When an economy takes a hit for years on end, banks eventually run into trouble. It doesn't matter how well-capitalized they claim to be. Assets always outweigh capital. The real question is how much of that profitability they’ve been reporting lately is actually legitimate. And once everything hits the fan and they suddenly find themselves holding a mountain of foreclosed apartments and commercial properties without any actual cash on hand, you'll see some incredible buying opportunities. In Spain, they were offloading stuff at an 80% discount.
Why is this observer being tolerated? What exactly did he do to earn a moderator position for all these years? He’s hands down the worst moderator on this entire board—completely biased and malicious. And the absolute worst part? If you dare point out his mistakes, he hunts you down like a bounty hunter.
How many more people have to call out the fact that he's a terrible moderator before they finally fire him?
So, you're telling me if the rating agencies hadn't stepped in, the market would have somehow spotted the collapse of Lehman Brothers and Enron on its own? What, by magic? Which agencies are actually pulling the strings and dictating their moves? It’s apparently so magical that they can trick an investor into dumping their own cash into something they don't even believe in.
We've already seen just how much influence these credit rating agencies wield, look at the interest rates on US, Japanese, and European government bonds. The market barely blinked.
Honestly, it's delusional to expect the world's top investors to always be right—let alone agencies that feel pressured to take a stance on everything, staffed by people working for a paycheck. Surprises are inevitable. Agencies will exist as long as there are clients willing to pay for them. Right now, they clearly have plenty.
This whole angry backlash is just because the rating agencies finally—and incredibly late—admitted the emperor has no clothes. Politicians can get as mad as they want, but that won't change the grim reality facing many European Union members.
James Nguyen13 said:My point is that their forecasts from a year ago were mostly just guesswork and wishful thinking—much like they are today—meaning they lack any real substance.
It's something a relevant news outlet finally managed to point out:
The credit rating agency business is a joke. Their projections aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
What a load of nonsense. Just look at the interest rates on Greek bonds a few years back compared to where they sit today. Four years ago, the market priced those bonds almost exactly like German ones. You see the same pattern with banks, mortgage-backed securities, and everything else. The landscape shifts. Credit rating agencies aren't some exception to that rule. New data changes the sentiment for both the markets and the agencies themselves. I don't know what you expect from them. Credit assessments are done by people—flawed humans who are right sometimes and wrong others. It’s become incredibly trendy lately to insist that their ratings are always incorrect, but I haven't seen anyone else in the market claiming to have a better grasp on reality.
When it comes to downgrading the credit ratings of several European nations, the market already moved on long ago. Those credit rating agencies were just lagging behind. It’s highly likely they were simply too afraid of the pressure they’d face—which is exactly what’s happening now. You have the French getting worked up, the Italians losing their minds, and the entire Eurozone teetering on the edge of collapse. But according to them, it’s all Standard & Poor's fault.
James Nguyen13 said:In the past, we weren't seeing credit rating agencies flip-flopping so wildly, giving out assessments that are the complete opposite of what they were saying just a year or two ago.
At its core, this is a question of credibility. How can a single credit rating agency decide a country's credit rating is trash when they were calling it nearly top-tier just last year? It's not like all those loans and debts just popped into existence overnight!
What kind of argument is that? Circumstances change in a single year.
That’s a weird way to look at it. If you think joining the European Union is some kind of betrayal, then why should anyone be held accountable when the whole thing eventually falls apart?
Scott Hall39 As stated by: 😕 First, they strip the credit rating from the USA—so I suppose that serves as a legitimate tool of leverage against every government on the planet, provided they aren't the American ones?
So, they stripped the USA of its rating first? Did they really not target anyone else before getting to us? It seems like an awfully early strike—are you already drunk, or just eager to start the chaos?
Scott Hall39 As stated by: Is anyone actually capable of thinking outside the narrow confines of conspiracy theories? Is that even a possibility anymore?
Are you truly capable of stepping outside of your narrow framework to entertain the possibility that conspiracies simply do not exist anywhere, at any time? Is such a concept even within your grasp?
🙄 No, the US wasn't the first to lose its credit rating. Right before the US rating was cut, a whole string of European countries had theirs slashed too. Your premises are completely ridiculous.
wanderingridge5 said:It is fortunate that you brought this specific point to light. It serves merely as further evidence that these agencies lack any semblance of objectivity; instead, they function as instruments of pressure against every government except for the American one. If any other nation were to lose its AAA rating, the market's reaction toward that country would be devastatingly different.
😕 So, they stripped the US of its credit rating, and now we're supposed to believe that's just "pressure" on everyone but the US government???? Besides, look at the interest rates on Italian debt since Friday. They dropped!
Are you guys actually capable of thinking outside of conspiracy theories? Is that even a possibility?
First off, this isn't actually about the banks. Second, how many different credit rating agencies would it even take to satisfy everyone? A hundred? Third, these places are staffed by actual human beings with real intelligence and skill sets. Sometimes they get it right, and sometimes they don't. It's that simple. They slashed the US credit rating, and the market didn't seem particularly impressed. If anything, the market is acting like the USA still holds a AAA rating. Ever since they downgraded certain European Union countries, interest rates haven't spiked, which just proves the rating agencies are lagging behind... the market already priced those countries in at lower ratings before the agencies even caught up.
The level of reporting in the American media on this topic is idiotic and reeks of conspiracy theories. Some people just never learn.
Nicholas Gomez4 said:Regarding your "deep" insights, here’s my take. The American presidential system is rigged so that even a total moron could end up in the Oval Office. Why? Because everything is handled by others—these so-called "teams." A future president is bought and paid for way before they even take office, during the campaign itself. They get the media hype, plus you've got the lobbyists breathing down Congress's neck. Only a fool thinks someone like that is actually going to do anything for the average person, who is usually broke by default. American democracy is pretty much the peak of corruption achievable by any human being.
Shit, just pure shit. Not a single intelligent word was spoken here. Every serious nation on Earth has a massive roster of advisors and teams working alongside their President. Nobody with half a brain expects one individual to run the whole show alone. But you're too far gone into your own delusions to grasp that.
Nicholas Gomez4 said:Between Obama and Bush, the whole thing was a joke... nobody actually believes that charlatan could make a single independent decision. He’s just a puppet... controlled by the real owners of this planet who operate from the shadows and aren't exactly up for election. But grabbing him? That would be a nightmare. Imagine if he actually started talking... yeah, right. 🙂 Maybe someone like Iran, Fidel Castro, or Hugo Chavez would actually care enough to pull something like that. That's why they'll never let him step foot outside the USA.
This kind of shallow thinking assumes the President—the most powerful person in the country—should have absolute authority. That’s just not how it works in a modern democracy; power is heavily constrained. Even back when kings ruled by divine right, there were always multiple power centers. A ruler, regardless of their formal absolutism, had to account for various interest groups if they didn't want to jeopardize their position or even their life. Human history is essentially defined by the constant struggle between different interest groups (and smaller factions within them, down to individuals) fighting for more influence. It's funny how anti-American conspiracy theorists ignore this entire dimension. They probably haven't even given it a second thought. They just mindlessy parrot nonsense about people in the shadows.
It looks like you’re just some massive government dinosaur finally waking up to the market because competition actually showed up. Before this, you had a monopoly dating back to the old era, which clearly lulled you into a coma. As far as I know, Citigroup pays much lower wages, so it makes perfect sense why JP Morgan Chase and a few others jumped ship to compete on lower overhead. They’re probably run more efficiently, work harder, and don't carry all that dead weight in staffing. That’s how they broke through. Regardless of whatever shady dealings landed the owner in prison.
Jews basically built Hollywood. And yeah, let’s be honest—it’s all about nepotism. They dominate the industry. Jews kill it in other fields too: science, tech startups, finance. But in those sectors, you actually have to deliver results. And they deliver. In Hollywood, everything comes down to who you know and who's in your circle. That explains their numbers. Plus, since Jews tend to lean liberal, and Hollywood is a liberal stronghold, the math works out. Just look at how much Hollywood actors donate to political campaigns.
Richard Wilson4 said:Even in the American media, especially at USA Today, they've started this whole campaign to demonize Orban's government in Canada, all because they’re actually doing a decent job standing up to the big banks.
Yeah, right. That’s the secret sauce, isn't it? Fighting the banks.🙄 It's just a blatant populist move designed to impress people like you.
Here he goes again. Same topic, obviously. 35 points for:
Radical nationalists in America and the North America defend Libya because of their own historical traumas. They think foreigners have no business meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations. Even if an enormous massacre is taking place. National sovereignty is their core principle. Humanism is somewhere at the bottom of the list. Disgusting.
Where's the trolling in that?
No ban for this:
A stranger said:That’s actually what international law is called, and it wasn't invented by the Americans you're accusing, but by the very people committing the looting of Libya that you support. As for an enormous massacre, that only exists in your villainous heads. The UN didn't authorize this robbery under the pretext of a massacre; they just hyped things up, using "pre-emptive action to prevent a massacre" as an excuse. It was the exact same thing with Iraq—a "pre-emptive action to prevent WMDs." It was just stupidity piled on top of stupidity, yet plenty of people swallowed that nonsense. This is all possible because people are stupid and malicious. Just imagine a country full of people with IQ 140. Now Bushman comes along and says, "we have to destroy this country and kill a million people to protect 5,000 from a possible, maybe, possible massacre," and "we have to attack this nation because they might build a WMD that could reach the US after a two-year flight." Now imagine those people with IQ 140 reacting with, "great idea, let's go!" No way.
If I had called someone a villain, I would've been slapped with a massive ban for being abusive.
Sam Green73 said:That’s a solid, well-argued response to an even worse message. Who didn't get a card, even though they’re out here calling everyone a troll?
Is this some kind of joke? If I had used that tone in my last post, you would’ve slapped me with a ban for trolling without even blinking. And if I actually pushed back, you'd just claim I'm belittling the other users here. Interesting. This doesn't actually fit into that category: Quote : hala Effect
Quote : hala Effect said:Can you even read a simple sentence?
Quote : hala Effect
Quote : hala Effect said:The point was that you were just talking nonsense.
Quote : hala Effect said:Trolls are just trolling. I give serious replies to people actually worth debating, but you clearly aren't catching on.
Quote : hala Effect said:And here comes the next gem. Just one stupidity after another—literally sentence by sentence.
Look, that doesn't hold up here:
Sam Green73 said:Think about it. Maybe try a new way of communicating—one that actually shows some respect for the person you're talking to.
Regarding the ban—how come nobody else gets a card for calling people trolls while I’m the one getting flagged? My point isn't about you handing them cards now; it's about proving you're using double standards.
If you actually read PowerLock's text with some comprehension instead of just eyeing the last sentence, you'd see the actual argument behind the claim being made there.
Do you take me for an idiot? This post doesn't provide a single shred of evidence to support the claim that Gaddafi has the support of Libyans.
PowerLock said:Personally, I support Gaddafi and want him to survive, and I want Libya to choose its own path. With their own money and earning potential, they can decide for themselves what kind of government they want. The rebels aren't the majority of Libyans. They are a minority who weren't even existentially threatened before the uprising, and Libyans love and support Gaddafi and the Jamahiriya—which is exactly what those wanting to intervene want to see, and this shameful intervention has made that more than clear.
If they didn't love and support him, he would have been overthrown long ago.
The Libyan people are with Gaddafi—deal with it if it bothers you! 😍
Do you even know what an argument is? Not an opinion, not a pseudo-argument, but a real argument! The tragedy of this forum is that someone who can't tell the difference holds moderation authority.