gaar,

Yes I do. Why?

On Sep 16, 11:53 pm, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So you say...
>
> On Sep 16, 8:56 pm, Hollywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > gaar,
>
> > Sure it is.
>
> > On Sep 16, 8:44 pm, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Asking other's if they wonder is not wondering yourself...
>
> > > Your ignorance notwithstanding.
>
> > > On Sep 16, 3:53 pm, Hollywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > gaar,
>
> > > > You sure wonder about a lot of things.
>
> > > > Dude, your like my idol, my mentor. I learned all this by watching
> > > > you.  ;-)
>
> > > > On Sep 16, 3:38 pm, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > Like I said, you never seem to discuss anything but semantics...
>
> > > > > Anyone wonder why?
>
> > > > > On Sep 16, 7:01 am, Hollywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Gaar,
>
> > > > > > Guess that depends on your definition of the term "almost worthless"
> > > > > > as opposed to maybe "a little bit worthless" or "kinda worthless" or
> > > > > > "greatly reduced in value", etc. etc.
> > > > > > :-)
>
> > > > > > On Sep 16, 8:28 am, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > I hardly think that 80% (20% loss) makes them "almost worthless", 
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > obviously you have a different outlook on it...
>
> > > > > > > Which likely explains your lack of ability to make a cogent 
> > > > > > > argument
> > > > > > > and rather rail on about semantics, that you still can't even get
> > > > > > > right.
>
> > > > > > > On Sep 16, 6:25 am, Hollywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Gaar,
>
> > > > > > > > Your right, Frank should have said "almost worthless". Picky, 
> > > > > > > > picky,
> > > > > > > > picky.
>
> > > > > > > > On Sep 16, 2:10 am, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Falling 20, 30 or even 50% does NOT make them "Worthless".
>
> > > > > > > > > That was YOUR word, right?
>
> > > > > > > > > On Sep 16, 12:05 am, Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > You are such a dodo Gaar. Why are the banks in trouble? 
> > > > > > > > > > Because of sub-
> > > > > > > > > > prime defaults and the devaluation in property values that 
> > > > > > > > > > NO longer
> > > > > > > > > > cover the amounts borrowed from the banks. Property prices 
> > > > > > > > > > have fallen
> > > > > > > > > > by up to 20% in some ares and will continue to fall as a 
> > > > > > > > > > glut of
> > > > > > > > > > property comes onto the market pushing down values further. 
> > > > > > > > > > That's why
> > > > > > > > > > they don't know the value of the bundled security packages, 
> > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > they consist of defaulted properties and those that have 
> > > > > > > > > > fallen in
> > > > > > > > > > value. The banks sell the property and still loose money.
>
> > > > > > > > > > There is already hundreds of thousands of homes the banks 
> > > > > > > > > > can't shift
> > > > > > > > > > that have defaulted as well as new properties that buyers 
> > > > > > > > > > can't be
> > > > > > > > > > found for, putting more downward pressure on prices. The 
> > > > > > > > > > IMF expects
> > > > > > > > > > property prices to fall by up 30%
>
> > > > > > > > > > Today's lesson over.
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Sep 16, 4:53 pm, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Worthless?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > You understand that Mortgages are "Backed" by the very 
> > > > > > > > > > > property they
> > > > > > > > > > > are Financing, right?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Someone is going to get some Properties at some Fire Sale 
> > > > > > > > > > > prices...
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 15, 11:44 pm, Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > More US corporate bailouts on the way
> > > > > > > > > > > > By Barry Grey
> > > > > > > > > > > > 16 September 2008
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > The US government, brushing aside its constant 
> > > > > > > > > > > > invocations of “private
> > > > > > > > > > > > enterprise,” has dispensed hundreds of billions of 
> > > > > > > > > > > > dollars in cheap
> > > > > > > > > > > > loans to prop up the banks. Last March, the Federal 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Reserve Board paid
> > > > > > > > > > > > JP Morgan Chase $29 billion to take over the investment 
> > > > > > > > > > > > bank Bear
> > > > > > > > > > > > Stearns when Bear was on the verge of declaring 
> > > > > > > > > > > > bankruptcy.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Only a week ago, the US Treasury committed at least 
> > > > > > > > > > > > $200 billion in
> > > > > > > > > > > > taxpayer funds in the government takeover of Fannie Mae 
> > > > > > > > > > > > and Freddie Mac
> > > > > > > > > > > > —a move that makes the government responsible for the 
> > > > > > > > > > > > two companies’
> > > > > > > > > > > > combined $5.3 trillion in mortgage liabilities.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > The claims that the government, in allowing Lehman 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Brothers to
> > > > > > > > > > > > collapse, has “drawn the line” on further taxpayer 
> > > > > > > > > > > > bailouts of failing
> > > > > > > > > > > > corporations are false. The government decided to let 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Lehman fail, in
> > > > > > > > > > > > part, to conserve the dwindling funds at the disposal 
> > > > > > > > > > > > of the Federal
> > > > > > > > > > > > Reserve and calibrate hand-outs from the Treasury—which 
> > > > > > > > > > > > faces record
> > > > > > > > > > > > budget and trade deficits and a soaring national 
> > > > > > > > > > > > debt—to be used to
> > > > > > > > > > > > rescue more strategic companies.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > The Fed has reportedly agreed to widen its bailout of 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Wall Street by
> > > > > > > > > > > > accepting, in return for low-cost loans to both 
> > > > > > > > > > > > commercial and
> > > > > > > > > > > > investment banks, even more dubious forms of 
> > > > > > > > > > > > collateral, including
> > > > > > > > > > > > shares of stock whose value has collapsed and 
> > > > > > > > > > > > mortgage-backed
> > > > > > > > > > > > securities that can be sold on the market only for 
> > > > > > > > > > > > pennies on the
> > > > > > > > > > > > dollar.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > There are growing calls on Wall Street and in the 
> > > > > > > > > > > > financial press for
> > > > > > > > > > > > the government to directly buy the near-worthless 
> > > > > > > > > > > > subprime mortgage-
> > > > > > > > > > > > backed securities and other collapsing credit 
> > > > > > > > > > > > instruments that are
> > > > > > > > > > > > undermining the balance sheets of major financial 
> > > > > > > > > > > > companies. With the
> > > > > > > > > > > > government takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—which 
> > > > > > > > > > > > was sanctioned
> > > > > > > > > > > > in advance by the Democratic Congress—the legal and 
> > > > > > > > > > > > structural
> > > > > > > > > > > > framework is in place for this wholesale government 
> > > > > > > > > > > > bailout of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > banking system.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to