I think we all know about the most dangerous people in America - those who are destroying the economy. I hope you already got yours $$$. I hope you social do-gooders are pretty pleased with yourselves by now.

[quote=tenthtee]

I think we all know about the most dangerous people in America - those who are destroying the economy. I hope you already got yours $$$. I hope you social do-gooders are pretty pleased with yourselves by now.

[/quote]

darn, another post....no clue what the fukc you ae trying to say.

I don't know who she is or why she is dangerous, do you? I thought maybe she was lecturing about the virtues of Obamunism. The social do gooder comment was directed to the progressives here.

I do know about Proust, did you read all seven books?

How is that hope and change thing working for you?

I'm glad I'm not the only one who didn''t know who she is.  If you right click and then choose Properties you'll learn that she's Elizabeth Warren.  The person rumored to be in charge of the new regulatory agency the Obama administration is supposed to be forming.  She appears to be very anti-bank and very anti-lending institution.  If Obama nominates her and she gets confirmed, we might be saying bye-bye to banks as we know it.  She's convinced that the banks are predatory in their lending practices.  She's wants to put the needs of the consumer ahead of the needs of the bank.  Well that sounds great in the classroom, but it might not work out so well in practice.  The biggest need of the bank is profit.  And if you take that incentive away, we're all screwed. 

At this point in our country, when all of the Dems and Olympia Snowe are in favor of something, you can pretty much bet that if that thing comes to fruition, it's not going to end well. 

tenth - I think you and Ms. Nettles might actually be on the same side of the political aisle. 

Based on performance when they were in charge, I would think that side of the political aisle should be too ashamed to be seen or heard from in public.  Elizabeth Warren is very pro-consumer to be sure, but is also rational.  What we need now is to get the financial system to a place where retail investors have faith in it again.  That requires this type of person more than the idealogue right-wing whose "ideas" failed us so miserably.

I'm not a left wing nut (except to right wing nuts).  I believe the secret to success in most endeavors, including public policy, is moderation and balance.  We had to much regulation in the 70's and too little in the 00's.  Time to find some more balance.  That won't come from anyone who thinks has Fox a real news channel.

The financial reform has hamstrung the banks' ability to lend - already. It's all about politics. Now the dems are self-destructing. Economic fear and uncertainty in America - who wants to invest in this economy. Oh wait, being an owner of capital is "bad". Thanks, Washington, for unnecessarily prolonging the Great Recession.

It used to be, folks like us just expected the government to do its job. Now, it's more about what looks politically correct. When did we lose our b*lls as a country that likes to work hard and play hard? The thing that is different now, I wonder how much BS the ordinary citizen is willing to take?

Remember when she ran that fund w/ 100 m AUM...?, or when she started her own business and had to make payroll...? What about all the times she told the Gov. about the impedning doom of the housing bubble... oh wait that wasn't her.

ahhhh...Elizabeth Warren. I've seen her speak, very nice women and much more reasonable then alot of the administration's elite types... you know the ones that work at a college most/all of their career and then tell those in the field how it "should / should have" been done.

This Gov.'s idea of governing is the equivalent of me telling Kobe how to play better because I watch alot of basketball.

I love the SIPC fund BTW... anyone else see their commissions going to this...?

From Warren's 2007 Frontline interview. Socialist dribble. Good for your 529 sales? Personally, I busted my butt at work in college and repaid my debts by working.

" So, we have this huge appetite for, "That's the final thrust to get my children a chance to be in the middle class: college." And yet, what's happening with college? We don't pay for it collectively. We make families pay for it individually and we make the students load up on debt so that the next generation's huge division is that the children of well-to-do families, who can afford to pay for the college education for their children, have a leg up. They start their adult lives, if nothing else, at least dead flat broke -- right? -- at least at even. The children of that huge underclass start with tens, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. For some it'll be a good investment, and for some it will be the rock that will sink them. They start the great American race fifty yards behind the starting line, much less the finish line. They're got all this debt that they've got to manage and all this debt they've got to pay off. And we've written the laws to make it that these debts are non-dischargeable -- you can't get out of these debts. If you get sick you still have to pay these debts, if you don't have a job you still have to pay these debts. Really tough."

I thought she was the official peter meter gal measuring softie at full arrousal.

Spaceman Spiff: "Well that sounds great in the classroom, but it might not work out so well in practice."

Great quote.  Could be said of Liberalism in general.

Guys, please.  Learn the definitions of the words you use.  Socialist?  Really?  Have you even seen an economics text book, much less understood it? The level of economic ignorance in this country is a problem, but that of advisors is downright frightening. 

All Warren is saying there is that access to jobs that pay middle class wages is now, due to the erosion of skilled labor jobs in manufacturing, gated by a college education.  And the economics of that education are totally divorced from that of the real economy.  The costs go up almost 10% annually and the benefits don't.

And if you start telling me "that's the free market" then I'll really know you don't know a thing about economics.  In fact, I challenge anyone on this board to identify three actual "free markets" as defined by classical macroeconomic theory:

a. Perfect competition

b. Perfect access to information between buyers and sellers

c. No barriers to entry

There are others, but that's enough to rule out 99% of all industries.

And no, I'm not advocating for socialism (not that you even know what that means) I'm just saying that every economist from the days of our founding fathers, including Adam Smith, understood the concept of free markets and how rare they are and that government absolutely had a role in addressing the shortcomings of markets that are not totally free.  How to address those shortcomings was often debated:  trying to make them free through something like better access to information, or something more heavy-handed, like anti-trust, but a practical role was never really disputed.  Those lessons weren't lost until the late 1800's, leading to the Great Depression, and then again in the late 1900's, leading to the Great Recession.

What I cannot believe is how many of you Hooverites, through willful ignorance, can not learn the simplest of economic lessons. What the heck did you guys spend your time studying?  Your own d**ks?

God help us and, especially, your clients.

Warren is as self-interested as any professor who has launched their economic ideas into a position of career, money, power.

Economics does not suppose that the solution to dealing with complexity is to add complexity.

Farming is a natural example of perfect competition: man vs. nature, or man in harmony with nature (both).

In the world of play, golf is an example of perfect competition, since you play against yourself (handicap to zero) and keep yourself honest.

You are on the right track. Your observation about barriers to entry touches on the meaning of capital, public and private stewardship. That is currently the ghost in the economic machine.

Free Markets are like wild animals and need a certain amount of oversight. The best example I can give of a free market would be prostitution and drug dealing. Both are completely transparent and all risks are known but truly a "wild animal."

The Free Market needs oversight to domesticate the "wild animal" and drive the markets to the greater good of the entire economy. Too much regulation and you will stunt growth to little regulation and you will get you hand bit off. The problem with regulation is you cannot have a "tame" market and maintain the position as the only superpower in the world. If we over regulate our economy we will be surpassed by those that do not. This country would be better served be guiding the economy and stop trying to control the economy.

Madman - "That won't come from anyone who thinks has Fox a real news channel."  So, which news channel should I be listening to or watching instead?  NBC?  CBS?  CNN?  NPR?  BBC?  If Fox isn't a real news channel, which one is? 

[quote=Jennifer Nettles]

[quote=tenthtee]

I think we all know about the most dangerous people in America - those who are destroying the economy. I hope you already got yours $$$. I hope you social do-gooders are pretty pleased with yourselves by now.

[/quote]

darn, another post....no clue what the fukc you ae trying to say.

[/quote]

You seem to have trouble understanding things, that you really should be familiar with. I suspect, you're a licensed financial associate. Do your brokers, senior reps of your team find redeeming value in your juvenile sarcasm?

[quote=loneMADman]

Guys, please.  Learn the definitions of the words you use.  Socialist?  Really?  Have you even seen an economics text book, much less understood it? The level of economic ignorance in this country is a problem, but that of advisors is downright frightening. 

All Warren is saying there is that access to jobs that pay middle class wages is now, due to the erosion of skilled labor jobs in manufacturing, gated by a college education.  And the economics of that education are totally divorced from that of the real economy.  The costs go up almost 10% annually and the benefits don't.

And if you start telling me "that's the free market" then I'll really know you don't know a thing about economics.  In fact, I challenge anyone on this board to identify three actual "free markets" as defined by classical macroeconomic theory:

a. Perfect competition

b. Perfect access to information between buyers and sellers

c. No barriers to entry

There are others, but that's enough to rule out 99% of all industries.

And no, I'm not advocating for socialism (not that you even know what that means) I'm just saying that every economist from the days of our founding fathers, including Adam Smith, understood the concept of free markets and how rare they are and that government absolutely had a role in addressing the shortcomings of markets that are not totally free.  How to address those shortcomings was often debated:  trying to make them free through something like better access to information, or something more heavy-handed, like anti-trust, but a practical role was never really disputed.  Those lessons weren't lost until the late 1800's, leading to the Great Depression, and then again in the late 1900's, leading to the Great Recession.

What I cannot believe is how many of you Hooverites, through willful ignorance, can not learn the simplest of economic lessons. What the heck did you guys spend your time studying?  Your own d**ks?

God help us and, especially, your clients.

[/quote]

Interesting post! I suspect this country was doomed as the ink dried on the Declaration of Independence. The Founding Fathers knew this, and so did the French when they donated the Statue of Liberty. If folks think the US has entered into socialism now, should look at the US under FDR. Now there was a clueless President if there ever was one, but our revisionist history books consider him some great savior. No, the nation survived despite FDR. Hey, If you like Adam Smith, pick up PJ O'Rourke's "On the Wealth of Nations". Enlightening, and funny, just like everything PJ writes.  

Spiff - All of the others are better, not necessarily good, but better.  Fox "News" audience is demonstrably more ignorant than the audiences of other media: 

You can actually feel yourself getting dumber watching these morons.  And when someone has to say they are "fair and balanced" you can be certain they are neither!

[quote=loneMADman]

Spiff - All of the others are better, not necessarily good, but better.  Fox "News" audience is demonstrably more ignorant than the audiences of other media: 

You can actually feel yourself getting dumber watching these morons.  And when someone has to say they are "fair and balanced" you can be certain they are neither!

[/quote]

All media has "bias". Trouble is, virtually all major media had a liberal bias, thus paving the way for the success of the alternative viewpoint. No different than an ice cream shop catering to chocolate, when the other 7 competitors are selling vanilla. Calling the alternative viewpoint ignorant, and stupid, goes back a long way...

What does how old the Earth is have to do with politics?  Oh, wait.  It's a religious reference.  You're saying that more of them are religious.  And that's a bad thing in your opinion.  Full disclosure, I'm what you'd more than like call a religious person, and I don't believe the Earth is 6000 years old. 

You mean to tell me them Iraqi people didn't have anything to do with 9/11?!  I'm shocked!    You're serious again aren't you.  You believe that because Bush invaded Iraq that conservatives believe they had something to do with the attacks?  I don't think conservatives are that particular in their disdain for folks from the middle east.

I understand the whole birth certificate argument with Obama.  There are way to many other things I take issue with him on to worry about his birth certificate.  I do think it's a little odd that he won't just produce the thing to shut them up. 

Who, specifically, are the morons on Fox that you feel dumber for watching?  Beck?  Hannity?  O'Reilly?  I can see where if you lean even a little bit left you wouldn't like those guys.  But do their shows really make you any dumber than the drivle that CNN puts out?  Do any of the big 3 networks even have a legit news desk anymore?  You talk about the dumbing down of America.  Can you imagine if the only news we had to watch these days was local news and the goobers on those networks?   Katie Couric?  Seriously?  I can at least stomach Brian Williams. 

I don't even like to watch guys like Hannity.  His schtick gets really old, really quick.  Beck is intriguing, but maybe a little crazy.  He's either crazy or a genius.  It's a fine line.  I rarely see O'Reilly.  I like his radio show, but he stopped doing it, so I can't listen to him anymore. 

So, where do you get your news of the day?