Originally posted by angel7030:
How come your talk about politic is cut and paste one, or copy or paste, so to speak, r u talking or using other people notes??
In school, if copy others' essay and said that it is our own, when teacher found out, they called my parents.
i draft on words doc before i copy over. So it looks like copy n paste.
Originally posted by skythewood:Fuck you.
You didn't even read what i replied to. You better fucking read what Reyes posted before you accuse me of something bullshit again.
And what did i reply?
which part you don't understand now?
Fuck fuck fuck.
Wow, you sure get angry fast.
Thats why I asked what did you mean when you posted "Yup, just conspiracy theory", since you could have been either referring to starting WWIII, or that WWII had economic benefits which could imply that it was engineered. When you said "Yup, just conspiracy theory", I got the impression that you meant that WWII, or wars in general, didnt have such benefits to be reaped.
You mistook what I said. In the first place I didn't assert anything was a result of "conspiracy"- defined as two or more people scheming to commit an illegal act. I was responding to your "Yup, just conspiracy theory", which on hindsight, I should have asked what you meant first.
Since you mention it, I would have asked reyes why he said "conspiracy theory", but then, you beat me to it. Anyway, if it comforts your pride that much:
@reyes: What did you mean about that "conspiracy theory"?
So I ask you again, what did you mean by "Yup, just conspiracy theory". Surely, you would have the courtesy to explain what you mean.
If you got confused between "conspiracy" and "conspiracy theory" before, it shouldn't be an issue now right?
Originally posted by freedomclub:Wow, you sure get angry fast.
Thats why I asked what did you mean when you posted "Yup, just conspiracy theory", since you could have been either referring to starting WWIII, or that WWII had economic benefits which could imply that it was engineered. When you said "Yup, just conspiracy theory", I got the impression that you meant that WWII, or wars in general, didnt have such benefits to be reaped.
You mistook what I said. In the first place I didn't assert anything was a result of "conspiracy"- defined as two or more people scheming to commit an illegal act. I was responding to your "Yup, just conspiracy theory", which on hindsight, I should have asked what you meant first.
Since you mention it, I would have asked reyes why he said "conspiracy theory", but then, you beat me to it. Anyway, if it comforts your pride that much:
@reyes: What did you mean about that "conspiracy theory"?
So I ask you again, what did you mean by "Yup, just conspiracy theory". Surely, you would have the courtesy to explain what you mean.
If you got confused between "conspiracy" and "conspiracy theory" before, it shouldn't be an issue now right?
Than why the fuck you never accuse reyes?
Than why did you assume in your very first reply to my post "yup, just conspiracy theory" when you are not sure? why didn't you have the courtesy of asking me to clarify at that moment in time, and instead choose to accuse me of not being courteous?
so fuck you for being not courteous, and fuck you for accussing me baselessly, and fuck you for refusing to admit you are wrong, like ever.
Originally posted by 4sg:Money is an indication of the problems. The main issues are that:
1) wholesale speculation is still part and parcel of the banking system. Urgent reform and overhaul of the banking system is needed. The longer this takes, the harder it is to restore consumers' confidence.
2) the liability of some of the rescued banks has outstripped the asset, thereby making their operation untenable on the long run. As day passes and time ticks by, this chasm is widening. Bitter pills like closure, merger and acquisition are unavoidable and still have to be melted out.
The failure to reform quickly, urgently and take dicisive actions will have long and lasting impact.
It is not easy to intervene into a banking company, with all the policies, red-tape and expect revamp everythings in time. Definitely have to come up with some thing to boast back people's confidence. Economy recoveray will be slow. Think the money should be used to create a new economy and more jobs.. like what our dear pap does.
Its so strange, since the US tends to believe in "creative destruction" (kinda like a phoenix like recovery), and actively pushes that outside their home, why are they still saving their banks at enormous costs?
USA's hypocrisy clearly extends beyond their foreign affairs.
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:Its so strange, since the US tends to believe in "creative destruction" (kinda like a phoenix like recovery), and actively pushes that outside their home, why are they still saving their banks at enormous costs?
USA's hypocrisy clearly extends beyond their foreign affairs.
Not sure if you fully understand the topics.
The US Department of Treasury isn't really concern with the banks. Although i think Henry Paulson has more emotional attachment with investment bank. Henry Paulson was trying to prevent a Systemic Collaspse of the financial systems. That was the Fed and Treasury primary concern.
What you are witnessing globally is just a remnant of that systematics revaulation of the capital market that tied to Wall Street globally. And consolidate global surplus namely the recession. So there are no USA hypocrisy here, and No conspiracy. No Freemason, No new world order. etc.
The discussion would be perharps what Role should Govt play in this global crisi. Should they even try to save the financial market ? Many times regulators globally fail to understand moral hazard of market intervention.
moral hazard of market intervention
You know, i've often seen this line being thrown around to justify why the government shouldn't regulate the financial market, resulting in this mess.
However, there are no examples given to explain how it would be a problem. Could you give some examples please?
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:Its so strange, since the US tends to believe in "creative destruction" (kinda like a phoenix like recovery), and actively pushes that outside their home, why are they still saving their banks at enormous costs?
USA's hypocrisy clearly extends beyond their foreign affairs.
They are saving the bank so as to remain financial sound in term of liabilities, loan and debts. And also note that when they helped the banks, the US treaury will hold higher share in the bank asset, thus given them the right of intervention and decision. In another words, United states are trying to take over all banks into state owned banks, just as before, where are insitution are govt own, till privatisation takes over, now it is back to square one.
Originally posted by Stevenson101:You know, i've often seen this line being thrown around to justify why the government shouldn't regulate the financial market, resulting in this mess.
However, there are no examples given to explain how it would be a problem. Could you give some examples please?
No at this moment there are no examples of govt intervention would be a moral hazard. According to Frontline. The last decision made by Henry Paulson not to save Lehman Brothers was in his "viewed" a moral hazard as other investment banks would like to be saved. (that decision remain to be disputed because thereafter we saw AIG etc...)
However we are at a critical point where Govt globally are taking measure to restore capital market either by injecting capital into banks and merging investment bank.
If you look at Banks alone. It is also clear that Banks are currently holding onto over value loan asset that are not willing to let go or depreciate its asset if it depreciate the asset it means a 30% - 40% write off and reflect as loss. That would certainly required additional cash to cover the shortfall in deposit....they are hoping that Govt will assorb the bad loans and clean their books. While holding the newly injected capital to compensate for minimum deposit requirement and operating cash flow.
If that is the case there are no market correction.
I believe the U.S. might have come to a term with China that the massive injection of dollars will be gradual, allowing some time for China to adjust. We are seeing that 3 of China's top leaders, President Hu, Premier Wen, and Vice President Xi, are on whirlwind tours to South America and Africa for trade deals while Chinese companies snapped up resource deals worth $60 billion in just a week. They are gradually divesting US dollar holdings.
This is telling us that US dollar can't go anywhere else but down.
Chinese money is going to save the world.
But meanwhile, we will see businesses and economies around the world continue to fall apart. You Singapore is not alone. Thailand is following you close.
Originally posted by Arapahoe:Not sure if you fully understand the topics.
The US Department of Treasury isn't really concern with the banks. Although i think Henry Paulson has more emotional attachment with investment bank. Henry Paulson was trying to prevent a Systemic Collaspse of the financial systems. That was the Fed and Treasury primary concern.
What you are witnessing globally is just a remnant of that systematics revaulation of the capital market that tied to Wall Street globally. And consolidate global surplus namely the recession. So there are no USA hypocrisy here, and No conspiracy. No Freemason, No new world order. etc.
The discussion would be perharps what Role should Govt play in this global crisi. Should they even try to save the financial market ? Many times regulators globally fail to understand moral hazard of market intervention.
No.
I'm referring to sheer hypocrisy.
Doesn't the United States often push for privatisation and calls for bad loans and wayward banks to be shut down during the last Asian Financial Crisis?
Well, what the heck are they doing now? Saving their arse right?
A taste of their own medicine.
For the first time they seem to see something called "stability at home".
Originally posted by Stevenson101:You know, i've often seen this line being thrown around to justify why the government shouldn't regulate the financial market, resulting in this mess.
However, there are no examples given to explain how it would be a problem. Could you give some examples please?
x2.
Precisely because the financial market was over DEregulated that led to this meltdown. Just look at the amount of "evergreen" loans......how is it even possible if not for the fact that the accountings were manipulated so that most if not all the loans get through when the risk of busting outweighs conventional wisdom?
And when the day of reckoning comes, what do the creditors do? They scrammed and demanded their money right? Isn't this a moral hazard of lack of capital controls??
Originally posted by tai gok nang:I believe the U.S. might have come to a term with China that the massive injection of dollars will be gradual, allowing some time for China to adjust. We are seeing that 3 of China's top leaders, President Hu, Premier Wen, and Vice President Xi, are on whirlwind tours to South America and Africa for trade deals while Chinese companies snapped up resource deals worth $60 billion in just a week. They are gradually divesting US dollar holdings.
This is telling us that US dollar can't go anywhere else but down.
Chinese money is going to save the world.
But meanwhile, we will see businesses and economies around the world continue to fall apart. You Singapore is not alone. Thailand is following you close.
So are you telling me i can start keeping more yuan and wait for the value to increase?
Originally posted by skythewood:Than why the fuck you never accuse reyes?
Than why did you assume in your very first reply to my post "yup, just conspiracy theory" when you are not sure? why didn't you have the courtesy of asking me to clarify at that moment in time, and instead choose to accuse me of not being courteous?
so fuck you for being not courteous, and fuck you for accussing me baselessly, and fuck you for refusing to admit you are wrong, like ever.
Didnt I ask you to clarify already? Didn't I admit that my first impression was wrong already?
I see you have chosen to engage in a childish tantrum rather than explain yourself anyway.
Originally posted by angel7030:
They are saving the bank so as to remain financial sound in term of liabilities, loan and debts. And also note that when they helped the banks, the US treaury will hold higher share in the bank asset, thus given them the right of intervention and decision. In another words, United states are trying to take over all banks into state owned banks, just as before, where are insitution are govt own, till privatisation takes over, now it is back to square one.
Saving banks? More like saving their own corporate-fascist friends. Otherwise, the bankers wouldn't be acting in such a psychotic way, taking billions of taxpayers' money, refusing to make loans, and then giving themselves billions in bonuses.
Originally posted by freedomclub:Didnt I ask you to clarify already? Didn't I admit that my first impression was wrong already?
I see you have chosen to engage in a childish tantrum rather than explain yourself anyway.
oooo let me see the post where yo admit you were wrong...
I see you chosen to be ambigious about your post about being wrong, instead of making it simple and clear.
Originally posted by angel7030:
They are saving the bank so as to remain financial sound in term of liabilities, loan and debts. And also note that when they helped the banks, the US treaury will hold higher share in the bank asset, thus given them the right of intervention and decision. In another words, United states are trying to take over all banks into state owned banks, just as before, where are insitution are govt own, till privatisation takes over, now it is back to square one.
The banks will need to pay back the money before they can pay the executives alot of money again... So that would be an incentive for them to pay back the money, with interest to their government...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/12/banks-racing-to-pay-back-_n_166302.html
So no free money for the banks... and no banks for the states...
Originally posted by freedomclub:Wow, you sure get angry fast.
Thats why I asked what did you mean when you posted "Yup, just conspiracy theory", since you could have been either referring to starting WWIII, or that WWII had economic benefits which could imply that it was engineered. When you said "Yup, just conspiracy theory", I got the impression that you meant that WWII, or wars in general, didnt have such benefits to be reaped.
You mistook what I said. In the first place I didn't assert anything was a result of "conspiracy"- defined as two or more people scheming to commit an illegal act. I was responding to your "Yup, just conspiracy theory", which on hindsight, I should have asked what you meant first.
Since you mention it, I would have asked reyes why he said "conspiracy theory", but then, you beat me to it. Anyway, if it comforts your pride that much:
@reyes: What did you mean about that "conspiracy theory"?
So I ask you again, what did you mean by "Yup, just conspiracy theory". Surely, you would have the courtesy to explain what you mean.
If you got confused between "conspiracy" and "conspiracy theory" before, it shouldn't be an issue now right?
I already admitted that my response to your "Yup, just conspiracy theory" was rash, and based on the petty response that I got, was a big mistake. So I apologise.
Surely you cant be having so much trouble in explaining such a simple phrase.
Originally posted by freedomclub:Saving banks? More like saving their own corporate-fascist friends. Otherwise, the bankers wouldn't be acting in such a psychotic way, taking billions of taxpayers' money, refusing to make loans, and then giving themselves billions in bonuses.
That was big mistake, men are greedy, hit and run is better than going down, but the US govt are having a better control now, bankers took the opportunity to honeymoon themselves with big bonus and payout during the Bush adminstration, who, as you now, are going off, leaving Obama to sweep the floor. And Obama, as i agree with you, also need these big banking corporate for support.
But now, he is sitting tight on it. By right the bush adminstration, or so call the republicans should have clear off all these nonsense, but i guess they purposely careless so that the problem will flow over to Obama, who is a democrats. It is another kind of dirty politics.
Originally posted by angel7030:
That was big mistake, men are greedy, hit and run is better than going down, but the US govt are having a better control now, bankers took the opportunity to honeymoon themselves with big bonus and payout during the Bush adminstration, who, as you now, are going off, leaving Obama to sweep the floor. And Obama, as i agree with you, also need these big banking corporate for support.But now, he is sitting tight on it. By right the bush adminstration, or so call the republicans should have clear off all these nonsense, but i guess they purposely careless so that the problem will flow over to Obama, who is a democrats. It is another kind of dirty politics.
wat talking u? angie...
Originally posted by 4sg:
wat talking u? angie...
aiyah, forget it lah, me gong gong liao. Ask maid to make coffee cau cau. How is your day 4sg?
Originally posted by angel7030:
aiyah, forget it lah, me gong gong liao. Ask maid to make coffee cau cau. How is your day 4sg?
not here...stay clear
this topic very hot n fury.....
Originally posted by 4sg:not here...stay clear
this topic very hot n fury.....
I like it hot. The hotter, the better.
You stay cool ya, my dear 4sgie
Originally posted by freedomclub:I already admitted that my response to your "Yup, just conspiracy theory" was rash, and based on the petty response that I got, was a big mistake. So I apologise.
Surely you cant be having so much trouble in explaining such a simple phrase.
Ah, now than you apologize and admit that you are wrong. Good, you still have hope.
I don't see anything in the post you quote that says anything about admitting you are wrong though, but that doesn't matter anymore.
As for my "petty response", it was an appropriate one for some guy who accused me baselessly, ain't it?
I have already explained the simple phrase, so end of discussion.
Apology accepted.
Originally posted by skythewood:Ah, now than you apologize and admit that you are wrong. Good, you still have hope.
I don't see anything in the post you quote that says anything about admitting you are wrong though, but that doesn't matter anymore.
As for my "petty response", it was an appropriate one for some guy who accused me baselessly, ain't it?
I have already explained the simple phrase, so end of discussion.
Apology accepted.
Wee, seldom see one apologised and one accepted in sg forums leh.
The world had changed. When will my Uncle Andrew apologise to me??