USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Obama 7 - now what?
- Thread starter joecct
- Start date
- Status
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
Hooray for accounting!
Hooray for accounting!
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
No, but honestly. "Cap & Trade" boils down to a new tax on manufacturers (pollution), right? We're not taxing Chinese manufacturers if we enact this, obviously, but our own good ol' U.S. of A. manufacturers. Advantage: China. How is this not clear cut? How will it disadvantage China economically? (Leaving the stress level of the polar bears and Mother Earth- and AlGore-worship aside, which is another argument altogether).
Now I realize conservatives tend to favor what's good for China over what's good for America, but on this issue maybe you guys can root for the home team for once.
No, but honestly. "Cap & Trade" boils down to a new tax on manufacturers (pollution), right? We're not taxing Chinese manufacturers if we enact this, obviously, but our own good ol' U.S. of A. manufacturers. Advantage: China. How is this not clear cut? How will it disadvantage China economically? (Leaving the stress level of the polar bears and Mother Earth- and AlGore-worship aside, which is another argument altogether).
walrus
Wind up workin' in a gas station
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
George Soros must be one of those conservatives you're refering to
. Now I realize conservatives tend to favor what's good for China over what's good for America, but on this issue maybe you guys can root for the home team for once.
George Soros must be one of those conservatives you're refering to
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
Not necessarily. It provides a tax credit to manufacturers IF they can produce their goods more environmentally friendly. The notion that everybody suddenly pays a 20% tax is as far fetched as Sarah Palin talking about death panels in the health care bill. It has no basis in reality. Europe has this in place I believe and last time I checked Germany was the second biggest exporter of goods in the world, so clearly its not killing their economy.
At some point manufacturing needs to be done with less pollution. Forget about Al Gore, polar bears and the like. US manufacturing can't compete on labor costs, so it has to compete by using resources more efficiently. Generally this helps businesses, as they discover that recycling raw materials for example is actually more cost effective in the long run. Going back to industrial revolution standards isn't going to help any, and on the flip side, the Clean Water and Clean Air acts of the 70's didn't seem to dampen the boom economies of the 80's and 90's any.
Not necessarily. It provides a tax credit to manufacturers IF they can produce their goods more environmentally friendly. The notion that everybody suddenly pays a 20% tax is as far fetched as Sarah Palin talking about death panels in the health care bill. It has no basis in reality. Europe has this in place I believe and last time I checked Germany was the second biggest exporter of goods in the world, so clearly its not killing their economy.
At some point manufacturing needs to be done with less pollution. Forget about Al Gore, polar bears and the like. US manufacturing can't compete on labor costs, so it has to compete by using resources more efficiently. Generally this helps businesses, as they discover that recycling raw materials for example is actually more cost effective in the long run. Going back to industrial revolution standards isn't going to help any, and on the flip side, the Clean Water and Clean Air acts of the 70's didn't seem to dampen the boom economies of the 80's and 90's any.
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
Even coming from that viewpoint, I still think you're full of it. Running a business in a more environmentally friendly way has economic costs, not benefits. It's a price that I wish we were more willing to pay, and more willing to force our companies to pay, but it's disingenuous to paint it as a benefit. Companies know a heck of a lot more about their processes and markets than the politicians who are regulating them - it's not as if the politicians are going to suddenly discover new methods that the companies never thought of before. "Eureka" is a word you almost never hear from government. The green technologies that government mandates today were already invented by industry yesterday; if those technologies were more efficient and cost effective, no mandate would be needed to force their adoption.
In my high school senior yearbook in 1990, in the little questionnaire they asked us, my response to "What is the biggest challenge facing the US?" I answered, "Getting companies to care about the environment."
Even coming from that viewpoint, I still think you're full of it. Running a business in a more environmentally friendly way has economic costs, not benefits. It's a price that I wish we were more willing to pay, and more willing to force our companies to pay, but it's disingenuous to paint it as a benefit. Companies know a heck of a lot more about their processes and markets than the politicians who are regulating them - it's not as if the politicians are going to suddenly discover new methods that the companies never thought of before. "Eureka" is a word you almost never hear from government. The green technologies that government mandates today were already invented by industry yesterday; if those technologies were more efficient and cost effective, no mandate would be needed to force their adoption.
As compared to what? How do you know the booms wouldn't have been TWICE as good without those acts?
rufus
rock and roller
walrus
Wind up workin' in a gas station
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
Wall street will be all over trading carbon credits, their is money to be made on that
I haven't heard Obama saying cap and trade is the way to get away from foreign oil. In that way I could get on board.
Wall street will be all over trading carbon credits, their is money to be made on that
I haven't heard Obama saying cap and trade is the way to get away from foreign oil. In that way I could get on board.
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
Not even Republicans know what Republicans stand for. They are the party of the Big, floppy, saran wrap & mirrors Tent.
Not even Republicans know what Republicans stand for. They are the party of the Big, floppy, saran wrap & mirrors Tent.
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
When you find the switch that we can miraculously flip and be independent of Saudi oil and Chinese financing, you let us know.
And Germany is in the process of exempting its most energy-intensive industries from cap-and-trade. Why? BECAUSE THEY ARE WORRIED THAT THOSE INDUSTRIES WILL RELOCATE TO OTHER COUNTRIES:
When you find the switch that we can miraculously flip and be independent of Saudi oil and Chinese financing, you let us know.
And Germany is in the process of exempting its most energy-intensive industries from cap-and-trade. Why? BECAUSE THEY ARE WORRIED THAT THOSE INDUSTRIES WILL RELOCATE TO OTHER COUNTRIES:
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
The dollar does not move based on international love for a president. It does move based on the desire for US assets. The dollar slipped through the Bush administration as world growth took off and the US stagnated.
The dollar gained strength up and to March because of concern about the crisis...where foriegners crowded into the US dollar as a perceived bastion of safety. The dollar has weakened again as the world is looking safer. The below exchange rate link will follow the stock market as that reflects the flight to safety or to risk and the subsequent impact on the exchange rate (note this is the euro growing at the expense of the dollar):
The longer term chart shows a strengthening of the US dollar during the 90s under Clinton and a longer term weakening under Bush. Foriegners are voting with their money...and under Bush, there was less interest in dollar assets:
Boy what is it with the anger here? Its a message board for opinions. I pretty much ignore those who can't have a civil conversation...looks like Plante...and those that have nothing constructive to add..ie Handy.
The dollar does not move based on international love for a president. It does move based on the desire for US assets. The dollar slipped through the Bush administration as world growth took off and the US stagnated.
The dollar gained strength up and to March because of concern about the crisis...where foriegners crowded into the US dollar as a perceived bastion of safety. The dollar has weakened again as the world is looking safer. The below exchange rate link will follow the stock market as that reflects the flight to safety or to risk and the subsequent impact on the exchange rate (note this is the euro growing at the expense of the dollar):
The longer term chart shows a strengthening of the US dollar during the 90s under Clinton and a longer term weakening under Bush. Foriegners are voting with their money...and under Bush, there was less interest in dollar assets:
Boy what is it with the anger here? Its a message board for opinions. I pretty much ignore those who can't have a civil conversation...looks like Plante...and those that have nothing constructive to add..ie Handy.
Last edited:
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
Um you're rewriting history. If I remember correctly it was the ABA (bankers association) and Freddie/Fannie CEO who pushed for increasing the cap on the loans they could make. And the morons in congress and President Bush And Clinton in 2000 thought it was a great idea to make housing "affordable".
It was clear the bankers were protecting their butts in 2004-06, since they did a 180degree turn from 2000? when they were complaining about Fan/fre having unfair advantage with lower borrowing cost and suddenly they were lobbying congress to increase the loans these companies could make from $200k to $400k. And the Fannie/Freddie guys had no growth since they were locked out of the overpriced housing market with the cap so they were pushing congress to increase the limit and what they could insure/buy supposedly to "support" and make housing "affordable".
Blame goes - Regulators (Federal Reserve and whoever was watching) - Bankers/loaners (and experts testifiying to congress) - Congress (President) for being paid shills and mouthing "affordability" as the house price went higher and higher.
Um you're rewriting history. If I remember correctly it was the ABA (bankers association) and Freddie/Fannie CEO who pushed for increasing the cap on the loans they could make. And the morons in congress and President Bush And Clinton in 2000 thought it was a great idea to make housing "affordable".
It was clear the bankers were protecting their butts in 2004-06, since they did a 180degree turn from 2000? when they were complaining about Fan/fre having unfair advantage with lower borrowing cost and suddenly they were lobbying congress to increase the loans these companies could make from $200k to $400k. And the Fannie/Freddie guys had no growth since they were locked out of the overpriced housing market with the cap so they were pushing congress to increase the limit and what they could insure/buy supposedly to "support" and make housing "affordable".
Blame goes - Regulators (Federal Reserve and whoever was watching) - Bankers/loaners (and experts testifiying to congress) - Congress (President) for being paid shills and mouthing "affordability" as the house price went higher and higher.
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
I enjoy intelligent debate, not your empty rhetoric and asinine assumptions. But again, you're speaking in very vague terms. Let me explain.
If the weak dollar is Bush's fault, please explain the policies that he enacted that caused this--with data to back your arguments--because I can't find anything out there that suggests that foreign investors pulled money out of the US economy due to the Bush Administration's policies. Investors that are wealthy and saavy enough to be investing in foreign nations aren't very smart if they're investing based on emotion and not on the numbers alone. You'd be hard pressed to find enough emotionally-convicted foreign investors "voting with their money" to cause a severe decline in the dollar. I can tell you why the dollar dropped against the Euro during the Bush years:
The dollar was cheap to borrow--interest rates were at all-time lows for much of the Bush Administration. These rates stayed relatively low for several reasons, first and foremost being the housing boom. This was a grave error on the part of Greenspan & Co. at the Federal Reserve as it drove more and more people into the housing market and into loans that they couldn't afford at the terms offered, and when the Bush Administration tried to intervene in the Fannie/Freddie debacle, they were stonewalled by Barney Frank and a number of other far-left Democrats. Thus the root cause of why we're in this mess in the first place.
You also conveniently posted a chart that doesn't continue through the present. If you had, you'd notice that the dollar reached its all-time low vs. the Euro on Oct 26th. But again, that's Bush's fault, right? No, here's why: Investors are pulling their money out of the US economy due to the massive amount of debt that the Obama Administration and fellow Democrats are racking up. You didn't hear China yelping at the Bush Administration about the national debt.....but I've seen numerous headlines about Obama's poeple having to quell Chinese concern about the runaway national debt. Bush's lack of a veto pen started this horrible trend, and now Obama & Co. have--in one year--racked up a budget deficit that tripled Bush's last year in office. Looking at the numbers, a 300% increase in the annual budget deficit would be reason enough for investors to get the F out of Dollartown.
Finally, I'll address your lack of basic knowledge concerning economic theory. Since March 2002, the 10 year US Treasury yield had dropped from a high of 5.02% down to a low of 2.15% on 1/15/09. The stimulus bill was signed shortly thereafter in February. Since then, yields have risen nearly 60% to 3.63%--which will happen when you spend nearly a trillion dollars in money you don't have. A higher treasury yields signal less demand for the dollar. So, from 2002 until January 2009, the dollar was strong regardless of the comparison vs. the Euro. Since spending was kicked into overdrive, we've been paying more and more in interest on the outstanding debt--debt which hasn't done what the Obama Administration said it would, which is creating jobs.
Please 5mn......I beg you.....base your next argument on things that actually "happened" as opposed to things concocted by your Bush-deranged failed sense of reason.
The dollar does not move based on international love for a president. It does move based on the desire for US assets. The dollar slipped through the Bush administration as world growth took off and the US languashed.
The dollar gained strength up and to March because of concern about the crisis...where foriegners crowded into the US dollar as a perceived bastion of safety. The dollar has weakened again as the world is looking safer. The below exchange rate link will follow the stock market as that reflects the flight to safety or to risk and the subsequent impact on the exchange rate (note this is the euro growing at the expense of the dollar):
The longer term chart shows a strengthening of the US dollar during the 90s under Clinton and a longer term weakening under Bush. Foriegners are voting with their money...and under Bush, there was less interest in dollar assets:
Boy what is it with the anger here? Its a message board for opinions. I pretty much ignore those who can't have a civil conversation...looks like Plante...and those that have nothing constructive to add..ie Handy.
I enjoy intelligent debate, not your empty rhetoric and asinine assumptions. But again, you're speaking in very vague terms. Let me explain.
If the weak dollar is Bush's fault, please explain the policies that he enacted that caused this--with data to back your arguments--because I can't find anything out there that suggests that foreign investors pulled money out of the US economy due to the Bush Administration's policies. Investors that are wealthy and saavy enough to be investing in foreign nations aren't very smart if they're investing based on emotion and not on the numbers alone. You'd be hard pressed to find enough emotionally-convicted foreign investors "voting with their money" to cause a severe decline in the dollar. I can tell you why the dollar dropped against the Euro during the Bush years:
The dollar was cheap to borrow--interest rates were at all-time lows for much of the Bush Administration. These rates stayed relatively low for several reasons, first and foremost being the housing boom. This was a grave error on the part of Greenspan & Co. at the Federal Reserve as it drove more and more people into the housing market and into loans that they couldn't afford at the terms offered, and when the Bush Administration tried to intervene in the Fannie/Freddie debacle, they were stonewalled by Barney Frank and a number of other far-left Democrats. Thus the root cause of why we're in this mess in the first place.
You also conveniently posted a chart that doesn't continue through the present. If you had, you'd notice that the dollar reached its all-time low vs. the Euro on Oct 26th. But again, that's Bush's fault, right? No, here's why: Investors are pulling their money out of the US economy due to the massive amount of debt that the Obama Administration and fellow Democrats are racking up. You didn't hear China yelping at the Bush Administration about the national debt.....but I've seen numerous headlines about Obama's poeple having to quell Chinese concern about the runaway national debt. Bush's lack of a veto pen started this horrible trend, and now Obama & Co. have--in one year--racked up a budget deficit that tripled Bush's last year in office. Looking at the numbers, a 300% increase in the annual budget deficit would be reason enough for investors to get the F out of Dollartown.
Finally, I'll address your lack of basic knowledge concerning economic theory. Since March 2002, the 10 year US Treasury yield had dropped from a high of 5.02% down to a low of 2.15% on 1/15/09. The stimulus bill was signed shortly thereafter in February. Since then, yields have risen nearly 60% to 3.63%--which will happen when you spend nearly a trillion dollars in money you don't have. A higher treasury yields signal less demand for the dollar. So, from 2002 until January 2009, the dollar was strong regardless of the comparison vs. the Euro. Since spending was kicked into overdrive, we've been paying more and more in interest on the outstanding debt--debt which hasn't done what the Obama Administration said it would, which is creating jobs.
Please 5mn......I beg you.....base your next argument on things that actually "happened" as opposed to things concocted by your Bush-deranged failed sense of reason.
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
Yeah EU argument is kinda weak since Germany is #1 or was it #2 in solar panles with subsidy for solar companies, set electric prices for powerplants, homeowners to put up solar panels. it was on NOVA where German farmers were going from raising crop to putting up solar panels because they could make more money doing it. And most western EU countries are fairly energy efficient with high energy taxes and conservation/renewable energy.
We need to get more efficient before we join cap/trade. And to get efficient we need to raise energy prices and have stable prices for renewables... I never could understand how we can afford to subsidy oil companies and corn farmers but not renewable.
Yeah EU argument is kinda weak since Germany is #1 or was it #2 in solar panles with subsidy for solar companies, set electric prices for powerplants, homeowners to put up solar panels. it was on NOVA where German farmers were going from raising crop to putting up solar panels because they could make more money doing it. And most western EU countries are fairly energy efficient with high energy taxes and conservation/renewable energy.
We need to get more efficient before we join cap/trade. And to get efficient we need to raise energy prices and have stable prices for renewables... I never could understand how we can afford to subsidy oil companies and corn farmers but not renewable.
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
The amount of the Fannie/Freddie mortgages was never the issue. The people they were making them to was the issue, and this only became an issue when the powers that be at Fannie/Freddie decided to loosen their underwriting criteria. Two behemoth companies started edging into previously non-conforming loans with previously non-conforming borrowers at lower interest rates than the mortgage lenders could offer.
Aside from the fact that the government shouldn't be playing banker with taxpayer money, the companies didn't have to turn a profit due to their government-backing (much like the proposed "public option" in the health care bill).
The amount of the Fannie/Freddie mortgages was never the issue. The people they were making them to was the issue, and this only became an issue when the powers that be at Fannie/Freddie decided to loosen their underwriting criteria. Two behemoth companies started edging into previously non-conforming loans with previously non-conforming borrowers at lower interest rates than the mortgage lenders could offer.
Aside from the fact that the government shouldn't be playing banker with taxpayer money, the companies didn't have to turn a profit due to their government-backing (much like the proposed "public option" in the health care bill).
Slap Shot
I got nothing
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
Bingo. The government opened up their options but no one forced the lenders to offer loans to high risk buyers.
Bingo. The government opened up their options but no one forced the lenders to offer loans to high risk buyers.
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
It would be a violation of Fair Lending Laws if someone wants to apply for a loan, and you turn them down because you, as a banker, don't think they are creditworthy. You have to take the application REGARDLESS. I took loan applications from people who had no income and multiple bankruptcies, and even though I pretty much KNEW it was a huge waste of time, I, as a loan officer, can't make that call. Underwriting can. And in the case of mortgages, it's up to Fannie/Freddie's regulators to determine that. To refuse someone a loan application would be guaranteeing a lawsuit of epic proportions.....especially when you consider the potential racial aspects of those loan applicants. Sure, some lenders may have targeted certain demographics with their marketing campaigns, but you can't force someone to submit a loan application.....or sign the final mortgage docs, for that matter.
It would be a violation of Fair Lending Laws if someone wants to apply for a loan, and you turn them down because you, as a banker, don't think they are creditworthy. You have to take the application REGARDLESS. I took loan applications from people who had no income and multiple bankruptcies, and even though I pretty much KNEW it was a huge waste of time, I, as a loan officer, can't make that call. Underwriting can. And in the case of mortgages, it's up to Fannie/Freddie's regulators to determine that. To refuse someone a loan application would be guaranteeing a lawsuit of epic proportions.....especially when you consider the potential racial aspects of those loan applicants. Sure, some lenders may have targeted certain demographics with their marketing campaigns, but you can't force someone to submit a loan application.....or sign the final mortgage docs, for that matter.
Last edited:
Re: Obama 7 - now what?
I'm not sure what you're talking about. The biggest issue was the amount of loans they could write/buy. If congress didn't increase the limit, they couldn't have gotten into trouble.
The culprit was the mortgage innovation by mortgage companies and the "risk shift" using derivatives and CDS (insurance).
I wondered how we never had inflation with 20%/yr rise in house prices.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. The biggest issue was the amount of loans they could write/buy. If congress didn't increase the limit, they couldn't have gotten into trouble.
The culprit was the mortgage innovation by mortgage companies and the "risk shift" using derivatives and CDS (insurance).
I wondered how we never had inflation with 20%/yr rise in house prices.
- Status