Official Fulqrum Publishing forum - Man Made Global Warming

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)

- Pilot's Lounge (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=205)

- - Man Made Global Warming (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=32462)

Quote:

Originally Posted by kendo65 (Post 433323)

The 2nd one is particularly good ;)

http://myesoteric.hubpages.com/hub/F...ot-Responsible

http://spfaust.wordpress.com/2011/11...freddie-mac-2/

Priceless. Any fig-leaf will do apparently.:rolleyes:

Oh come on. It's even got a nice graph.

I like a nice graph.

The American view of how the world works is a unique and interesting one.

However even for Americans, blaming the people who lost their homes for the GFC is a new and interesting theory. It would seem that despite assurances that even if they lost their job and could not pay they could simply sell the mortgaged home at a profit (as US house prices "always rise") their "irresponsible house buying behaviour" is the true reason for the GFC not any corporate misdoing.

Of course the main reason for the real estate bubble problems world wide is the detachment of real estate values from a genuine market value (based on its value as a place of business or a residence) resulting in a speculative real estate market where house prices are based on speculative values for capital gain. Gambling in other words.

Not really sure what the connection of real estate pricing with climate change is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kendo65 (Post 433307)

[I]

So you're blaming too little and ineffective regulation for the problems in Ireland (and presumably elsewhere too). Probably a good point and one I wouldn't disagree with but a strange one to hear coming from the anti-state pro-free market side. So do you think then that governments/states should get more involved in regulating and limiting the market to ensure we don't have a repetition of the crash(es)?

Virtually no-one was in favour of any such measures before everything went belly up. In fact the major voices in the last 30 years had been proclaiming that 'the market knows best' and would self regulate. All that government had to do was get out of the way. That's pretty much what happened - the experiment was run starting with the deregulation of the Thatcher/Reagan era.

The results came through in 2008. Pretty definitively too.

Though the right can't face that fact, which they (accurately) judge is too threatening to their world-view, because to fully absorb the lessons of the crash would mean advocating more regulation and a stronger role for government.

As for the Clinton link, a rabidly biased right-wing hatchet job of a site repeatedly throwing the 'socialist' label actually says much more about their own lack of perspective than it does about Clinton or the Democrats.

But I have now realised that most of you are using the term 'socialist' in the Fox News sense of the term - i.e. worse than 'liberal', but (probably) not quite as bad as serial-killer, rather than any accurate dictionary definition of the term.

Actually, I'm not (as you put it) "anti-state pro-free market"... you see, too much free-market (as in totally unregulated) is just as bad as too much intervention (as in Government control). Both end up with the masses standing in ruin, asking; "WTF happened?"

The way forward lay somewhere between the two. There needs to be a certain amount of free play and there also needs to be a certain amount of control. Australia set up a very effective regulator "APRA"... you'll have noticed our system did not go under (well not yet, but the socialists in power atm are endeavouring to rectify that). Most of all, there needs to be a high level of accountability. You can't privatise the profits and socialise the losses, neither (as the world has discovered) can socialism survive without capitailism.

The Clinton administration basically made it law (Community Reinvestment Act) that banks could not refuse homeloans to anyone in the their area. ie They made it so banks had no choice but to give loans to people who could not afford them.

Wolf_Rider, I can agree with everything you said there (and believe me, it's actually a relief to be able to find some common ground in this thread).

Apologies if I misinterpreted your personal position, but when you have to interpret someone's viewpoint from a few supplied web-links it's maybe a little too easy to make assumptions.

I think one of the big problems we've had through history is a tendency to be seduced by 'beautiful' theories that provide nice simple readings of reality. They may provide some insights and useful ideas that explain certain aspects of the world but when they move from being tentative partial truths to being dogmatic, unchallengable 'beliefs' then they create problems. I'd count marxism and the extreme free-market variety of capitalism in there.

If I'm an advocate for anything it would be a more balanced, flexible (fairer) capitalism that is less theory driven and more accepting that the market while being essential is not perfect and has limitations. And I'd be in favour of getting more regulation for finance and the banks. They should be serving the rest of society not dominating it. For the last 10 years at least the tail has been wagging the dog.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WTE_Galway (Post 433343)

Basically agree with this. Real estate values, however, are location specific, not global. I guess your referring to mortgage backed securities and cds. Those were detached from the underlying asset values. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the vehicles that allowed for the speculative behavior. From the videos I posted, you can see they all knew in 2004 there was a problem. The lending standards were far too loose as we all know now.

As to relating to climate change, there is a connection in the sense that the losses were socialized to the taxpayer to bail out the banks from all the forclosures, short sales, free rents. Then there were the cataclysmic side effects to the innocent, non-deadbeat homeowners who suffered realized and unrealized losses on their homes. This thing started from the sub-prime market and contagion spread to the prime market and then the "strategic default" took off. So, it clearly shows the wealth transfer effects of socialism, which is at the heart of the climate change scam.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadBlaster (Post 433421)

Basically agree with this. Real estate values, however, are location specific,l not global. Remember, many still had an ability to pay their mortgages, but instead went the "strategic default" route. Anyone who doesn't know what that is can google it.

As to relating to climate change, there is a connection in the sense that the losses were socialized to the taxpayer to bail out the banks from all the forclosures, short sales, free rents. Then there were the cataclysmic side effects to the innocent, non-deadbeat homeowners who suffered realized and unrealized losses on their homes. This thing started from the sub-prime market and contagion spread to the prime market and then the strategic default took off. So, it clearly shows the wealth transfer effects of socialism, which is at the heart of the climate change scam.

what?
You guys have a very odd relationship to the term "socialism". Reminds me of the Dark Ages in Europe, where everything was blamed on the Jews and witchcraft.

sorry, i was still writing.

I still do not see how climate change, socialism and the real estate bubble have any kind of connection?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bewolf (Post 433431)

I still do not see how climate change, socialism and the real estate bubble have any kind of connection?

Well then, do you see any connection between socialism and a German bailout of Greece? What would you call it then? Charity?;)