flipper:

This administration has knocked it down a notch or two but I figure
plain statistics say not everyone can be a crook.

This is true. That's my argument against the leftists that accuse nasty
multinationals, the CIA & the like of the worst conspirations. I even
retaliate with "if you think that there is people able to do similar
horrors it means that you yourself would be willing to do the same".

But in this case we are talking about people doing shady business.
Shady because they they are buying something that does not have a real
market value (unless you are doing auctions, but even in this case, given
the low number of participants, they could form a cartel) from a seller
that is not interested in getting as much money from the deal as possible
(I mean, money that goes to the Government, not kickbacks).

And most of those are living in Europe snicker (Not really but it makes
me feel better.)

Very likely.

I used to have a theory, borrowed from physics, that I called
"conservation of insanity," meaning if you think things are going well
'here' then things are equally bad 'there' and vice versa.

Sorry, my English is very rusty. Cah you please rephrase?

It's true that some nets, like railways, make little sense nowadays, but
I'd like to get running water and electricity. When those networks will
collapse, Government will be forced to step in.

Well, my experience has been that government is worse than the
exploiting 'well connected investors'.

From a global perspective it's true, but from the point of view of the
network is not, for exactly the same reason: if there is a maintenance
problem the State will pour money to fix the problem (by taking money out
taxpayer pockets thus causing a global problem), while the private
investor, that does not have a practically infinite pile of money to spill,
will do nothing. And, as you know, the cost of "skipped maintenance",
depending on the type of network, may grow exponentially.

The no ask, no down, deferred interest loans were not promulgated
because of FED interest rates, that was deliberate social engineering
policy.

How did they accomplished this task, if not by letting banks have all the
credit they wanted from the FED at such a *real* rate that would justify an
higher investment risk ?

What's the difference between a house that is not rented and a
company that cannot even repay "regular" interests?

There was no spike in interests rates to create a 'repay' crisis.

Exactly. That's because the prime rate was below zero.

The sub prime crisis was two fold. First was the issuance of suspect
loans compounded by hidden risk because there was ZERO information
about the buyer's ability to pay. But the issuer, Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac, nevertheless guaranteed the securities.

Because the government guaranteed Fannie and Freddie, so the private
investors in those funds had nothing to risk and plenty to earn from
reckless lending.
Why should you care about the borrower's ability to repay the debt, if you
already know that the debt will be anyway repaid?

But, again, that's not a 'low interest' issue.

Yes it is. If you find out that a mortgage on the house you live in costs
less than the rent you're paying, you would be stupid not to buy it.

Unless, as I was saying, the interests are so high, for the bank that has
accesss to negative-rate FED funds, that it is so profitable that the bank
will accept a higher, not "natural", risk for higher, "not natural"
profits.

You have that potential problem no matter what the interest rates are.
The 'high risk' simply has to pay correspondingly more.

Exactly. If, because of below-zero prime rate, the 3% interest you apply to
the loan becomes a 5%, you are prepared to take more risks.

There is yet another effect: if the other banks are taking advantage of
this weird situation and you don't, they will earn money that will became
dividends that will attract investors and/or they will attract more
customers with better conditions and you will be left without investors
and/or customers.

IMO the problem wasn't 'high risk', per see, but unrealistic 'no
information' loans backed by unrealistic guarantees that made accurate
risk analysis impossible and, to make matters worse, with no means to
know the stated risk is invalid.

Not all mortgages were for buiyng the house. A lot of them was initiated on
already paid houses by owners that realized tat, by borrowing money at a
low interest and betting it on a dotcom, they could double (or more) the
invested capital with no effort and minimal risk, as long as others would
do the same.

For instance a tenure of 19 years against an average of 7, plus being
revered as a god for the whole period. What else would you desire?

LOL. Well, it could be because he was good.

Wait, I made the calculation including him.
Previously the average was 6 years.
Have you eber heard the saying "too much of a good thing"?

Seriously, the *purpose* of the FED is to keep the economy 'humming'
at the right level and, while we could debate whether its even
possible for the FED to do the job it was created for, you're
essentially 'accusing' him of doing what he was hired to do.

Yes, you're right. It's not the FED job to puncture dotcom or housing
bubbles, nor to avoid them, nevertheless actively inflating speculation
bubbles is not what I would describe as a responsible and commendable
conduct.

Well, but it tells you a lot about quantum mechanics.

I meant I disagree with the 'logic'. I.E. It does not follow that just
because one doesn't know, or even can't know, does not mean 'it
isn't'.

That's exactly the point you're missing.
Quantum world is even weirder than communists'.

Was it a muslim living in a muslim country or in the US?

US.

QED.

Remember, religious fanatics are identical to communists: they lie, because
they know an higher Truth, so even what may seen a lie about something
fundamental to you and me, is just a little white lie that they use to
enlighten us.

Uh, well, if they think it truth then it isn't a lie.

No, as you confirm below, they know it is a lie, but, since they know
better, because they are enlighted by The Faith (or Communism, it's the
same situation and mechanism), their duty is to lie in order to help you to
achieve enlightment.

That's not the case with radical Islam because, according to their
understanding, lying is a Muhammad approved tactic for dealing with
infidels.

So the "moderate" islamist leader that leaves in the US is an infidel
(since he does not lie to infidels)? C'mon, be realistic: he's lying.

Of course, most societies allow some degree of 'lying' to 'the enemy',
like in time of war.

Well, during war time it's more likely that governments are going to lye to
their own subjects.

I suspect there's an even larger percentage who essentially agree with
the basic principle but don't agree 'that's the way to achieve it'.

So what's the way?

Well, you and I would probably approve of by intellectual persuasion.

By "intellectual persuasion" you mean islam-communist style, i.e. blatant
lies or communist brainwash?

So, the best way to achieve world domination is to destroy our technology.

From the Islamists I've read it's more a tactic of using our
technology against us

Sure, but that' only a mean, while their ultimate goal is to bring us back
to their primitive level.

but there is also a thread that 'wealth' (as in
oil) and technology has corrupted Islam.

Whi do you think Mr. Bush removed Saddam from power. True, he finacied
terrorism, but only in Israel. True, the two bllodier palestinese terrorist
found shelter in Iraq. True, he had weapons of mass distruction, has used
them and for 12 years avoided the UN inspections. True, he planned to
control all mid-eastern oil (after Iran and Yemen the next sould have been
Saudi Arabia), but I beleive that the real reason for attacking Iraq was to
destabilize the area and make a sandbox where terrorist could play their
favourite game, sparing Europe, the US and Saudi Arabia.

Nice! Yes BP deserves that, they were drilling to find oil that they were
going to drink, not to provide energy to you, me and, unluckily, to your
"libersocials" and my communists.

Drink?

What else they can do with it, if they don't extract it for fuelling our
civilization?

There's not much you can do to a magnitudo 9,5 earthquake

No but you can ship, drive and fly food, water, temporary shelter, and
medical supplies in a hell of a lot faster than you can tote 'em in by
cart. That is, if the Romans had had any medical supplies to tote.

That is, if Romans had anything vital that an earthquake could destroy.
Apart fro acqueducts, that could be repaired in few months with minor
inconvenience to the population.

The muslims.

Oh. Well, yeah. At least not till they 'win'.

No, from what I hear from them, they don't want any form of technology that
a blacksmith cannot build.

After all technology is the proof that science works, and science and
religious fondamentalism don't get along very well.

I don't recall the whole episode but I don't think he claimed 'that
one' was that way but used it as a building block for his 'disaster'
scenario. Or he may have conflated 1977 with 1965.

I'll watch it again, but I' pretty sure I've seen a short footage of shop
pillaging in New York in that that same episode.

Maybe, due to the FED's politics, not high employment, but financial crisis
definitely.

I said UNemployment.

That's what I meant to write.

Anyway, the point was the blackout let the lid off an already boiling
pot.

The same pot, in 2001 was boiling again. The financial crisis attributed to
the attack on the Towers was already present and due to the burst of the
dotcom bubble.


Maybe. It might be interesting if someone did a study along those
lines of bombed to hell and back Europe during WWII.

Back then, at least in Italy, electric power distribution was limited only
to the bigger towns and electicity basically used only for illumination,
not for food conservation, accounting and inventory, communication
(telephone exchanges had treir own generators), heathing (a modern gas
furnace does not work without electricity), you name it.

"Just a year?" Ain't no 'faulty relay' going to destroy the entire
electrical grid for a year.

Yes, but there could have been be some tens of liners or rockets to destroy
power plants.

IMO 'disaster' scenarios grossly underestimate the ability of people
(society) to adapt and respond to a crisis.

Yes, adapt and go back to the stone age or thereabouts.