Corporate vs Social Welfare

[JK]

FWIW -

To better understand the influence and application of real political power, one need only examine the handling of recent corporate and social concerns within our society.

Specifically, social programs like Social Security, Medicare, Public Education, and Municipal Infrastructure are debated and discussed regarding issues of future costs, spending, and solvency.

Likewise, corporate concerns and issues receive similar political lobbying.

Whereas, impending social welfare problems take generations to create and resolve, corporate ability to tap into our public treasury sometimes only takes days. From the Savings & Loans debacle, to the Resolution Trust meltdown, to today's Sub-Prime (!?) meltdown, Hundred$ of Billion$ get allocated at the drop of a hat with little public understanding, or involvement.

In summary, when it comes to saving your Corporate or Social "bacon," political power choses Corporate Welfare each and every time. :hug

J.K. :wow

[kreinke]

No offense to airline pilots or the airline industry.....
But after Sept 11th we had that huge 40b buyout of the airlines...many of which went bankrupt anyway.

It always infuriated me that the airlines were saying "we aren't making money" when all four Sept 11th planes were barely filled to 1/3 capacity. In other worde we had airports and a crowded sky full of mostly empty planes.

Trucking companies pay for very little of highway damage they cause (a majority is paid for by our license fees and gas taxes on passenger cars.

Then the politicians (both parties) have the audacity to slam Amtrak because it's not self supporting.

[JK]

So hows does this sudden (actually, not so sudden) meltdown affect me, the BMW Rider?

The answer is immediately!

As we all know, BMW cars and motorcycles are status symbols. Those that can afford and appreciate the best, aspire to own and drive these ultimate examples of fine German design and engineering.

That being said, as a group, the wealth of our MOA membership is well invested. From Pensions, Personal IRAs, to 401Ks, to Real Estate, and to Stocks and Bonds, these intelligent investments seem diversified and represent a high level of affluence.

Unfortunately, recent events question the safety of our investment vehicles, and the Companies that control them.

From CitiBank, to Fidelity, to StateStreet, to Vanguard, JP Morgan, to WellsFargo, to State Farm, Brokerages/Banks/Insurance Companies have grossly VIOLATED their own internal controls over asset allocation and investment.

For example, you think your assest are safely invested in a Mutual Fund that deals with Strategic Metals. What you don't know is that the assets in that Mutal Fund are also being used as COLLATERAL to LEVERAGE the Parent Company of that Fund's trading position on the Gobal Commodities Market. When those leveraged positions unravel, and go south, the value of YOUR ASSETS now are at risk.

Put another way, as more and more dominos fail and fall, the impending global liquidity crises hurts MOA members the most.

In short, those with the most have the most to lose.

In summary, it's all about risk management and being well informed. :dunno


J.K. :wow

P.S. When Bush says someone is doing a good job (Bernanke), it's time to get scared. :banghead

[JK]

No offense to airline pilots or the airline industry.....
But after Sept 11th we had that huge 40b buyout of the airlines...many of which went bankrupt anyway.

It always infuriated me that the airlines were saying "we aren't making money" when all four Sept 11th planes were barely filled to 1/3 capacity. In other worde we had airports and a crowded sky full of mostly empty planes.

Trucking companies pay for very little of highway damage they cause (a majority is paid for by our license fees and gas taxes on passenger cars.

Then the politicians (both parties) have the audacity to slam Amtrak because it's not self supporting.


Hi Kreinke -

Actually, after 9/11, US Airlines were forced to absorb the ENTIRE cost of Homeland Security screenings and other associated Federal mandates. Even though a pool of money was made available, by the Feds, to borrow, the Airlines found those terms too arduous to accept. Coupled with the drop in ridership, this one-two punch caused US International Airlines US Air/UAL/DAL/NWA to seek Chapter 11 protection. Only AMR and CAL escaped the ensuing meltdown, and just barely.

In short, unfunded Federal mandates are not "fun," whether in Education or in Aviation. :brad

J.K. :wow

P.S. Now subsides are another business. Just ask ADM.:lurk

[hlothery]

Throw the hook, guys and gals........throw the hook.

[kreinke]

Hi Kreinke -

Actually, after 9/11, US Airlines were forced to absorb the ENTIRE cost of Homeland Security screenings and other associated Federal mandates. Even though a pool of money was made available, by the Feds, to borrow, the Airlines found those terms too arduous to accept. Coupled with the drop in ridership, this one-two punch caused US International Airlines US Air/UAL/DAL/NWA to seek Chapter 11 protection. Only AMR and CAL escaped the ensuing meltdown, and just barely.

In short, unfunded Federal mandates are not "fun," whether in Education or in Aviation. :brad

J.K. :wow

P.S. Now subsides are another business. Just ask ADM.:lurk
The screenings were something they should have been doing in the first place.
Regardless of what the Patriot Act brings to the table, regardless of the TSA and everything else.

If the guys at the screening gates had done their jobs none of this would have happened.

[SIBUD]

Throw the hook, guys and gals........throw the hook.

You get a line, I'll get a pole, we will go fishing at the crawdad hole. :whistle

[rocketman]

You get a line, I'll get a pole, we will go fishing at the crawdad hole. :whistle

sorry guys but....


http://www.victorystore.com/signs/property_management/images/nofishing-1.gif

RM

[JK]

The screenings were something they should have been doing in the first place.
Regardless of what the Patriot Act brings to the table, regardless of the TSA and everything else.

If the guys at the screening gates had done their jobs none of this would have happened.

Sadly, all 9/11 terrorists were properly screened. Small pocket knives, and box cutters, were not prohibited items, at the time. To assert, or imply, airport screeners failed to do their job is absolutely, and categorically, UNTRUE, per Final Report from the 9/11 Commission.

Even preventing today's prohibitive items, from entering the airport area, is no guarantee to prevent future hijackings.

For instance, airport perimeter fences and terminal ramp areas are not adequately secured from a determined terrorist sapper team. Federal Air Marshalls (FAMs) are too easily identified within the terminal area, and can be disarmed and disabled. Large corporate aircraft offer another means of easily delivering an explosive message. Even improvised weapons and binary explosives (hydrogen peroxide/acetone mixture) can be assembled, once pass security.

Fortunately, common sense tends to prevail when addressing these security issues and concerns. :whistle

J.K. :wow

[tourunigo]

Fortunately, common sense tends to prevail when addressing these security issues and concerns. :whistle

J.K. :wow

"Common sense ain't all that common" -Will Rogers

[Oldhway]

You get a line, I'll get a pole, we will go fishing at the crawdad hole. :whistle


Hey bud, you think we can get a round going?

You get a line, I'll get a pole, we will go fishing at the crawdad hole


You get a line, I'll get a pole, we will go fishing at the crawdad hole


You get a line, I'll get a pole, we will go fishing at the crawdad hole



You get a line, I'll get a pole, we will go fishing at the crawdad hole


Y'er best harmony her boys and girls, we're gonna do it Accapella (means with our hats on in latin, I'm sure of it.):dance

[GregFeeler]

sorry guys but....


http://www.victorystore.com/signs/property_management/images/nofishing-1.gif

RM


Exactly. :nono

[SIBUD]

Hey bud, you think we can get a round going?

You get a line, I'll get a pole, we will go fishing at the crawdad hole


You get a line, I'll get a pole, we will go fishing at the crawdad hole


You get a line, I'll get a pole, we will go fishing at the crawdad hole



You get a line, I'll get a pole, we will go fishing at the crawdad hole


Y'er best harmony her boys and girls, we're gonna do it Accapella (means with our hats on in latin, I'm sure of it.):dance


Now that song will be in my head for the next few days. But I did enjoy the harmony. :dance

[rocketman]

Now that song will be in my head for the next few days. But I did enjoy the harmony. :dance

and these guys can sing the refrain :D

http://www.hjemkomst-center.com/store/trolls.jpg

RM

[bobh41]

but I'm trying to figure out how many moderators are allocated per thread:

Throw the hook, guys and gals........throw the hook.
__________________
Hugh Lothery
San Antonio, Tx

You get a line, I'll get a pole, we will go fishing at the crawdad hole.
__________________
Bud Meade, Southern Illinois
1997 R1100 RT - Red

sorry guys but....

(graphic deleted for efficiency; “NOTICE NO FISHING ALLOWED”)


RM
__________________
Jeffry L'H. Tank 'Prof'l Pumpkin Sitter'


Y'er best harmony her boys and girls, we're gonna do it Accapella (means with our hats on in latin, I'm sure of it.)
__________________
Steve


Exactly.
__________________
Greg Feeler - BMW MOA Ambassador, Board member, & dog catcher





JK makes some interesting points here, and while I know he plays the provocateur at times - is there no way these issues can't be discussed somewhere on this website?

I don't seek to draw your wrath - I'm not a fighter, but if you don't want to engage couldn't you have the decency to simply withdraw from the forum rather than deny those who might have an interest and who have the capacity to respond with respect, decency and maybe even some measure of intelligence?

Would it be possible to create a thread by subscription only in which the condition for entry is that you observe simple conversational protocols - as in "face-to-face", where you don't slap someone because you don't care for the gist of the dialog?

--and where you're not afraid to encounter unconventional, or new, or complex ideas?

Couldn't we be about just a little more than puttin' around on our scoots?

Is this too difficult a question to pose here?

Respectfully, Bob

[JK]

but I'm trying to figure out how many moderators are allocated per thread:

Throw the hook, guys and gals........throw the hook.
__________________
Hugh Lothery
San Antonio, Tx

You get a line, I'll get a pole, we will go fishing at the crawdad hole.
__________________
Bud Meade, Southern Illinois
1997 R1100 RT - Red

sorry guys but....

(graphic deleted for efficiency; “NOTICE NO FISHING ALLOWED”)


RM
__________________
Jeffry L'H. Tank 'Prof'l Pumpkin Sitter'


Y'er best harmony her boys and girls, we're gonna do it Accapella (means with our hats on in latin, I'm sure of it.)
__________________
Steve


Exactly.
__________________
Greg Feeler - BMW MOA Ambassador, Board member, & dog catcher





JK makes some interesting points here, and while I know he plays the provocateur at times - is there no way these issues can't be discussed somewhere on this website?

I don't seek to draw your wrath - I'm not a fighter, but if you don't want to engage couldn't you have the decency to simply withdraw from the forum rather than deny those who might have an interest and who have the capacity to respond with respect, decency and maybe even some measure of intelligence?

Would it be possible to create a thread by subscription only in which the condition for entry is that you observe simple conversational protocols - as in "face-to-face", where you don't slap someone because you don't care for the gist of the dialog?

--and where you're not afraid to encounter unconventional, or new, or complex ideas?

Couldn't we be about just a little more than puttin' around on our scoots?

Is this too difficult a question to pose here?

Respectfully, Bob

Hey Bobby -

There's a juvenile element on this Forum, for sure.

It's kinda like my old girlfriend, you know. Not saying that she was underage, but every once in a while, when I did get back from a long trip, she just couldn't wait to show me how much taller she'd grown.

Simply said, in time, everybody tends to grow up. Unfortunately, some just take longer than others. And that's why they invented ice-fishing. :1drink

Thanks for the kind words of reason, though....


J.K. :wow

[rocketman]

but I'm trying to figure out how many moderators are allocated per thread:

Throw the hook, guys and gals........throw the hook.
__________________
Hugh Lothery
San Antonio, Tx

You get a line, I'll get a pole, we will go fishing at the crawdad hole.
__________________
Bud Meade, Southern Illinois
1997 R1100 RT - Red

sorry guys but....

(graphic deleted for efficiency; “NOTICE NO FISHING ALLOWED”)


RM
__________________
Jeffry L'H. Tank 'Prof'l Pumpkin Sitter'


Y'er best harmony her boys and girls, we're gonna do it Accapella (means with our hats on in latin, I'm sure of it.)
__________________
Steve


Exactly.
__________________
Greg Feeler - BMW MOA Ambassador, Board member, & dog catcher





JK makes some interesting points here, and while I know he plays the provocateur at times - is there no way these issues can't be discussed somewhere on this website?

I don't seek to draw your wrath - I'm not a fighter, but if you don't want to engage couldn't you have the decency to simply withdraw from the forum rather than deny those who might have an interest and who have the capacity to respond with respect, decency and maybe even some measure of intelligence?

Would it be possible to create a thread by subscription only in which the condition for entry is that you observe simple conversational protocols - as in "face-to-face", where you don't slap someone because you don't care for the gist of the dialog?

--and where you're not afraid to encounter unconventional, or new, or complex ideas?

Couldn't we be about just a little more than puttin' around on our scoots?

Is this too difficult a question to pose here?

Respectfully, Bob

If you’ve been keeping up with some of the threads that came out of the squashing of our first attempt at such a thread then you should know that this has been discussed and that there is a group that is working on writing up a proposal for another attempt at something along those lines. Unfortunately DGT failed due to several factors, one them being that it was, quite frankly, poorly conceived and implemented and became a sounding board for a few to espouse their personal views under the guise of trying to “inform”.

As to the problem that some have with this thread was pretty much answered by your own statement above to wit “while I know he plays the provocateur at times” which in the view of some falls under the “no fishing (trolling)” rule currently in place. No one here is acting as a moderator, rather just making a statement that they feel this thread is outside those currently stated rules. And keep in mind that political, social, religious or other such commentary is outside the original intent under which these forums were set up. People don’t come here to be “provoked” and it would seem that many, myself included, don’t come here looking to be informed of current events, politics or other such dogma, nor do I come here to be categorized and be told that because I do such and such, I do it for reason x, y or z. I’m pretty such most of us here can find, explore and reach our own collusions on such topics as included above. Also it would seem that many of us come here to get away from that for a while and simply relax and enjoy the camaraderie of other BMW owners and talk about such things as relates to that experience. As to the sign I posted, why I posted it should be obvious and I choose that route rather than some other in the hopes it would be more light hearted attempt at commentary, as JK himself as quite often done, so if that is being "childish" well then I guess I not the only one guilty of such, am I?:scratch

As to the proposition of having folks who join a certain area agree to adhere to a given set of rules, that is fact already in place for ALL areas of this forum, read the sticky at the top of any forum area as you will see them, yet there are some who simply feel the need to step outside those bounds regardless. So I have to wonder if they would be any more willing to adhere to any other set of rules? Understand though that is just my personal opinion and that doesn’t mean I am totally against the idea of such a new area being setup, once the proposal is presented it will be evaluated on its merits by the entire moderation team and others who run these boards. But until that time the rules stand as they are now
http://www.victorystore.com/signs/property_management/images/nofishing-1.gif

so I suspect that any thread that attempt to push those currently stated rules will meet the same fate as any such others.

Jeffry L’H. Tank

[SIBUD]

but I'm trying to figure out how many moderators are allocated per thread:

Throw the hook, guys and gals........throw the hook.
__________________
Hugh Lothery
San Antonio, Tx

You get a line, I'll get a pole, we will go fishing at the crawdad hole.
__________________
Bud Meade, Southern Illinois
1997 R1100 RT - Red

sorry guys but....

(graphic deleted for efficiency; “NOTICE NO FISHING ALLOWED”)


RM
__________________
Jeffry L'H. Tank 'Prof'l Pumpkin Sitter'


Y'er best harmony her boys and girls, we're gonna do it Accapella (means with our hats on in latin, I'm sure of it.)
__________________
Steve


Exactly.
__________________
Greg Feeler - BMW MOA Ambassador, Board member, & dog catcher





JK makes some interesting points here, and while I know he plays the provocateur at times - is there no way these issues can't be discussed somewhere on this website?

I don't seek to draw your wrath - I'm not a fighter, but if you don't want to engage couldn't you have the decency to simply withdraw from the forum rather than deny those who might have an interest and who have the capacity to respond with respect, decency and maybe even some measure of intelligence?

Would it be possible to create a thread by subscription only in which the condition for entry is that you observe simple conversational protocols - as in "face-to-face", where you don't slap someone because you don't care for the gist of the dialog?

--and where you're not afraid to encounter unconventional, or new, or complex ideas?

Couldn't we be about just a little more than puttin' around on our scoots?

Is this too difficult a question to pose here?

Respectfully, Bob

Bob,

Not too difficult for me. Since I'm one of the ones you quoted, I feel it fair to reply to the concern you expressed. It really boils down to what is considered political.

Here are the guidelines:

Banned topics or topics that lead to flame wars?

As winter sets in and snow gathers round our trusty steeds conversations naturally start to wander. As we look out the window and see snow and sleet instead of sun the frustrations of not riding often set in. Over the years (and many winters) we’ve pretty much been able to identify some things that inevitably start flame wars, breed ill will, and just in general make people act in ways they’d never have believed themselves capable (and yes, that is meant in the bad way.) Below are a few of these topics – if you feel compelled to debate them, there are plenty of places to do it on the Internet. In other words, don’t do it here.

1. Religion and abortion
2. Politics
3. Handguns

Emphasis added

While I happen to agree with the OP 100%, this still appears to be a political, though not a partisan , issue.

So if you define statements political only when you are talking about one party or candidate i.e. Bush is an idiot or Hillary is a monster or Obama is only on the ballot because he is black, then this thread would not be political.


Regards.

[bobh41]

of existing policy. And I understand there are many fora for political action on the net. But please consider this; at least in my experience, most of them fall very far outside the realm of person-to-person real knowledge and experience. We are treated to lofty, high-minded theory on one end of the spectrum and virulent, angry, unreasoned ranting on the other end.

It's not often (again IMO) that we are exposed to deep, first-person accounts of information and experiences that come from our own cohort. In the present case, JK appears to have insider knowledge of public security, airline protocol, military practice, etc. that I feel trumps the carefully edited, PC, and legally safe rhetoric that comes with grand public media. One doesn't have to do battle with that, or even take it on face. The importance is that we all have exposure to these specific issues, sometimes on our two-wheeled adventures, sometimes not. We have common ground with JK in many ways, so we have some basis for evaluating his rhetoric. Can you say that about most of the talking heads that disseminate information that is so important to our daily lives? I claim, in the main, no.

I have years of airline experience in information technology, and can assure you that things are not always as they are represented in the public media. Stuff happens that you wish did not, and maybe you don't want to hear about - but are commonplace within the industry. I for one prefer to get it from the source, if possible. My assertion is that is the case here, and I value it.

I'm not trying to defend JK, specifically, but I would stand for his freedom to speak his mind, and the opportunity to hear it, or anybody else here capable of presenting a coherent idea or experience. As to whether this is the appropriate forum, is it possible the members could decide that, rather than an arbitrary policy position? So far, in this thread, the number of opinions appear to prefer to repress this kind of exchange on the basis "it might get out of control".

I ask that you examine this position on the basis of your obvious ability to clearly enunciate your defense of the existing policy. Are you able to see that a reasoned, careful and perhaps complex dialog among friends is an amazing and worthwhile achievement? Yes, it can be problematic, but - how safe must it really be here?

Thanks for the hearing...

Bob

[Oldhway]

of existing policy. And I understand there are many fora for political action on the net. But please consider this; at least in my experience, most of them fall very far outside the realm of person-to-person real knowledge and experience. We are treated to lofty, high-minded theory on one end of the spectrum and virulent, angry, unreasoned ranting on the other end.

It's not often (again IMO) that we are exposed to deep, first-person accounts of information and experiences that come from our own cohort. In the present case, JK appears to have insider knowledge of public security, airline protocol, military practice, etc. that I feel trumps the carefully edited, PC, and legally safe rhetoric that comes with grand public media. One doesn't have to do battle with that, or even take it on face. The importance is that we all have exposure to these specific issues, sometimes on our two-wheeled adventures, sometimes not. We have common ground with JK in many ways, so we have some basis for evaluating his rhetoric. Can you say that about most of the talking heads that disseminate information that is so important to our daily lives? I claim, in the main, no.

I have years of airline experience in information technology, and can assure you that things are not always as they are represented in the public media. Stuff happens that you wish did not, and maybe you don't want to hear about - but are commonplace within the industry. I for one prefer to get it from the source, if possible. My assertion is that is the case here, and I value it.

I'm not trying to defend JK, specifically, but I would stand for his freedom to speak his mind, and the opportunity to hear it, or anybody else here capable of presenting a coherent idea or experience. As to whether this is the appropriate forum, is it possible the members could decide that, rather than an arbitrary policy position? So far, in this thread, the number of opinions appear to prefer to repress this kind of exchange on the basis "it might get out of control".

I ask that you examine this position on the basis of your obvious ability to clearly enunciate your defense of the existing policy. Are you able to see that a reasoned, careful and perhaps complex dialog among friends is an amazing and worthwhile achievement? Yes, it can be problematic, but - how safe must it really be here?

Thanks for the hearing...

Bob

Bob, I agree that a forum of the type you describe would be an asset to the MOA website. That is why I am part of the group working up a proposal to do just that. I have no problem with JK's statement, just that he made it here. I would love to be involved in a discussion about this sort of thing but, and it's a big but, until the forum rules change, the post is outside the guidelines.

By repeatedly posting about political issues, it makes it that much tougher for those of us who are trying to propose a forum where that is acceptable. So if being patient and working within the guidelines makes me childish as JK implied but did not specifically say(there are folks who toe the line really well, I'm un-impredssed), so be it, I'll own that.

I'll tell you what I'd like to see. The offer has been made several times for anyone who would like to see a forum allowing this type of discussion to contact me by PM and join the proposal process. We are hoping to have a final draft of the proposal submitted some time next week but would still welcome additional input. That offer still stands. If JK really wants to discuss this type of thing, it would have been great if he had joined the process. In stead he has started a series of threads which are borderline political, but loosely tied to a BMW motorcycle connection, and waited to see what happened. It's similiar to the way my kids would deal with rules they didn't like (not to imply it's childish, I can walk the line too).

So the reaction you saw here was based on that history. I would love to have the discussion JK originally posted. I would love to have it within acceptable Forum guidelines. The more threads like this one before the proposal is brought to the table, the less likely it is that it will ever be accepted.

Now how'd that go.... oh yeah, I remember...

You get a line, I'll get a pole, we'll go trollin', eh, fishin' in the crawdad hole..

Everybody sing :dance :dance :dance :dance ....

[SIBUD]

of existing policy. And I understand there are many fora for political action on the net. But please consider this; at least in my experience, most of them fall very far outside the realm of person-to-person real knowledge and experience. We are treated to lofty, high-minded theory on one end of the spectrum and virulent, angry, unreasoned ranting on the other end.

It's not often (again IMO) that we are exposed to deep, first-person accounts of information and experiences that come from our own cohort. In the present case, JK appears to have insider knowledge of public security, airline protocol, military practice, etc. that I feel trumps the carefully edited, PC, and legally safe rhetoric that comes with grand public media. One doesn't have to do battle with that, or even take it on face. The importance is that we all have exposure to these specific issues, sometimes on our two-wheeled adventures, sometimes not. We have common ground with JK in many ways, so we have some basis for evaluating his rhetoric. Can you say that about most of the talking heads that disseminate information that is so important to our daily lives? I claim, in the main, no.

I have years of airline experience in information technology, and can assure you that things are not always as they are represented in the public media. Stuff happens that you wish did not, and maybe you don't want to hear about - but are commonplace within the industry. I for one prefer to get it from the source, if possible. My assertion is that is the case here, and I value it.

I'm not trying to defend JK, specifically, but I would stand for his freedom to speak his mind, and the opportunity to hear it, or anybody else here capable of presenting a coherent idea or experience. As to whether this is the appropriate forum, is it possible the members could decide that, rather than an arbitrary policy position? So far, in this thread, the number of opinions appear to prefer to repress this kind of exchange on the basis "it might get out of control".

I ask that you examine this position on the basis of your obvious ability to clearly enunciate your defense of the existing policy. Are you able to see that a reasoned, careful and perhaps complex dialog among friends is an amazing and worthwhile achievement? Yes, it can be problematic, but - how safe must it really be here?

Thanks for the hearing...

Bob

I agree whole heartedly with your first paragraph and that is why I don't listen to talk radio.

I've found that the members here are, for the most part, intelligent, thoughtful, multi-faceted individuals with a broad range of knowledge and experience. Folks who are fun to be around and who would help anyone, without hesitation. Make you a good next door neighbor.

You only have to read JK's response to another member who is struggling with a terminally ill family member to appreciate his concern for others. There is a lot of what he posts that I find mirrors my own way of looking at the world. My only reservation is that we are in the middle of a changing situation here on the forum with the demise of DGT. Some members are trying to work withing the existing structure to have something like that back on the forum and have asked others to either join them in the process or refrain from political posts in the interim.

I also have had experience where the actual events and the media reports could not have been more incongruent. Those instances makes one suspect of all media reports, both liberal and conservative.

By nature, I am an optimist. I think that in a few months we will look back at this time in forum history and wonder what was the big deal.

I would also like to thank you for raising the issue in a respectful manor. It helps to build a sense of community of members can ask legitimate questions. I also happen to be wrong about a lot of things so these questions help refine my judgement.

Hope to meet you on the road.

Regards

[bobh41]

This is the finest forum I've discovered on the Internet; there's a tremendous lot of noise in this medium since it evolved from DARPA. I'm not happy with some of the quarreling and nitpicking that takes place here - it just seems so hopeless, but I appreciate the many exchanges of help, interest and support. I hope the MOA and this forum continue to grow in quality and effectiveness.

I suspect the social consciousness represented here is way on the high side of the curve, and for sure that's a blessing to all. I look forward to your resolution of the protocol issues.

Bob

[rocketman]

This is the finest forum I've discovered on the Internet; there's a tremendous lot of noise in this medium since it evolved from DARPA. I'm not happy with some of the quarreling and nitpicking that takes place here - it just seems so hopeless, but I appreciate the many exchanges of help, interest and support. I hope the MOA and this forum continue to grow in quality and effectiveness.

I suspect the social consciousness represented here is way on the high side of the curve, and for sure that's a blessing to all. I look forward to your resolution of the protocol issues.

Bob

Ha Ha!I hear that, and to think they originally thought there "might be" as many as 50 sites connected on the system, mostly university and gov. site to share data! Ha Ha! Funny how we think of the Web and the Internet as one when in fact the Web is a fairly new part of the whole. I was lucky enough to be on the net before the web even existed, scouring the Gofer, Archie and FTP sites for data was a real PITA, but tons of fun. Real time data was pertty much unknown, you'd have send a request to Gofer sit and then scan the returned data for what you were looking for and chances were you'd wind up downloading a whole lot a data before finding what you really wanted! I'd be up half the night connecting to Europe during the "quiet" hours on my 1200 modem Ha Ha!


RM

[JK]

FWIW -

Here's a clear, concise, and compelling discourse, from today's WSJ, that explains the Fed's bailout of Bear Sterns, and its wider implications:


J.K. :wow

++++++++++++


For those of you who wonder why the deal went for $2.00, let me explain…

Bear was worth nothing, absolutely NADA!!! The reason that the Fed and treasury went in was due to the legal implications to the entire world banking system and markets had Bear entered into bankruptcy court.

Of little explained or known consequence to many were the implications of a bankruptcy filing on the various securitized trusts Bear and it’s minor child, EMC Mortgage, were servicing and securitizing. Bear had double and triple pledged notes to various trusts.

Cash flows from EMC’s business model were not allowing excess cash to cover the investor advances of principal and interest that were necessary to keep the securitizations alive. Has there been a bankruptcy filing, Bear’s Books and it’s dealings with ALL it’s partners and counterparites and those it serviced and sold mortgages to, would have publicly opened up their books for inspection.

There would have been an attack on the “true sale” issue and some would have claimed that these assets were financed receivables, and not true sales, and as such they should rightfully come back on Bear’s balance sheet to be split up amongst creditors!

This would have wrought panic across financial markets since it could have been the death knell of the MBS/ABS markets and would have collapsed the world financial system.

This is the real story that needs to be properly investigated and told. ENRON was a carbon copy of what Bear and others were doing. They created digits out of paper [promissory notes] and created a new financial market with little regulation or oversight.

This lack of regulation led to this collapse. For a better understanding, search on net for a report “predbear.pdf” that will explain a lot. Combine this with greed and you have a map and recipe for disaster. Look at Lehman and Credit Suiise for problems next.

In the meantime, if you own a home with a mortgage, GET YOUR ORIGINAL PROMISSORY NOTE BACK AFTER PAYOFF OR REFINANCING STAMPED “CANCELLED & PAID IN FULL” or else under the holder-in-due course theory, a foreign investor can come back and collect if they had no knowledge of the fraud and your note was sold to them and not returned to you. Unfortunately, that is the law of the land!

Comment by Nye Lavalle Of Pew Mortgage Institute - March 16, 2008 at 9:55 pm

:bow

[535is]

Am I the only one completely mystified (not to mention embarrassed, since my bachelor's degree does say "Political Science" on it) about what in flying hell has been deemed 'political' here? :huh

Talk about overstepping boundaries ... :rolleyes

[WildBlue]

Please tell me, why this is not locked and Doghoused?

[535is]

Please tell me, why this is not locked and Doghoused?

Maybe because it shouldn't be? :scratch

[Visian]

Please tell me, why this is not locked and Doghoused?

see that little blue box in the lower left-hand corner of every post?

click on that to report objectionable posts to the moderator.

this is the most effective way to keep the spirit of the forum where it should be.

ian

[WildBlue]

Maybe because it shouldn't be? :scratch

Explain further, perhaps you can sway my opinion. After all I am open minded, so long as a reasonable argument is presented.

see that little blue box in the lower left-hand corner of every post?

click on that to report objectionable posts to the moderator.

this is the most effective way to keep the spirit of the forum where it should be.

ian

Oh, I did... believe me.

[Mika]

Am I the only one completely mystified (not to mention embarrassed, since my bachelor's degree does say "Political Science" on it) about what in flying hell has been deemed 'political' here? :huh

Talk about overstepping boundaries ... :rolleyes

I too have a multi major bachelors with a couple branches of "Political Science" contained in it. Talked about this when I took economics.

[JK]

I too have a multi major bachelors with a couple branches of "Political Science" contained in it. Talked about this when I took economics.

Hi M1ka -

As I previously disclosed, Banks/Brokerages/Insurance Companies have recently made it a practice to "pledge" the same assets to collateralize numerous separate trading positions. Because the global markets, and their derivatives, are not regulated, these traders can successfully "leverage" the size of their Market plays.

For example, with less than 5% down, an investment need only move 1/2% for the trader to capture a 10% return on his investment/trading position. By employing Artificial Intelligence (A/I) computer trading programs, to manage and execute these trading strategies, profiting from these Markets has become a "no brainer."

Unfortunately, major Market disruptions and illiquidities are not factored into most computer trading models.

Consequently, the entire multi-Billion dollar equity of a venerable firm, like Bear Sterns, can be wiped out when these over-leverage trading positions unravel.

Finally, why do these disclosures benefit MOA Riders? :scratch

With pension funds, IRA's, 401Ks, and investments in securities at stake, this sort of knowledge is imperative for the successful management of our investment portfolio. :thumb

In summary, I started this thread PRIOR to the collapse and bail-out of Bear Sterns. Needless to say, my discription of impending Market dynamics has proven to be both timely and prophetic. :type

For those without the knowlege and intelligence to appreciate the subject matter of this thread, let them remain clueless. For those that can express insight and opinions, let them profit from the experience of debate and discussion. :ear


FWIW

J.K. :wow

[Mika]

Turn on the rev limiter JK, it was a hijack observation. 535is revealed a growing sore point for many of us that seriously studied within the field of political science. We tend to cringe, or at least I do, when it is casually used like a four letter word and taken in vain.
:D


As to the core topic at hand; I find it very interesting and complex. I have been following a number of financial issues viewed through the lens of a motorcycle helmet for some time. The difficulty in the discussion is the linking of issues such as the Bear Sterns sale and the need to come up with a solution to the mortgage crisis in this thread and other analysis I have read, for example. The ability of the Fed in dealing with either is drastically different. The rules for commercial and investment banks have been drastically different. To my eye it does not serve the reader to link them. Both issues are to important on their own.


Finally, a closing hijack: In person and on the air I have heard a number of former staffers for President Clinton express a frustration in understanding him as a man. On one level they all saw him as a brilliant man with seemingly infinite possibilities, who at the same time had an incredible capacity to self destruct. I am reminded of these observations due to a recurring pattern I see in your posts. You engage the reader in some cleaver way, cogently make your case, then throw gasoline and a match into the entire mix at the close. I will not second guess your style beyond suggesting it does not help move the drive to develop an area where things such as this can be discussed on the BMW MOA Forum.

As you say, FWIW

Mika

[JK]

Finally, a closing hijack: In person and on the air I have heard a number of former staffers for President Clinton express a frustration in understanding him as a man. On one level they all saw him as a brilliant man with seemingly infinite possibilities, who at the same time had an incredible capacity to self destruct. I am reminded of these observations due to a recurring pattern I see in your posts. You engage the reader in some cleaver way, cogently make your case, then throw gasoline and a match into the entire mix at the close. I will not second guess your style beyond suggesting it does not help move the drive to develop an area where things such as this can be discussed on the BMW MOA Forum.

As you say, FWIW

Mika

A tennis buddy of mine, Jeff Cole, was Mary Elizabeth Gore's (code named, "Nut Meg") assigned Secret Service Agent during their first term. Laconic to say the least, Jeff did reveal that he liked everybody, except Hilliary.

"Nut Meg's" moniker was due to her bi-polar nature and prosac "poop-out." Jeff said that Al was a heart of gold guy, who's primary worries were the mental state of his wife, and that of his son, who suffered a brain injury after being hit by a car.

To paraphrase Jeff, "if you knew Hilliary, you wouldn't blame Bill."

By the end of the second term, the two couples didn't get along. Personally, Al felt that Bill's lack of support directly cost him the Presidency.


J.K. :wow

P.S. These days, Jeff does Cheney, when he comes West.

[sjbmw]

"P.S. These days, Jeff does Cheney, when he comes West."

Don't get our hopes up OK?:nyah

[glennhendricks]

One question that comes up for me is wondering if this is the end of deregulation begun under Reagan? Many of the investment instruments that have led to the recent credit crunch, BS failure and other problems can be laid at the feet of Reagan. Most of those instruments wouldn't have been allowed in 1980 (from what I understand, I am not an economist or a financial guy).

Would the 'stated income' loans have been available in 1982? Heck, I remember how the S&L collapse impacted the Denver area back in the day and that was right out of the deregulation gate.

SO, if indeed the current financial crisis is the logical end result of deregulation will the pendulum return?:dunno

[JK]

One question that comes up for me is wondering if this is the end of deregulation begun under Reagan? Many of the investment instruments that have led to the recent credit crunch, BS failure and other problems can be laid at the feet of Reagan. Most of those instruments wouldn't have been allowed in 1980 (from what I understand, I am not an economist or a financial guy).

Would the 'stated income' loans have been available in 1982? Heck, I remember how the S&L collapse impacted the Denver area back in the day and that was right out of the deregulation gate.

SO, if indeed the current financial crisis is the logical end result of deregulation will the pendulum return?:dunno


Glenn -

It's more a matter of business morals and ethics, than it's a matter of government oversight and regulation. My daughter's a CPA for D&T, and even the audit and "blessing" of corporate books has become a dark and dangerous game.

When a US Military powerhouse like Haliburton can successfully move "off shore," and not lose its TOP SECRET and above contracts and clearances, then there's something definitely rotten in Denmark.

FWIW

J.K. :wow

P.S. Not a pendulum, it's actually more like Dionysius and the Sword of Damocles. (Hair today, gone tomorrow....)

Also, Neil Bush and Silverado's manipulation...

[sjbmw]

One question that comes up for me is wondering if this is the end of deregulation begun under Reagan? Many of the investment instruments that have led to the recent credit crunch, BS failure and other problems can be laid at the feet of Reagan. Most of those instruments wouldn't have been allowed in 1980 (from what I understand, I am not an economist or a financial guy).

Would the 'stated income' loans have been available in 1982? Heck, I remember how the S&L collapse impacted the Denver area back in the day and that was right out of the deregulation gate.

SO, if indeed the current financial crisis is the logical end result of deregulation will the pendulum return?:dunno

This is the mantra those in government will spread through the media. Those evil capitalists.

The true culprit, is the existence of a PRIVATE central bank itself. 12 unelected guys, that work for stockholders that are not the American people, that dictate the interest rates of our economy, and are supposed to predict what the combined goals of 300 million people are, on a quaterly basis.

When they guess wrong, booms and busts happen. They have guessed wrong at least twice a decade, since 1913. Sometimes with devastating results. The last bad guesser was Alan Greenspan, in 2001, and that created the mortgage bubble.
Cheap money creates malinvestment. Ben Bernanke is now trying to guess us out of a bigger hole, based on Greenspan's last bad guess.

The reason we have problems this large is that the free market is NOT in control.
If the free market set interest rates, through a honest monetary policy, the only fluctuations would be sector driven, as a result of supply demand economics in a particular sector.

Many do not realize that the Federal Reserve Bank is as Federal as Federal Express, and was born out of bribery and corruption. It's stock holders are not publicly known. But it rules our nation.



"Let me control a nations' money supply, and I care not who makes it's laws" Amschell Rothschild - 1832.

[535is]

Maybe because it shouldn't be?
Explain further, perhaps you can sway my opinion. After all I am open minded, so long as a reasonable argument is presented.
I'm still waiting for someone to explain why it should be ... and I asked first.

see that little blue box in the lower left-hand corner of every post?

click on that to report objectionable posts to the moderator.

this is the most effective way to keep the spirit of the forum where it should be.
Oh, I did... believe me.
So the moderator is aware of your objection. Maybe he, too, is as mystified as I am why anyone thinks this is a politics, rather than economics, discussion. Let me put it this way: I don't know a whole lot about economics, but I do know a lot about politics - and this sure ain't politics.

[Visian]

...this sure ain't politics.

no, he probably thinks it's more like sharp sticks in his eye....

[OfficerImpersonator]

Looks to me like the only trolling going on in this thread are those trolling messages along the lines of "no trolling in the forum".

If you have a relevant comment to make that's on topic, make it.

If you're only posting to say the thread is verbotten, you're trolling.

If you don't like what's on TV, change the channel. If you don't like what's on a thread, find another one more to your liking.

I thought the phrase 'Net Nanny' described software you could put on your computer to protect your children from online porn. I didn't realize it was a term that could be applied to an entire subsection of BMWMOA forum participants.

[WildBlue]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why it should be ... and I asked first.

I must have missed your question. Let me re-read.

So the moderator is aware of your objection. Maybe he, too, is as mystified as I am why anyone thinks this is a politics, rather than economics, discussion. Let me put it this way: I don't know a whole lot about economics, but I do know a lot about politics - and this sure ain't politics.

Honestly, I could care less about whats allowed versus what isnt. :scratch

My only concern is that if a standard should be set, it should be enforced. Perhaps thats the Military in me.:dunno

My interpretation of the thread was political. But then we all know how the internet works, dont we? :p

If you, having a political degree, amongst others are willing to vouch for its lack of political inference, then I suppose that is good enough for me. Even if Politics and Economics (in my mind anyway) are very closely related.

As for the trolling comment; I, being referred to as said troller, have to disagree and my statements above should prove that.

[OfficerImpersonator]

I have double degree - political science and economics - so perhaps I'm qualified to answer.

It's both political and economic - which is the case with macroeconomic policy decisions such as the level of government support private enterprise receives.

The gist of the thread is what level of political support is there for what level of governmental economic involvement/investment in an otherwise free market.

In other words, a macroeconomic policy is arrived at through the political process. So - can we talk about that or not?

[JK]

The reason we have problems this large is that the free market is NOT in control.
If the free market set interest rates, through a honest monetary policy, the only fluctuations would be sector driven, as a result of supply demand economics in a particular sector.

Many do not realize that the Federal Reserve Bank is as Federal as Federal Express, and was born out of bribery and corruption. It's stock holders are not publicly known. But it rules our nation.

"Let me control a nations' money supply, and I care not who makes it's laws" Amschell Rothschild - 1832.

Well said, Herb -

As I stated at the start of this thread, social issues take decades and generations to debate and resolve. While Corporate issues merely take days, as with the Federal Reserve/Bear Sterns bail-out.

Sadly, today the state of our CREDIT Supply greatly out weighs the influence of our Nation's Money Supply. Japan's effective interest rate has been near zero, ever since their system melted down in the early 80s. To keep our economy from imploding, our rates may bottom out there, too.

Finally, even after a 3/4 point drop in our Federal Discount rate (from 3% to 2.25%), the Market went south, today. Put another way, the interest rate was reduced nearly 25% and it barely stemmed the tide.

By Friday, expect the melt-down to accelerate. :type


J.K. :wow

[OfficerImpersonator]

Well said, Herb -

As I stated at the start of this thread, social issues take decades and generations to debate and resolve. While Corporate issues merely take days, as with the Federal Reserve/Bear Sterns bail-out.

Sadly, today the state of our CREDIT Supply greatly out weighs the influence of our Nation's Money Supply. Japan's effective interest rate has been near zero, ever since their system melted down in the early 80s. To keep our economy from imploding, our rates may bottom out there, too.

Finally, even after a 3/4 point drop in our Federal Discount rate (from 3% to 2.25%), the Market went south, today. Put another way, the interest rate was reduced nearly 25% and it barely stemmed the tide.

By Friday, expect the melt-down to accelerate. :type

J.K. :wow

Now is a good time to buy into the U.S. stock market.

[bobh41]

It's also not a bad idea to hang on to that 5% CD you may have.

[535is]

I have double degree - political science and economics - so perhaps I'm qualified to answer.

... and equally qualified to pump gas! ;)

[Mika]

I have double degree - political science and economics - so perhaps I'm qualified to answer.

It's both political and economic - which is the case with macroeconomic policy decisions such as the level of government support private enterprise receives.

The gist of the thread is what level of political support is there for what level of governmental economic involvement/investment in an otherwise free market.

In other words, a macroeconomic policy is arrived at through the political process. So - can we talk about that or not?

I up your double major with a triple. Double in Political Science and a third in Communications and yes I have run a gas station :D

Government does not automatically equate to a political process.

The creation of the Fed was a political process to create a hybrid administrative organization within the government. Once created it ceased to be a direct part of the political process and moved into the netherworld of administrative law.

Macro economic policy has political implications, but in and of itself it is of the realm of economists and business types. We talk about business all the time around here. So I don’t see why we couldn’t talk about it. However; stay with the economic issues.

[JK]

I up your double major with a triple. Double in Political Science and a third in Communications and yes I have run a gas station :D

Government does not automatically equate to a political process.

The creation of the Fed was a political process to create a hybrid administrative organization within the government. Once created it ceased to be a direct part of the political process and moved into the netherworld of administrative law.

Macro economic policy has political implications, but in and of itself it is of the realm of economists and business types. We talk about business all the time around here. So I don’t see why we couldn’t talk about it. However; stay with the economic issues.

Having flown numerous mid level Foggy Bottom types, on overseas diplomatic missions, I've found most of them to be arrogant, condescending, and pretentious. When looking for the cause of the ugly American sterotype, our diplomatic corps/corpse is a good place to start.

IMHO

J.K. :wow

P.S. Having twice lived in NJ, it's possible to break the habit of pumping your own gas.