A few things to say about bankers.

[Zan]

Sibling Zono made a comment about bankers (actually, he quoted something his crazy cousin - his words - said).  I thought about it for a little while, and I have a few things to say on the subject:

Make no mistake, we are experiencing the beginning of the worst economic times since the dustbowl.  Possibly worse, if you want the truth.  The apparent recovery is turning out to be a sham, hell, there's going to be 4,000,000 more foreclosures in October alone, according to the treasury department.

But people don't want the truth, do they?  The wheels have fallen off the monster truck of state, but since we're still sliding on the chassis rather than rolling over, everyone pretends that things aren't that bad.  The band is still playing, so we can all rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic, and pretend that the band will play on.

Well, wake the hell up.  Things really ARE that bad...to rip a classic line off from William Shirer, the lights are going out all over the world, and nobody knows when - or if - they will ever come on again.  The proof of this is listening to that waterhead at the Fed babble on about how the recovery will solidfy in the second half of the fiscal year.  Now, how the HELL would he know that?  He doesn't.  He's making a prediction that sounds reassuring, but is far enough out that he assumes nobody will remember it when summer rolls around, the harvest is in...and we are not saved.

Herbert Hoover said the same thing, back at the beginning of 1932: "Prosperity is right around the corner".  As a note to those of you who don't study Doom, 1932/33 was the worst fiscal year of the depression.  

The worst part about this is that the problem WAS fixable.  The bailout was intended to allow the banks to steal capital from us, so they could loan money.  Our economy functions on lines of credit, and all that was required to turn this from disaster to a mere recession was for them to actually LOAN THAT MONEY OUT.  However, thanks to a weak-sister congress, the language of the bailout bill changed it instead into a massive giveaway with no accountability.  The bankers took the money, smiled, and then wrote themselves some bonus checks and used the rest of the money, apparently, to buy up assets.  When asked about it, they laughed in congress' face, and told them that they don't have to tell anyone where the money went, and by the way, give us the other $350 Bn, please.

Well, I have something to say to those bankers.  Something that should have been said long ago, when they first refused to renegotiate the toxic mortgages that started this whole mess.  Listen closely, my fat larcenous friends, for this is very, very important:

WE WILL FUCKING EAT  YOU.

That's right.  I, for one, will not starve because of your greed.  When the deal goes South and it all comes crashing down, I will eat you before I starve.  I will use your skull as a wine glass.  I will gnaw on your bones with my very own teeth.

My son informs me that eating people is actually very unhealthy.  Something about "prions" and mad cow disease.  But what does he know?  He hasn't been around long enough to really understand DOOM.  He lives at that wonderful age of 16, where Really Bad Things happen to other people, and tomorrow's biggest worry is whether or not he'll get to feel up Suzy Rottencrotch under the bleachers during the homecoming game.

Well, I'll ask him again, in a few years, after the lights have gone out and the coyotes begin eying us with interest.  When he's learned how to make fuel out of alcohol, and we all live by pillaging those who still try to stand still and grow things.  Bankers will be a rare delicacy by then; no longer low hanging fruit dangling from the light poles.  

Be warned.  The easy times, the years of light and prosperity are behind us, brought low by the same greed and stupidity that has plagued the human race since Og the Caveman decided to corner the market on edible berries.  Rough times are ahead, and even if we DON'T get to eat bankers, we can at least stockpile A1 Sauce.

Okay, then.  I think I'll pop over to the library thread to calm down a bit.

[Jayna]

Clapclapclapclap!

Eat them. YES.

[Opsa]

Ho...kay...



Please be less general in your rant.

First of all, I would like to remark that this is an international monastery, so please remember that you are not talking to just people in the USA. I live in the USA too, but we are not the whole world. What I mean to say is: even though our Siblings here are quite intelligent and do not live under rocks (I don't think...), let's be more specific about who we're ranting about.

Secondly... I hope you won't hate me for my opinion, but I think it is rather trite to blame the crappy US economic situation on all bankers. The real estate lenders made a bunch of greedy choices. Car manufacturers and Insurance companies got bailouts. I do not think they should have received these bailouts after they made incredibly poor moves- they should have been allowed to sink, but that's just my opinion. I wish Bush hadn't started the precedent of these bailouts, but he did. To me, that seemed like the final crank that really got this recession to hit bottom. We are still reeling from that. Many banks did not give out stupid loans.

We must be very careful not to start spout generalizations. That sort of talk may impress the uninformed, but others may see it as screaming into the wind.

A more constructive thing might be to come up with some solutions.

[Zan]

Ho...kay...



Please be less general in your rant.

Sorry. 

First of all, I would like to remark that this is an international monastery, so please remember that you are not talking to just people in the USA. I live in the USA too, but we are not the whole world. What I mean to say is: even though our Siblings here are quite intelligent and do not live under rocks (I don't think...), let's be more specific about who we're ranting about.

Well, in my defense, I will state that our bankers killed everyone's economy, so I will therefore invite our European friends to chow on an AIG exec, too.

Secondly... I hope you won't hate me for my opinion, but I think it is rather trite to blame the crappy US economic situation on all bankers.

Oh, there's plenty of blame to be found everywhere.  At it's most basic level, the fault can be found with the general public, who spent the last 30 years insisting on a 20% return on their investments, thus spurring companies to make very short-sighted decisions, lest their stocks all sink to Davy Jones' locker.  However, the sheer scale of the bankers' banditry, coupled with their behavior after the bailout, puts them on another level entirely.

The real estate lenders made a bunch of greedy choices. Car manufacturers and Insurance companies got bailouts. I do not think they should have received these bailouts after they made incredibly poor moves- they should have been allowed to sink, but that's just my opinion. I wish Bush hadn't started the precedent of these bailouts, but he did. To me, that seemed like the final crank that really got this recession to hit bottom. We are still reeling from that. Many banks did not give out stupid loans.

Yes, I agree.  Painful as it would (will still) be, the companies in question should have been allowed to sink...especially after flying to congress in private jets, with beggars' cups in their hands.

We must be very careful not to start spout generalizations. That sort of talk may impress the uninformed, but others may see it as screaming into the wind.

A little screaming never hurt anyone.  More people should do it.  It accomplishes precisely nothing, but you feel better when you're done.

A more constructive thing might be to come up with some solutions.

True, true...but who's going to listen to me?  You guys might, my friends might, but I have a pretty strong feeling Geithner won't be returning my calls any time soon.

[Opsa]

Nicely put. Sorry to have jumped on you. I have a brother who tends to enjoy screaming at every opportunity. Maybe I'm a bit worn out by him.

[Zan]

Nicely put. Sorry to have jumped on you. I have a brother who tends to enjoy screaming at every opportunity. Maybe I'm a bit worn out by him.

That can be good or bad...what does he scream?

[Opsa]

Bloody murder.

No, he goes into huge predictably partisan diatribes that come off as smug. But only in writing. In person, he tends to be an easygoing, fun-loving guy.

[Zan]

Bloody murder.

No, he goes into huge predictably partisan diatribes that come off as smug. But only in writing. In person, he tends to be an easygoing, fun-loving guy.

Ah.  Partisanship is a silly thing...I mean, to be partisan, you have to believe half of the lies.  Not that I'm calling your brother silly, or anything.  Lots of intelligent folks fall into that trap.

[Bluenose]

Well, Australia seems to be faring resonably well so far.  Last fiscal year we were the only developed country* to experience growth in the economy - albeit only about 1%, but still.

Nevertheless, I doubt that all the chickens have come home to roost yet and we shall see how things pan out in the long run, the only way we can, by waiting.

For what  it's worth I feel the main cause of the whole disaster has been things like derivitives.  These have enable people to put a thin coating of gold leaf over lumps of rubbish and then sell them to others as solid gold.  The blame lies with both those who created these exotic financial instruments and with those who were blinded by greed and bought them.  I think many people lost sight of some basic home truths.  If it looks too good to be true it probably is.  If you don't understand it, don't buy it.  That sort of thing.

As for bankers, although I subscribe to the great Australian tradition of hating all banks and bankers**, our banks have weathered the storm quite well.  they are still earning good returns for investors and there has not been much government intervention here in the banking sector.  About the only thing was the government provided a guarantee on deposits up to a certain amount, althoug they stuffed it up initially and look like they will keep it going longer than is desirable, but still they have not handed over great wads of cash to the banks either.

---

* Accordong to the Australian press - maybe their definition of developed countries is those countries other than Australia that had negative growth!

** To be fair, it is an Australian tradition to hate everyone who has power, so this goes for large companies, banks, politicians, the local council, your boss etc etc etc.

[Zan]

** To be fair, it is an Australian tradition to hate everyone who has power, so this goes for large companies, banks, politicians, the local council, your boss etc etc etc.

We used to have that attitude.  Now we hate the people in power if they're in the "other" party.

It's like watching sports fans.

[Aggie]

I still insist the correct collective noun for bankers is a "wunch".

[Zan]

I still insist the correct collective noun for bankers is a "wunch".

I perfer a "plague".

[Griffin NoName]

A thought. It is easy to blame the bankers et al. And with reason. But there is that saying that if something seems to be too good to be true then it probably is and taking out mortgages at 5 times your salary seems to me to fall into that bracket etc etc. So perhaps responsibility needs to lie on the shoulders of all who have been greedy and stupid.

In actuality I blame capitalism.

Where is Goat ?

[Zan]

A thought. It is easy to blame the bankers et al. And with reason. But there is that saying that if something seems to be too good to be true then it probably is and taking out mortgages at 5 times your salary seems to me to fall into that bracket etc etc. So perhaps responsibility needs to lie on the shoulders of all who have been greedy and stupid.

In actuality I blame capitalism.

Where is Goat ?

All correct.  I just chose bankers to start with, because specifically calling out one group at a time reads better than a rant that says "people are dumb" 300 times.

[Aggie]

I perfer a "plague".

Well, I prefer puns.

[Zan]

I perfer a "plague".

Well, I prefer puns.

I don't get it.   

[Aggie]

A wunch of bankers?

[Bluenose]

Not only is that a (bad) pun, but it's also a Spoonerism!  Well done young hero!

[Aggie]

Actually, after wiki'ng Spoonerisms, I'm not sure it's actually a pun.   

A play on words, nonetheless....  I've been trotting this one out for years, although I think I actually did coin it.

[Opsa]

It's brilliant.

Let's not get our knickers in a wunch!

Actually saying "people are dumb" 300 times is alot like how my brother does his screaming.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

My personal view is that bankers by definition are evil (a group of guys making money with somebody else's money and willing to strip you naked in order to get their share are hardly good guys), but while they were the conduit for the mess they hardly are the only party at fault.

You mention a true base cause: the race for short term earnings/stock rise, a terrible incentive to do idiotic things that fundamentally transforms capitalism in a risky form of gambling for the ultra-rich.

But you can't forget the incentive to go further provided by the Fed with ridiculous interest rates. They didn't stimulate the economy as much as provided the temptation to the bankers to loan where they shouldn't had to, to the agents to pack the loans, to the mortgage agents to push, trick or outright lie to their clients, and to the consumers to forget the golden rule of business: if it looks too good to be true it likely is.

I had a very bad row of arguments with my wife (who studied finances, of all things) a few years back because I didn't want to sell our apartment to buy a $400/500K house. I had to do the bloody numbers with her until she realized that it was unaffordable.  Obviously a happy mortgage agent had been selling her the coolaid she drank at the time, and likely try with me had she had the opportunity.

It was easy money. It was too easy.

Then the bailout. The most idiotic and at the same time necessary measure taken. The right thing to do would have caused a level of angry no politician is ready to endure: nationalize one or two banks, not bail them out, outright nationalization, and then, pump the bloody money into the system themselves through those same banks. The other banks? Either you lend or die. Too many conflicts of interest get in the way to do the right thing, and that was indeed the case.

In fact the next thing to do is something that also will not happen: change antitrust laws forcing critical industries (read banks, insurance and others that apply) to own a maximum of 20% of any particular market for a period of time and a regular limit of 15% of any particular market. That way no one is "too big to fail".

The banks have too many friends on high places (what was money for again?) and even the basic regulation that should take place will be seriously watered down, to avoid bother those happy campaign donors.

Heck if the f$%^&ing democrats are voting against the public option for healthcare thanks to the juicy contributions from the healthcare industry you can imagine how is it with banks.

I am very skeptic, cynic and overly pessimistic on the subject, although I don't believe on the doomsday scenario you paint, at least not in the short term.

As for eating them, see the line below my username. They should be fed with themselves.

[Opsa]

Well, I'm a vegetarian, and besides- some of those guys aint Kosher.

I know people who are employed by banks. Some hotheads call them bankers because they work at banks, and are giving them a hard time. These people aren't running the banks or profiting from crafty behavior. They are just employees, and not paid much much, either. They would love to be working elsewhere, but they're stuck at the stupid bank during a period of sore feelings against bankers. One of them is a bank manager and he doesn't get paid more than a drug store manager. He is just employed to run the store.

If you want to keep your cash under your mattress, you certainly are free to do so. If you want the convenience of having your earnings looked after and the luxury of having checks to use instead of cash, or pay for things without the use of paper, you have to pay the bank a fee for their work. It's not free. Some of these soreheads need to get a grip on reality.

I know you're not talking about the poor saps who work at banks because they are stuck with a knack for accounting and need a job, but I needed to blurt this out, all the same.

[beagle]

Actually, after wiki'ng Spoonerisms, I'm not sure it's actually a pun.   

A play on words, nonetheless....  I've been trotting this one out for years, although I think I actually did coin it.

Sorry to disillusion you, but it's been around here since at least the 80s, and I don't think it was new then.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I know people who are employed by banks...

A bank employee IS NOT a banker.

My definition of banker is someone in a VP position or upwards, a member of the board or a shareholder with enough shares to have a voice with management. I'm talking about the guys who propose upping the fees for overdrafts when everybody is hurting, or the lawyers that write the small print on your credit card agreement that ensure that you'll be paying a bigger APR than advertised, you know, the b@$tards that create the policies that deny a loan re-negotiation to 90% of qualified mortgage owners.

The lady on the phone/register hardly makes a living to be called a 'banker'; she most likely is another of their victims.

[Zan]

A wunch of bankers?

Oh, right, right.  Very nice.  My suggestion retracted.

[Zan]

It's brilliant.

Let's not get our knickers in a wunch!

Actually saying "people are dumb" 300 times is alot like how my brother does his screaming.

Hmmm...sounds like his rage gland might be blocked.

[Zan]

These people aren't running the banks or profiting from crafty behavior. They are just employees, and not paid much much, either.

Not talking about these guys.  They're just working stiffs.

[Opsa]

You'd be surprised at how many people will yell at a bank employee out of sheer frustration. Or maybe you wouldn't.



_{PS: Mind the multiple posting, please. We have ways around it. The following was done by using the Insert Quote button on various posts from the Topic Summary box under the Post Reply box when replying. You will have to enter them one by one, but it saves having to post each time.} 

Oh, right, right.  Very nice.  My suggestion retracted.

Hmmm...sounds like his rage gland might be blocked.

Not talking about these guys.  They're just working stiffs.

[Zan]

Okay.

But I am curious - and I'm not trying to start a ruckus, mind you - what difference does it make, between several small posts, and one larger post?

[Bluenose]

It's probably just matter of style, and the fact that within the HOT you can make large posts.  In my experience the forums that commonly have multiple posts often seem to be those that have character limits on the size of a post.  We don't do that here and so our culture has evolved into a more or less no multple posts one.  BTW when replying to more than one post, you can separate the individual messages with a horizontal line, just press the button above the edit box that has a horizontal double headed arrow on it.

The other thing about multiple posts is that to some extent it can be seen to run counter to one of the main ethics here, that of humbleness and respect.  Making a series of posts one after the other can be seen as drawing attention to yourself in an untaddy way, a bit like saying "look at me, look at me, look at me!".  We do not think this of you, after all you are new here, so this is not criticism of your posting style.  Instead we are trying to ease you into the way we do things.  We know that this little corner of the interwebs is different and it can easliy come as a bit of a culture shock to htose used to the way much of the web operates.  Humbleness does not mean cowering in the corner, or abasing yourself, instead it means accepting that you are no better than others - and no worse (important).  We are equals here, we respect each other and we try to not set ourselves, or our siblings one above another.  No multiple posting is just a little thing, and not really all that important in the scheme of things, its just the way we do things here.  You'll get used to it.

[Zan]

Oh, okay.  Thanks for the explanation.

[Aggie]

Sorry to disillusion you, but it's been around here since at least the 80s, and I don't think it was new then.

Oh, I don't claim to have coined it for the first time.... just independently.

(further confirmation of the notion that anything I've thought has been thought many times before)