The Economy


Normally open July 4th only---the one day a year when partisan politics, religion, etc. are acceptable topics on this Board (within reason). The forum is now closed.

Postby Marlow » Wed Oct 22, 2008 5:17 am

catson52 wrote: Interesting to note "history does not repeat itself ...".

Yes, history does repeat itself, but garbed in the mufti of the day, so we rarely recognize it.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21126
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby bad hammy » Thu Oct 23, 2008 10:43 am

The subprime mortgage meltdown totally explained: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJH2CcpXztE
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10881
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby lonewolf » Thu Oct 23, 2008 7:35 pm

bad hammy wrote:The subprime mortgage meltdown totally explained: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJH2CcpXztE


NOW THIS IS AN EXPLANATION I CAN UNDERSTAND....

Forrest Gump Explains Mortgage Backed Securities:

Mortgage Backed Securities are like boxes of chocolates.
Criminals on Wall Street stole a few chocolates from the boxes and replaced them with turds. Their criminal buddies at Standard & Poor rated these boxes AAA Investment Grade chocolates. These boxes were then sold all over the world to investors. Eventually somebody bites into a turd and discovers the crime. Suddenly nobody trusts American chocolates anymore worldwide.
Hank Paulson now wants the American taxpayers to buy up and
hold all these boxes of turd-infested chocolates for $700 billion
dollars until the market for turds returns to normal.
Meanwhile, Hank's buddies, the Wall Street criminals who stole all the good chocolates, are not being investigated, arrested, or indicted.

Mama always said: 'Sniff the chocolates first, Forrest'.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby Marlow » Fri Oct 24, 2008 5:23 am

lonewolf wrote:Hank Paulson now wants the American taxpayers to buy up and hold all these boxes of turd-infested chocolates for $700 billion dollars until the market for turds returns to normal.


Um . . . I think I see a flaw in this strategery.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21126
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby gh » Fri Oct 24, 2008 7:35 am

Wow. Greenspan now questions if his long commitment to free-market theory may have been wrong all along?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 002&sc=978
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby lonewolf » Fri Oct 24, 2008 8:01 am

Marlow wrote:
lonewolf wrote:Hank Paulson now wants the American taxpayers to buy up and hold all these boxes of turd-infested chocolates for $700 billion dollars until the market for turds returns to normal.


Um . . . I think I see a flaw in this strategery.


Um..that quote is attributed to Forrest Gump, a fictional character. I cannot vouch for the origin, authenticity, validity or wisdom. Early on, I DQ'd myself as not competent to calm the currently troubled economic waters.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby AthleticsInBritain » Fri Oct 24, 2008 9:40 am

gh wrote:Wow. Greenspan now questions if his long commitment to free-market theory may have been wrong all along?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 002&sc=978


I believe the universal reaction has been "no shit, Sherlock!"

I've noticed that a lot of exponents of free-market theory (which is a fallacy as there's no such thing) seem to have no problem with government subsidy or tax breaks. Strangely, that's not interference in the free market.
AthleticsInBritain
 
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:01 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Postby Per Andersen » Fri Oct 24, 2008 9:22 pm

gh wrote:Wow. Greenspan now questions if his long commitment to free-market theory may have been wrong all along?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 002&sc=978

Ayn Rand must be spinning in her grave.
Per Andersen
 
Posts: 3737
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby paulthefan » Fri Oct 24, 2008 9:38 pm

Per Andersen wrote:
gh wrote:Wow. Greenspan now questions if his long commitment to free-market theory may have been wrong all along?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 002&sc=978

Ayn Rand must be spinning in her grave.


Not a chance, both she and Greenspan understand that the free market works when participants assume responsibility (losses) for their actions (risks). That is Rand101. Im sure a true Rand disciple could tell us how we could have stopped the looting of the banks over the last 10 years as executives sucked them dry of cash while filling the till with bad debt.
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

Postby sprintblox » Sat Oct 25, 2008 3:42 am

paulthefan wrote:Not a chance, both she and Greenspan understand that the free market works when participants assume responsibility (losses) for their actions (risks). That is Rand101.

They wrongly assumed that the participants would assume responsibility. In a regulatory environment where there is little or no accountability, they aren't held responsible. Executives rape the company and walk away with millions, and the shareholders can't do anything to stop it (because the board can ignore shareholder resolutions). If you get paid 5 or 10 years of salary for screwing up in your job, where is your incentive to perform with competence and responsibility?
sprintblox
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 6:43 am

Postby tandfman » Sat Oct 25, 2008 4:25 am

paulthefan wrote:Im sure a true Rand disciple could tell us how we could have stopped the looting of the banks over the last 10 years as executives sucked them dry of cash while filling the till with bad debt.

sprintblox (on the AIG thread) wrote:insurance companies are tightly regulated ... it's not likely they would have been allowed to invest any big money into those crazy mortgage securities.

Sorry, paulthefan, but you don't need to be a Rand disciple to know how we could have stopped the looting of the banks. Quite to the contrary, sprintblox told us the answer, and it's one that is anathema to Rand disciples. Effective government regulation. It's that simple.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby paulthefan » Sat Oct 25, 2008 7:42 am

tandfman wrote:Sorry, paulthefan, but you don't need to be a Rand disciple to know how we could have stopped the looting of the banks. Quite to the contrary, sprintblox told us the answer, and it's one that is anathema to Rand disciples. Effective government regulation. It's that simple.


we have the largest government and one of the most regulatory that the world has ever known and it did not legally prevent those crimes and some would argue that the regulatory state caused and aided them. So far we have not recovered one dime from the robbers.

Im sure Randites (Objectivism) could easily tell us how their philosophy deals with these issues, Im not an adherent. Greenspan would not be qualified to represent them. I would suggest that general moral decay in a society is the cause. When a democratic society is morally strong its representatives do not tolerate those kinds of crimes.

lonewolf is right in part, but before the wallstreet guys like Lehman bros. execs stole millions and passed on that debt to solemn faced Paulson who would sell it to Joe the Plumber, there was first the millions of dollars that realtors and developers made first . That was set in motion by the actual INCREASE in regulation of banking that demanded that they bring more unqualified buyers into the market. Barney Frank must be lauging his ars off with his wealthy friends at Fannie Mae /Freddie Mac.

Seems like our govt consists of DEMS who make boneheaded policy based on wishful thinking void of reality with more than a bit of self-interest, and then the GOP (think realtors and developers) thinks of ways to, not stop it , but actually profit from it . Of course the DEMS profit wildly too(think Fannie Mae and numerous bank execs). All this points in one direction, a nation with a diminished moral compass.
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

Postby tandfman » Sat Oct 25, 2008 9:23 am

paulthefan wrote:I would suggest that general moral decay in a society is the cause. When a democratic society is morally strong its representatives do not tolerate those kinds of crimes. . . . . All this points in one direction, a nation with a diminished moral compass.

You'll get no argument from me on that.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby Marlow » Sat Oct 25, 2008 10:52 am

tandfman wrote:You'll get no argument from me on that.

You say that as though something has changed in the last 200 years . . . not so much. That has been man's nature everywhere, at every time. The need for regulation at all is proof of this. And the fact that the regulation is used for amoral ends is further proof.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21126
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby paulthefan » Sat Oct 25, 2008 11:55 am

Marlow wrote:
tandfman wrote:You'll get no argument from me on that.

You say that as though something has changed in the last 200 years . . . not so much. That has been man's nature everywhere, at every time. The need for regulation at all is proof of this. And the fact that the regulation is used for amoral ends is further proof.


Quite the contrary, Just because the nature of man never change does not mean that people can afford not to be vigilant in the basics of civility and moral law. Mankind is unchanging, mans understanding of his nature, and appreciation of the implications, is changing. Cultures can decay as this understanding diminishes and is lost in the population. Cultures thrive when the common man has the moral compass of a Euclid.

A govt is first and foremost an imparter of basic principles of moral and civil conduct. A country's arcane and particular regulatory functions are secondary. A country's leadership needs first to enforce basic moral codes such as "thou shalt not steal" and needs to foster in the society those institutions that build the mores and attitudes of citizens that allow them to recognize thefts and other wickedness.

If a people reach the point of not being able to recognize grand theft of the US treasury on the order of billions, no regulation is possible that can stop it, regulation can actually be used to cause it. A free and moral people could never fall for the shell game of bankers and regulators and attendant hand wringing that just bilked them post facto out of billions. Prosecution against those crimes of theft could serve the country once there is confiscation of the ill gotten gains of the bankers. Fed prosecutors must move to seize their assets. Even if only a small portion can be regained, the first function of government is served. I dont know what statutes could be used but racketeering laws come to mind..
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

Postby sprintblox » Sat Oct 25, 2008 12:39 pm

paulthefan wrote:That was set in motion by the actual INCREASE in regulation of banking that demanded that they bring more unqualified buyers into the market.

No regulation did that. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 and its revisions did NOT force or encourage lending to unqualified borrowers. It stopped qualified borrowers from being rejected simply for living in a given neighborhood, even though they had good enough income and credit. If that Act is the cause of this meltdown, the meltdown would have already happened long long ago.

One of the biggest regulatory (or more accurately, deregulatory) drivers of this mess is this change in 2004 that allowed the banks to significantly increase their leverage and risk (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/business/03sec.html). With that newfound freedom, they went haywire with zero-down loans, crazy ARMs, and couldn't bother to check out borrowers properly. They just wanted to lend, lend, lend so they can package the loans into securities and sell them. Executives didn't have to care about the risk, because as long as they could trade them they could book short-term profits and boost the stock price and get bonuses and cash in their stock options, and if it ever came crashing down they'd walk away with a golden parachute. Like how Stan O'Neal from Merrill Lynch got $161 million.
sprintblox
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 6:43 am

Postby sprintblox » Sat Oct 25, 2008 12:47 pm

A snippet from the NYT article:

In loosening the capital rules, which are supposed to provide a buffer in turbulent times, the agency also decided to rely on the firms’ own computer models for determining the riskiness of investments, essentially outsourcing the job of monitoring risk to the banks themselves.

Over the following months and years, each of the firms would take advantage of the looser rules. At Bear Stearns, the leverage ratio — a measurement of how much the firm was borrowing compared to its total assets — rose sharply, to 33 to 1. In other words, for every dollar in equity, it had $33 of debt. The ratios at the other firms also rose significantly.

The 2004 decision for the first time gave the S.E.C. a window on the banks’ increasingly risky investments in mortgage-related securities.

But the agency never took true advantage of that part of the bargain. The supervisory program under Mr. Cox, who arrived at the agency a year later, was a low priority.

The commission assigned seven people to examine the parent companies — which last year controlled financial empires with combined assets of more than $4 trillion. Since March 2007, the office has not had a director. And as of last month, the office had not completed a single inspection since it was reshuffled by Mr. Cox more than a year and a half ago.
Last edited by sprintblox on Sat Oct 25, 2008 12:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
sprintblox
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 6:43 am

Postby Marlow » Sat Oct 25, 2008 12:48 pm

paulthefan wrote:A free and moral people could never fall for the shell game of bankers and regulators and attendant hand wringing that just bilked them post facto out of billions.

You had me till there. The present-day USA is as 'free and moral' as you're going to see in the near or long-term future. (not we are THAT moral, but relatively speaking, yes we are). All the regulation (or deregulation) and all the vigilance in the world, and all the negative consequences for misdeeds, will not prevent what just happened from happening again. Human nature is ingrained and everyone's id is just as anxious to amass the pelf as ever.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21126
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby paulthefan » Sat Oct 25, 2008 1:20 pm

sprintblox wrote:No regulation did that. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 and its revisions did NOT force or encourage lending to unqualified borrowers. It stopped qualified borrowers from being rejected simply for living in a given neighborhood, even though they had good enough income and credit. If that Act is the cause of this meltdown, the meltdown would have already happened long long ago.


funny that you should skip 25 years of regulation from 77 to today. Does it not prick your curiosity at all that a person could get a loan for a home with not a single penny in his savings account. Compare this with the era of the 80s and before, when one would need 10 % down. Only the most unscrupulous bankers in the 80s would give a loan on a property to an applicant who had no money to invest in it himself. You are excused though sprintblox as you were probably born less than 30 years ago.


sprintblox wrote: Executives didn't have to care about the risk, because as long as they could trade them they could book short-term profits and boost the stock price and get bonuses and cash in their stock options, and if it ever came crashing down they'd walk away with a golden parachute. Like how Stan O'Neal from Merrill Lynch got $161 million.


Those bonuses were tied to percentages of "business produced" and it is that number which exploded upward as mandates for more loans came from congress. All of the subprime mortgages paper was produced with congress' will. The Execs made 100s of millions in cash exactly because there were billions in loans to show for it. Congress created through regulation a much bigger problem than banker thrift of the 70s ever could have.
Last edited by paulthefan on Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:11 am, edited 2 times in total.
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

Postby Mennisco » Sat Oct 25, 2008 1:24 pm

Marlow wrote: The present-day USA is as 'free and moral' as you're going to see in the near or long-term future. (not we are THAT moral, but relatively speaking, yes we are). All the regulation (or deregulation) and all the vigilance in the world, and all the negative consequences for misdeeds, will not prevent what just happened from happening again. Human nature is ingrained and everyone's id is just as anxious to amass the pelf as ever.


Sounding more and more libertarian these days! And relative to what/whom are your people "THAT moral" , or free? Such statements quickly gag in the quicksand pit of your "sucking arguments...."

Having seen the jolting demarcation in places south of Canada, where torment and misery slam up quick and hard against the golden bricks of ostentation , I know you can only define "moral" and "free" from within the confines of your {particularly special} glass house. When have you had to hunt for pennies, scavenge for bread crusts, or wonder where your dreams/hopes went so awry that death will be welcomed with grateful arms and a gutteral "Thank God!".......in some vicious Hobbesian state of nature, which being subject to laws made within civil society, is an abomination and an anomaly so absurdly tragic it defies further contemplation/existence.
Last edited by Mennisco on Sat Oct 25, 2008 1:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Postby sprintblox » Sat Oct 25, 2008 1:32 pm

paulthefan wrote:funny that you should skip 25 years of regulation from 77 to today. Does it not prick your curiosity at all that a person could get a loan for a home with not a single penny in his savings account. Compare this with the era of the 80s and before, when one would need 10 % down. Only the most unscrupulous bankers in the 80s would give a loan on a property to an applicant who had no money to invest in it himself.

Regulation didn't force banks to lend to people with 0-5% down. The banks CHOSE to take that risk in recent years, as the relaxed regulations allowed them to do so.
sprintblox
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 6:43 am

Postby Marlow » Sat Oct 25, 2008 1:42 pm

Mennisco wrote:
Marlow wrote: The present-day USA is as 'free and moral' as you're going to see in the near or long-term future. (not we are THAT moral, but relatively speaking, yes we are). All the regulation (or deregulation) and all the vigilance in the world, and all the negative consequences for misdeeds, will not prevent what just happened from happening again. Human nature is ingrained and everyone's id is just as anxious to amass the pelf as ever.


Sounding more and more libertarian these days! And relative to what/whom are your people "THAT moral" , or free? Such statements quickly gag in the quicksand pit of your "sucking arguments...."

Having seen the jolting demarcation in places south of Canada, where torment and misery slam up quick and hard against the golden bricks of ostentation , I know you can only define "moral" and "free" from within the confines of your {particularly special} glass house. When have you had to hunt for pennies, scavenge for bread crusts, or wonder where your dreams/hopes went so awry that death will be welcomed with grateful arms and a gutteral "Thank God!".......in some vicious Hobbesian state of nature, which being subject to laws made within civil society, is an abomination and an anomaly so absurdly tragic it defies further contemplation/existence.


That's a post that I have to call 'full of sound and fury,/ Signifying nothing." :D

My point (that you studiously avoided addressing) was that present-day USA (not unlike many other current nations) is as good as it's gonna get in the foreseeable future. Utopia is most assuredly NOT just around the corner. Do you demur?
Marlow
 
Posts: 21126
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby Mennisco » Sat Oct 25, 2008 2:00 pm

Marlow wrote:That's a post that I have to call 'full of sound and fury,/ Signifying nothing." :D

My point (that you studiously avoided addressing) was that present-day USA (not unlike many other current nations) is as good as it's gonna get in the foreseeable future. Utopia is most assuredly NOT just around the corner. Do you demur?


Am I demure? No. Do I demur? Hard to say, you're being studiously vacuous in that special way of yours. I thought you'd be one of the first to argue for scientifically ehanced utopian advancements.........monster legs on lithe female sprinters doing the 9.28 gait, etc.

We shall see whether 8 years under Guh-Wuh-Bush has not shut up some stories, huddled in hell waiting, to be told, waiting to inspire those who are tired of hearing anything but songs of freedom and hope.... How could it not get better, Mr. Pitter-Patterson?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jffQsdlrMI

:D
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Postby Mennisco » Sat Oct 25, 2008 2:17 pm

sorry, I have taken up a box without using it for anything, but an apology...kind of like the economy in some waize....
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Postby Marlow » Sat Oct 25, 2008 2:45 pm

Mennisco wrote:you're being studiously vacuous in that special way of yours.
How could it not get better, Mr. Pitter-Patterson?


Ha! Moi vacuous? Is that secret code for 'you suck!' ? :D

It CAN get better. And our consciousness IS rising with every generation, but will it make a big difference in the next eon? Not likely.

How's that Looser-Lewis??!!
Marlow
 
Posts: 21126
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby paulthefan » Sat Oct 25, 2008 3:12 pm

sprintblox wrote:
paulthefan wrote:funny that you should skip 25 years of regulation from 77 to today. Does it not prick your curiosity at all that a person could get a loan for a home with not a single penny in his savings account. Compare this with the era of the 80s and before, when one would need 10 % down. Only the most unscrupulous bankers in the 80s would give a loan on a property to an applicant who had no money to invest in it himself.

Regulation didn't force banks to lend to people with 0-5% down. The banks CHOSE to take that risk in recent years, as the relaxed regulations allowed them to do so.


hmm interesting, and all my life I thought that throughout the 50-60-70-80s banks required down payments and disclosure of income and debt level all because they wanted to make money and not lose it. Now I find out that it was really just because there were "regulations" put in place from Congress back then and once those regulations changed, all those bank loan officers were able put on their party hats.
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

Postby sprintblox » Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:19 pm

paulthefan wrote:hmm interesting, and all my life I thought that throughout the 50-60-70-80s banks required down payments and disclosure of income and debt level all because they wanted to make money and not lose it. Now I find out that it was really just because there were "regulations" put in place from Congress back then and once those regulations changed, all those bank loan officers were able put on their party hats.

Now you're starting to get it! The management of the banks had a big party at everybody else's expense. They didn't care if the bank loses the money ... all they know is that they would personally benefit.

More loans = more on-paper profit for the quarter = boosted stock price in the short term. If it eventually crashes down, so what, walk away with a golden parachute. With a $161 million reward for screwing up, why would somebody give a damn whether the bank loses money? You're not really that naive to think they would manage the banks properly out of the strength of their character and their sense of responsibility?

Humans with power are greedy bastards by nature who will rape you figuratively and literally if it brings them personal profit. The law is what keeps them in check, not rationality or responsibility.
sprintblox
 
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 6:43 am

Postby El Toro » Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:46 pm

I think Keynes had some insight into the matter:
“Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest
of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest
good of everyone.” - John Maynard Keynes
El Toro
 
Posts: 903
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby paulthefan » Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:53 pm

sprintblox wrote:Now you're starting to get it! The management of the banks had a big party at everybody else's expense. They didn't care if the bank loses the money ... all they know is that they would personally benefit.

More loans = more on-paper profit for the quarter = boosted stock price in the short term. If it eventually crashes down, so what, walk away with a golden parachute. With a $161 million reward for screwing up, why would somebody give a damn whether the bank loses money? You're not really that naive to think they would manage the banks properly out of the strength of their character and their sense of responsibility?

Humans with power are greedy bastards by nature who will rape you figuratively and literally if it brings them personal profit. The law is what keeps them in check, not rationality or responsibility.


it sounds like we can agree on somethings. I would refer you to my previous post on moral decay and hazard. But if you do an honest study you will find that a significant cause of growth in the subprime mortgages was the demand by congress for US banks to create loans for people that were hitherto unqualified for home loans... THat my dear friend is government regulation.
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

Postby bad hammy » Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:02 pm

paulthefan wrote:THat my dear friend is government regulation.

That was government DEregulation . . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10881
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby paulthefan » Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:43 pm

bad hammy wrote:
paulthefan wrote:THat my dear friend is government regulation.

That was government DEregulation . . .


No it was regulation.. it was the imposition of congressional will onto the banking industry. Go back and read the hearings, you will see democrat congressmen reading the riot act " the nation has to do something to bring more loans to more people" (paraphrase) . Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in perfect agreement. Everyone gets what they want with Congress blazing the trail. The imposition of congressional will (in this case Democrat) is a sound definition of regulation. The GOP had they stood up would have been vilified as racist and tools of the banking industry. Instead they kept silent and made sure that their constituents (realtors and developers) got as big a piece of the pie as the Dem side. That is the leadership we have, both parties doing what is best for their wealthiest constituents.
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

Postby Mennisco » Sun Oct 26, 2008 1:33 pm

Marlow wrote:
How's that Looser-Lewis??!!


Looser than what, your lips? Pit-iful, Pat-iful, my dear. :lol:
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Postby gh » Sun Oct 26, 2008 3:04 pm

tandfman wrote:
paulthefan wrote:I would suggest that general moral decay in a society is the cause. When a democratic society is morally strong its representatives do not tolerate those kinds of crimes. . . . . All this points in one direction, a nation with a diminished moral compass.

You'll get no argument from me on that.


Oh puh-leez! Is it time to trot out the chestnut from Socrates (or whichever Greek philosopher it was) about the sorry condition of today's youth?

One need go back only a stunningly small number of years to find a nation with institutionalized (codified in fact) racism, repression of women's rights, etc., etc. I'll take the land we live in now, given the choice.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby Mennisco » Sun Oct 26, 2008 3:16 pm

gh wrote:Oh puh-leez! Is it time to trot out the chestnut from Socrates (or whichever Greek philosopher it was) about the sorry condition of today's youth?



That same bit of Plato or whoever was doing the speaking/writing has often had me wonder the same thing. However, I doubt there has ever been a time when I've watched kids change so much in just a few decades - after all, I'm not Methuselah, but you surely get my drift? When else in history have children and youths been able to watch pornography, violence, and murder on the internet? Was it in Atlantis, perhaps? :lol: Trust me, I assure you gh you did NOT talk to your parents or teachers the way they do today. Ever tell your Grade 8 teacher to go "gh" herself and then threaten her with physical harm? Did your classmates, at age 12, discuss who had the hottest sex, the best drugs, and brandish steel and iron at the teacher? Yawn. I tell you, it is truly shocking what comes out of the young mouths these days.

Mojo, what think you? Anyone else taught among the less privileged socio-economic members? Even the privileged ones are more vulgar than Madonna backstage.
Last edited by Mennisco on Sun Oct 26, 2008 3:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mennisco
 
Posts: 4110
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:43 pm
Location: Canada

Postby gh » Sun Oct 26, 2008 3:24 pm

I don't disagree that the youth of today seems to be overwhelmingly slanted towards being low-class louts. On the other hand, not sure that my parents didn't feel exactly the same about all those filthy dope-smoking free-sex hippies who became many of us.

The day that our "moral compass" (which was the fine point to which was referring) depends on how the raging-hormone set is acting, then I'll indeed think it's time to get outta Dodge. Maturity has a strange ameliorating effect; always has, always will.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby Marlow » Sun Oct 26, 2008 3:31 pm

gh wrote:I don't disagree that the youth of today seems to be overwhelmingly slanted towards being low-class louts. On the other hand, not sure that my parents didn't feel exactly the same about all those filthy dope-smoking free-sex hippies who became many of us.


BINGO! MY generation, teenagers in the 60s, were the SCUM of the Earth, the WORST generation ever, by far. Of course, it's also my generation that got us in our current economic mess! :D :oops:
Marlow
 
Posts: 21126
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby lonewolf » Sun Oct 26, 2008 4:21 pm

Apparently, I am from the only perfect generation in history. The Great Depression. We had perfect manners :) , no drugs, no sex, :wink: and no money. :(
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby rasb » Sun Oct 26, 2008 4:27 pm

lonewolf wrote:Apparently, I am from the only perfect generation in history. The Great Depression. We had perfect manners :) , no drugs, no sex, :wink: and no money. :(


I love your posts on here, brother, but unless you can work a few miracles, I refuse to believe that you were immaculately conceived :wink:
rasb
 
Posts: 2008
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:48 pm
Location: South of the 49th

Postby Marlow » Sun Oct 26, 2008 4:38 pm

rasb wrote:I refuse to believe that you were immaculately conceived :wink:


No, no, no. Lonewolf's generation had no sex (well, at least into their 30s!)! His parents' wicked generation was getting plenty! :wink:
Marlow
 
Posts: 21126
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Postby cullman » Sun Oct 26, 2008 4:39 pm

lonewolf wrote:Apparently, I am from the only perfect generation in history. The Great Depression. We had perfect manners :) , no drugs, no sex, :wink: and no money. :(

...and if you were my relatives...no vote nor right to citizenship even though they were born here.

cman
cullman
 
Posts: 2065
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: ...in training...for something...

Previous

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests