189 posts shown.
rustymaker5 said:The whole thing isn't really about whether wars in human history are "natural" or "unnatural"... 😉
It’s more that the author—who I think was some kind of economic analyst, though I can't quite recall the specifics—is basically just laying out the raw facts from the economic and social spheres of humanity starting from the late 18th century all the way to right now, complete with specific dates, names of key players, and those direct cause-and-effect chains... When you lay out the facts like that, all in one place and following a continuous timeline, it gives you this entirely different, much broader perspective... one where it becomes easier to wrap your head around what happened, how it went down, and why... and if you actually have the analytical chops, maybe you can even pinpoint exactly what is happening today and why it's happening...
the only reason people in America view him as an expert is because he's basically a cult hero among the local idiots here...
They're filming a new Western movie, oh my goddddddddddd!!!
this guy seriously needs to learn how to take a loss
Jessica Nguyen85 said:It’s Bernanke, not Bernake.
Gary L. Crittenden, Citigroup's chief financial officer, told my colleague, Eric Dash, that Citi, in manufacturing products to sell into the securitization market, had focused on the wrong thing. ''We had a market risk lens looking at those products, not the credit risk lens,'' he said.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...53C1A9618B63
Sadly, I can only quote people. Let's just say a slice of what I actually do over at Citigroup involves Quantitative Investment Strategies. Managing the securitization portfolio—both origination and investment—means credit risk is, well, sort of my specialty. I thought Linda Hughes88 was working on similar stuff, but looking at her bio, it seems more like... journalism.
well if that's the case, why are you asking me for a quick rundown on the credit crunch? Come on, lay some real expertise on us—give us your honest, non-robotic, non-news-anchor take on what actually happened...
the whole mess still isn't fixed
so how did this even happen? basically, bankers cooked up these new types of securities just to spread out the risk, and they blew up in popularity over the last few years... what we're talking about is when a lender gives you money for a house, but instead of keeping that debt on their own books, they package it up and sell it off as a CMO. sure, it lowers the risk for the lender if you can't pay them back, but at the same time, it makes them way less careful about who they're lending to in the first place. suddenly everyone and their mother was getting a mortgage, usually with those crazy high interest rates, those "teaser" rates, or adjustable ones... and the market was already totally bloated, with real estate prices hitting record highs in US history, so it was really just a matter of time before everything flipped... a lot of people point the finger at Greenspan, saying he kept the federal funds rate at 1% for way too long, though he defends himself, and honestly, I think he might have a point since the Federal Reserve's influence on long-term rates—which the market actually decides—was pretty limited because foreign investors were driving down yields with all that demand. then, as rates start climbing, a bunch of people stuck with subprime mortgages can't keep up with the payments and go bust, which leads to massive losses for mortgage lenders (because now they're stuck with a house that's worth way less due to falling prices, plus they desperately need cash just to keep the lights on daily) and for the banks that are out there investing in things like CMO's and CDO's on the bond market (which, by the way, were super frequently rated AAA, meaning supposedly "lowest risk"). this triggers a spike in risk and fear, which naturally kills liquidity. banks stop wanting to lend to each other because they can't figure out the actual risk and they need to hoard cash for themselves... so the cost of capital goes up for everyone, from big corporations to regular households, regardless of how good their credit is—it's that classic "bad money drives out good" situation. central banks tried to soften the blow by cutting rates and pumping in liquidity through injections (which just brings up that whole moral hazard question, where if the central bank bails me out now, I'm definitely going to act even more reckless next time because I know they'll probably jump in again)
as for the banks, they've all taken hits this quarter, but plenty of people think they actually took advantage of the chaos and overshot their write-offs just so they could look like superstars in the next quarter...
🤣 🤣
Look, guys, when we talk about those massive American trillions, you have to remember they scale differently than how people might think back home... because an American trillion is essentially what others would call a billion... I'm literally over here teaching middle school curriculum right now😲
infowarrior said:Of course a crisis is looming. Back in 2006, the US hit a massive debt milestone for the first time since the legendary 1933 era, and now we're sitting on over $9 trillion in debt...
The dollar is facing a serious threat here, dropping more than 60 percent against the Euro since the Euro was even launched, and you've got the long-time chairman Alan Greenspan warning about a financial meltdown, plus the IMF is sounding the alarm too. Just a few days ago, the IMF released a report saying countries in Eastern Europe are staring down a total financial collapse. The US has huge amounts of foreign debt, not to mention how much we owe domestically... and once the banks decide to hike interest rates through the roof, things are gonna get real messy...
The Federal Reserve is basically just a private bank designed to turn a profit for its owners, just like any other massive corporation out there. The US Government doesn't actually own the Federal Reserve. It's just a fact...
If you want the full story, you really need to check out this incredible documentary, The Money Master
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=4
Is some local small-town bartender your main source for news now? First off, 9 trillion is a conservative start for 9 billion. Second, don't go lying—Greenspan never actually said a financial crisis was coming, so stop it. He just laid out the odds of a recession happening in the near future. And look, tell your buddy at the bar that a recession and a financial crisis are two completely different beasts... The dollar hasn't dropped 60% either! Comparing our situation to a smaller economy shows you really haven't got a clue what you're talking about, because US foreign debt is held in our own currency, which isn't the case elsewhere. Sure, having that kind of imbalance isn't great, but there are plenty of places in the world worse off than the US...
Che, basically a fashion icon and a criminal all rolled into one 🙏
just the ultimate idol for those edgy teenagers who are already bored to death of Britney
Henry Diaz4 said:Definitely Israel. The sheer audacity of it all—entering other sovereign nations without any authorization whatsoever. Bulldozing residential homes as if they were some kind of "punishment"?! They're leveling an entire nation with airstrikes just because of one damn soldier. Honestly, thank goodness they finally hit a wall on this third attempt; maybe now they'll think three times before attempting such criminal and terrorist maneuvers again. Respect to Hezbollah 🙏
Spot on! And honestly, it was bound to happen... terrorist groups are out here celebrating while the whole world just goes straight to hell...
Gregory Howard said:Fine. Am I dealing with a bunch of morons here?
Do you honestly believe the press publishes the full, nuanced truth about a country's resource exploitation just like that? With all the granular details?
Here is the reality: The USA overthrew the regime in Iraq, occupied the nation, and triggered a series of sectarian and ethnic conflicts that have claimed over half a million lives. For four years now, the USA has maintained a presence there with a force of roughly 100,000 soldiers. That country sits on massive oil reserves that are being pumped constantly—not at pre-war levels, perhaps, but more than enough to satisfy the occupiers. Meanwhile, the country is drowning in civil war, chaos, poverty, and mass displacement....
And now, some "serious" individuals are trying to tell me that:
a) In this scenario, the USA is merely burning through American taxpayers' money, while major American corporations—specifically giants like ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Texaco, along with their affiliates—are just sitting idly by without profiting? You're suggesting the American administration, backed by the likes of Exxon and Bechtel, takes nothing from Iraq while it lies broken and exposed, pumping out oil whose exact destination remains a mystery? We know the future of Iraq (if it even survives) involves former state assets falling largely into foreign hands. But we have no way of knowing if those hands won't be French or Chinese, despite having 150,000 American troops holding that country like a colony.
Seriously, am I expected to prove this to any sane person?
Do you think they will suddenly start large-scale exploitation around 2008 or 2010 after standing on the sidelines for four years? Are you suggesting Americans went to war solely to topple Saddam Hussein, wasted a fortune, failed to achieve anything beyond igniting tribal warfare, and will then simply leave without taking a dime from one of the wealthiest oil nations on earth? As if they were foolish enough to just burn through ammunition and sink into corruption-fueled paralysis for nothing?
If anyone actually believes otherwise, let me be clear: you have no clue what you're talking about. Go stick to farming instead.
When someone claims that Americans covered the costs of the invasion of Iraq, you're expected to actually bring some evidence to the table. But the "proof" you're offering is just "don't you think US oil companies want a cut?" That alone totally disqualifies you from being a serious person to talk to...
if you're going to make such a bold claim, you need arguments that are a bit more substantial than this. This is just ridiculous!
Gregory Howard said:1. Regarding Saddam and his regime—nothing needs to be said.
2. Oil:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_oil_law_%282007%29
..........
Oil industry regulations in the US suggest this legislation empowers American corporations to seize control of the energy sector.[2] This new framework authorizes production share agreements (PSA) that guarantee a 12.5 percent profit margin for foreign oil firms.[2] The industry was entirely nationalized by 1972.[8][2] Back in the 1990s, during the era of Saddam Hussein, the administration granted PSAs to Russia and China, offering profit margins of less than 10 percent.[2]
The federal government plans to distribute the leftover oil revenue nationwide based on per capita figures.[1] However, US state sovereignty laws within this draft would grant local provinces independence from the central government when issuing exploration and production contracts.[2] Under the current constitution, these regions can form semi-independent territories with total control over their own natural resources.[2]
US oil industry privatization means the national entity would hold exclusive rights to a mere 17 of the 80 known oil fields, effectively handing over two-thirds of existing and all undiscovered fields to foreign interests.[1][9] America's oil reserves are considered the second largest on the planet[1], trailing only Saudi Arabia.[10]
3. Regarding demographics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualt...raq_since_2003
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_...vasion_of_Iraq
4. Regarding the "reconstruction" looting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_of_Iraq
Does anyone honestly believe Bechtel and Halliburton are losing money here?
🤣🤣 Oh, brilliant! You're throwing around data for a law that hasn't even passed yet!!!!! And in your last post on this thread, you were claiming Americans have been exploiting the oil the whole time and have already made back the cost of the invasion. Why the lies, huh??? Did you really think this little attempt at manipulation was just going to slide by unnoticed?
And as for Bechtel and Halliburton, they're being funded primarily by the US government!!!
Gregory Howard said:The USA exploited the oil during the entire occupation. They recouped the costs of aggression almost immediately by ramping up production far beyond anything seen under Saddam Hussein. Now, where that profit actually landed is a different matter entirely.
One thing remains certain: Americans secured those fields. They have reliable allies in the Kurdistan region near the oil sites. They maintain firm control over the sources and pumping stations—even after they "leave."
The result:
*They eliminated Israel's primary adversary from the last 30 years.
*They secured the largest oil reserves outside of Saudi Arabia.
*They triggered a cycle of self-destruction in the region.
Their supposed "losses" include 3,000+ deaths, a collapsed standard of living in the country, and global polarization.
But compared to the gains? It's nothing.
I need actual proof for these claims! Should I just take your word for it? Like, covering the costs of the attack on Iraq? Exploiting oil in Iraq?? Give me evidence, evidence, evidence!!!
rowdytinker said:Do yourself a favor and read a book, search the internet (you'd be surprised how much information is actually out there), or talk to someone who actually has the time and knowledge to discuss this. I really can't be expected to fill in all the gaps in your education.
P.S. Does calling someone "little Anthony" actually make you feel superior, or is it just a reflection of how you were raised?😕
Look, I asked you a question. Why are you dodging it??? Are you trying to wiggle out of this? Did you realize you just talked absolute nonsense??
That "little Anthony" crap is just coming from your own ignorance and that massive ego you're showing by typing away about a topic you clearly know nothing about... and honestly, I see you're still stuck in that same mindset.
Chloe Price74 said:Regardless, there is really only one thing you can say about Iraq:
The Americans completely blew it.
Look, I asked a question and now I'm just sitting here waiting for some actual expert to give me an answer.
I wasn't thinking about the harbor 🤣
go hit the ocean! seriously, it works!
rowdytinker said:I guess that's just a bit too complex for you to wrap your head around.🤣
So come on, just do your best and walk me through it... I mean, someone with your level of intellect and deep knowledge shouldn't be having this much trouble explaining it...
So, seriously, how did the Americans actually grab that Iraqi oil?
Can someone please walk me through how the Americans actually managed to grab all that oil?...😕
Was Vrdoljak even at the reception? Did he actually go up and congratulate Rudić? Has he said anything to the press yet? Or is he just sitting there throwing ash everywhere...
BRAVO!!!👏 👏 👏 🎉 🎉 🎉
The Magyars 🙂