Posted on 03/29/2008 6:48:20 PM PDT by ovrtaxt
We’ve been over this already, rudeboy.
And also the fact that, in FR, it’s a “no no” to drag matters from thread to thread.
But, I am not the moderator or thread police.
foflol!
Todd must've stepped out. What did you do on that other thread that got you all lathered-up? Didn't you imply that CALPERS purchased no other stock other than Bear Stearns for all of 2007?
Oh, really? When did you learn that? Yesterday?
Didn't you imply that CALPERS purchased no other stock other than Bear Stearns for all of 2007?
Um, no. You all said that when you all were "lathered up" and hyperventilating about what you wished I had said...and then claimed it was what I said...and are now even saying it on yet another thread, unrelated to it (a "no no" in FR. It is AGAINST forum rules to do so).
You’ve been posting on FR long enough to know the forum rules.
Shouldn’t come as a surprise to you. Convenient memory you have, isn’t it? Perhaps I should just call you “LCD” from now on.
It is rather amusing that you claim (now) to be aware of the forum rules. Kinda’ sucks when the shoe is on the other foot, huh?
It is not I who drag matters from thread to thread....unless, of course, you are repeating the exact same thing on multiple threads.
The claims you made against me on the Bear Stearns threads were dragged to this thread because your buddy got reamed on this thread and I *dared* to snicker at how he was bested.
foflol. That is what is MOST amusing.
Believe me, your posting history would demand that we make such presumptions. But we don't have to presume you thought Calpers owned BSC 10 times over, we just have to read your post where you implied it.
That's also very poor grammar, BTW.
No, he implied that Calpers owned billions of shares of BSC and their retirees were going to get hit badly. And he backed it up by posting a shares traded/ commissions report which only showed how much business Calpers gave Bear. LOL
Um, no. A read through of the posts show that YOU all made those statements, I did not.
I stated that Calpers, unless it had divested itself of shares it owned, would be stiffed for those shares due to the Bear Stearns collapse.
That you wish to ascribe to me as having stated the specific loss in dollars or number of shares bought that YOU "went the extra step" and "added up" and stated yourselves, makes it not only YOUR OWN dollar amounts, number of shares, and value of shares, but YOUR OWN presumptions.
Hey, listen. If you want to agree with me to follow the forum rules from this point forward, I’ll gladly oblige. It’s not that difficult to treat people the way they treat you.
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle. LOL.
I can agree with that.
I would also like to state that, in the interests of having honest discussions, if that is the true intent, then making presumptions against another’s statement(s), and restating those presumptions as if they are truthful or factual should not be the modus operandi.
Unless, of course, honesty in discussions in order to determine understandings, to clear up genuine misunderstandings, or engage in actual communication for the purpose of, at least, seeing another’s point of view is not the goal.
I enjoyed your link about the Real Bills Doctrine….thanks for pointing me in that direction. From what I could glean, you’re right, that’s how I conceive of the system in a very general way.
At the same time I agree with your knock about the potential downside of endless expansion (and I suppose higher interest rates would be the main brake). If people don’t have enough substance to their dreams (“instead of rolling up my sleeves and getting some work done for others, I’ll just hop on this real estate bandwagon instead”, for example) — and bankers don’t bring their own value to the table in terms of being responsible and discerning about people’s ability to repay — you get an inflationary bubble where the value doesn’t pan out, followed by a correction when the bill comes due.
But it’s interesting to me, even those mortgages that are “upside down” are far more collateralized with something “real” or “tangible” than loans to businesses. Even under the gold standard, it is the money multiplier (through the cycling at whatever reserve ratio), that appears to do the lion’s share of distributing the risk among people’s good faith in the form of promises to pay.…long odds for a very thin sliver of gold, and a big bet on entrepreneurial value creation.
“But it’s interesting to me, even those mortgages that are “upside down” are far more collateralized with something “real” or “tangible” than loans to businesses.”
Businesses borrow against their merchandise. A car dealer against his inventory, a mine against their production. Business loans are often for something tangible.
The problem is pricing, which varies according to demand and the business cycle. Or the housing cycle. As the business cycle goes up prices go up, and bankers become more lax about lending. Looser lending will drive prices even higher. The cycle feeds on itself until something stops it. Sometimes that ‘something’ is simply the law of large numbers. Trees can’t grow forever, and the business cycle doesn’t just go up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.