the worst thing a creditor can do for the economy is give out loans that have less than a 51% likelihood of being paid back. Such behavior is intentional destabilization of the financial structure.

Originally Posted by Seroquel

Do you ever contribute with anything? Ever?

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Predatory Lending is called that because it's done with the expectation that the person receiving the loan will most likely NOT BE ABLE TO PAY FOR IT.

Sorry, why would any bank want to do this?

but many, many more people had full-time jobs that they were laid off not long after the crisis stuck and it escalated from there.

Yes... and they went bankrupt as they should have. What are you saying they should have done, sued historical events for taking them by surprise? This is the risk you take when you take out a loan, and if it doesn't pan out, there is nobody to blame.

Many people who even paid their mortgages on time every time received foreclosure notices because the banks were basically mass distributing the foreclosures.

Which is obviously illegal, the result of unintentional clerical errors, and would never stand in a court of law.

Originally Posted by Xei

In what sense was it 'predatory lending'? How can lending even be predatory? It's the mutually agreed giving of money. -_-

Predatory lending is a term used for when banks loan money to people at interest rates higher than they can afford for necessities like housing. The banks can impose high interest on the poorest people (because they are higher risk.) Lots of Americans have paid back to the banks twice what their house is worth, and are still in debt. The borrowers have no choice, no one can afford a house/car without a loan. Houses aren't necessary, but cars are everywhere except the city. Interest rates are also not always fixed, so you don't always know how much you will actually end up paying back.

Xei, What world are you living in? Could we please limit this thread to all discussion related to Earth?

In answer to your question, the banks sell off the toxic mortgages afterwards so they don't have to deal with it when it falls through. The instituions that bought them had no idea they were toxic.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Predatory lending is a term used for when banks loan money to people at interest rates higher than they can afford for necessities like housing. The banks can impose high interest on the poorest people (because they are higher risk.) Lots of Americans have paid back to the banks twice what their house is worth, and are still in debt. The borrowers have no choice, no one can afford a house/car without a loan. Houses aren't necessary, but cars are everywhere except the city. Interest rates are also not always fixed, so you don't always know how much you will actually end up paying back.

Human rights like decent shelter should be provided by the state.

If you want to upgrade from necessity to luxury, that's your call.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Xei, What world are you living in? Could we please limit this thread to all discussion related to Earth?

In answer to your question, the banks sell off the toxic mortgages afterwards so they don't have to deal with it when it falls through. The instituions that bought them had no idea they were toxic.

And if that was the result of the fabrication of information then the banks have committed a crime and should be sued by those institutions. Your point?

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

If you know the way this country's financial system works you'd know that the worst thing a creditor can do for the economy is give out loans that have less than a 51% likelihood of being paid back. Such behavior is intentional destabilization of the financial structure.

Of course, there's nothing banks love more than a depression.

Originally Posted by XeL

Do you ever contribute with anything? Ever?

I'm too cool to be involved in the bickering of mere mortals like you.

Originally Posted by Xei

Of course, there's nothing banks love more than a depression.

Sounds like we agree, you just don't have all the facts on the issue.

Many of our congressmen, such as Nancy Pelosi, urged people to stay in their homes and refuse to leave because the foreclosure crisis was manufactured. The only reason that the falsely distributed foreclosures story saw the light of day was because people sued over it. What happened to the banks? They handed out some settlements in return for gag orders and the story disappeared.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Sounds like we agree

Unfortunately that was sarcasm.

Depressions are what make banks hit the wall. You are looking for top down causes of patterns when they aren't there and underestimating the ubiquitous power of human stupidity.

The clear picture of the crisis is that nobody knew what the fuck they were doing. The mountainous debt web was so complex that the people running the banks were simply going on the assurances of the financial modellers. The financial modellers in turn were relying on hypothetical mathematical treatments of chaotic systems. The banks kept trading more and more debt simply because it seemed to be making them a fuck tonne of money and they were eager to accept assurances that it was somehow different this time.

When the crisis unfolded they were scared as crap. The ex chancellor of the UK said that many of them were actually despondent. And nobody had any way of knowing what would happen. There could have been a run on the banks and a complete financial meltdown. Nobody had the capacity or the motivation to plan this.