Man dies after setting himself on fire in front of French employment office

It is disgusting, to be honest, the more I think of it. This is FRANCE. In 2013 FFS. When someone does something like this, it is a SIGN that something is clearly wrong. These bastards that lord it over our countries, and their mates, they are putting society backwards, not forwards. And us too, because similar is happening here, and it is the most vulnerable.

There is nothing great in Britain anymore, and there is nothing unified about the EU.

It's all dirty and corrupt.

 

That is the wrong premise in the first place. The facts are that Fannie Mae, the largest government directed 'private' GSE instituted 'affordable housing' loan programs that sought to lower borrower qualification so that 'low income' folks could own their own home.

Most loans go through Fannie Mae underwriting BEFORE a loan is written and if Fannie Mae OKs the loan package, the lender better make the loan, otherwise the Fair Housing Act can be applied and the lender will be descended upon by government investigators that will do an 'anal exam' of that institution.

No lender wants the government 'red lining' gestapo knocking at their doors. Once these loans 'close' (are funded) they become mortgages that can be bought and sold. Their solvency was trusted because of Fannie Mae backing. When the Bush II administration got wind of possible solvency problems at Fannie Mae, Barney Frank (remember him?) was called to testify as to the solvency of the institution. (He was the government wonk in charge of Fannie Mae oversight) Frank babbled and blustered that Fannie was solvent and actually got mad that anyone would question its solvency.

Those mortgages, (backed by the full faith and credit of Fannie Mae) were 'bundled' into investment securities. The official word (from Frank) was that Fannie Mae was solvent so, those securities were seen as a stable investment. There is some speculation that the 'bundlers' knew full well that these investment securities (bundled mortgages) were a boondoggle waiting to happen however, the fact remains that everyone was lead to believe (by Frank) that there was no problem.

The whole debacle was the result of liberal, progressive, 'share the wealth' typical Socialist/Marxist ideology.

 

We cannot have people here getting to that stage.

End of story.

 

These pricks never turn their 'austerity' on themselves, and they all disgust me.

How about making 'Katherine' get off her sheeting arse, and work full time, as wel as 'bring up' her baby?

WTF does William do, precisely?

And can we smother his half brother Harry, little weak punk with his X box comments.

Family of inbreds and child molestors.

 

I did read your posts and replied to one wrong-headed one with a faulty premise. It was not 9/11 and greedy bankers that caused this, it was wrong, government, socialist policies injected into the home loan market. I gave you facts....All I read from you was your OPINION.

 

Absolute baloney.

 

How so?

 

Imo, it was the systematic consolidation of our national wealth and assets, into the hands of the few, not as you suggest, an attempt at sharing the wealth, that has got us to where we are at.

 

I've explained the dynamics of the system which result in the kind of recurring economic crisis we are currently enmeshed in.

 

Sure , the "facts" abt Faany Mae etc, which you gave earlier refered to the period BEFORE Obama , did it NOT ?

I'm also puzzled by your references to your govts ", government, socialist policies " , was that during the Bush administration ?

My understanding is that the seeds was sown before Obama became president ,

Please explain . Correct me if I'm wrong ,

thx .

 

The 'dynamics' that caused this is nothing more than government intrusion into the market for purely socialist reasons so that everyone could own a home. This was a recipe for disaster because of 1) Government lowered qualification standards and 2) The Fair Housing Act that held a hammer over any lender that disqualified previously Fannie Mae underwritten loan packages for 'low income' (translation 'minority') borrowers.

 

I was discussing with troutmaskreplica about his/her faulty premise in a particular post. There was no mention of Obama and yes, these loan programs spanned several administrations including Bush however, Bush was the only President to question the solvency of Fannie Mae but he (as usual) got shut down by the liberal, socialist machine and the MSM.

I do not consider the Bushes to be conservatives, they are liberal socialists. Obama is just a radical liberal socialist.

 

Some people have argued that we could be heading towards the kind of crisis witnessed during the period of the Great Depression. I'm not so sure. There are significant differences between the situation at the beginning of the present crisis and that in 1929.

First, state expenditure has for nearly 70 years been central to the system in a way in which it was not in 1929. In that year federal government expenditures represented only 2.5 per cent of GNP. In 2007 federal expenditure was around 20 percent of GNP:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/

And the speed and vigour with which the government has moved to intervene in the economy has been much greater this time. The Hoover administration (March 1929-February 1933) did make a few moves aimed at bolstering the economy, so that state spending rose slightly in 1930, and federal money was used to bail out some banks and rail companies through the Reconstruction Finance Corporation in 1932. But the moves were very limited in scope—and the state could still act in ways that could only have exacerbated the crisis in 1931 and 1932.

The Fed increased interest rates to banks and the government raised taxes. It was not until after the inauguration of the Roosevelt administration in March 1933 that there was a decisive increase in government expenditure. But even then the high point for total federal government spending in 1936 was only just over 9 percent of national output—and in 1937 began to decline.

By contrast, the cost of bailouts pushed through by the Bush government in its dying days, just as the credit crunch began to turn into a recession, could amount to an extra 10 percent of GNP:

http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=506&issue=121#121harman_65

The increased importance of state expenditures—and the willingness of central banks and government to spend rapidly in trying to cope with the crisis—means there is a base level of demand in the economy which provides a floor below which the economy will not sink, which was not the case in the early 1930s. In this way, military expenditure, at $800 billion twice the level in current dollars of 2001, plays a particularly important role guaranteeing markets to a core group of very important corporations. Such spending can clearly serve to mitigate the impact of the crisis.

But there is an important second difference that operates in the opposite direction. The major financial and industrial corporations operate on a much greater scale than in the inter-war years and therefore the strain on governments of bailing them out is disproportionately larger. The banking crises of the early 1930s in the US was a crisis of a mass of small and medium banks—”Very big banks did not often become insolvent and fail, even in periods of widespread bank failures:

http://www.questia.com/library/book...es-in-government-bailouts-by-benton-e-gup.jsp

This time we have seen a crisis of many of the biggest banks in most major economies. Within a day of Lehman Brothers going bust, banks such as HBOS in Britain, Fortis in the Benelux countries, Hypo Real Estate in Germany and the Icelandic banks were all in trouble. From there the crisis spread to affect other major banks and the “shadow banking system” of hedge funds, derivatives and so on. The total losses as of 2008 from the Bank of England, amounts to a staggering $2,800 billion:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/oct/28/economics-credit-crunch-bank-england

Despite this, global industrial production now shows clear signs of recovering. This is a sharp divergence from experience in the Great Depression, when the decline in industrial production continued fully for three years. Paradoxically, staving off a catastrophic slump may have simply guaranteed that problems linger on, ensuring that recovery remains weak.

The recovery is also uneven. The US is growing faster, and is also faring better than Germany and Japan, which are more export-oriented and have suffered more from the decline in world trade than from the initial financial meltdown. China was also hit by falling demand for its exports but has continued to boom due to a massive state-sponsored domestic investment programme:

http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=11255

This has revived the fortunes of some of the developing economies that supply it with raw materials. But even in China there are fears that growth is unstable, with widespread concerns about an emerging property bubble, a glut of lending raising the prospect of colossal levels of bad debt, and the danger that too much is being produced for still-limited markets.

The weakness of the global recovery means that workers will continue to suffer. In some countries this takes the form of high unemployment and attacks on wages, as in the US, Spain and Ireland. In others, such as Germany and Japan, where unemployment has not risen as fast, companies have sought to hold on to workers but have cut pay rates, reduced hours or shifted workers onto part-time contracts. Britain lies somewhere between the two extremes. ibid.

Unemployment and underemployment will persist well into any recovery. A recent IMF report argues that employment falls further and takes longer to recover during recessions that have a significant financial component. The report indicates that it could take a year and a half from the end of the recession for any substantial improvement, assuming that the recovery continues:

http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy...y-stronger-than-expected-but-strength-varies/

Finally, any recovery is and will remain uncertain. State interventions replaced private borrowing and investment with mountains of public debt, and falling tax revenues made it difficult to recover the money spent. Now governments everywhere face a dilemma. Do they cut back to pay off their debts, risking a “triple-dip recession” as the stimulus is withdrawn? Or do they continue spending and risk a run on their currencies, as the eurozone experienced amid fears of a Greek default?

- - - Updated - - -

Some people have argued that we could be heading towards the kind of crisis witnessed during the period of the Great Depression. I'm not so sure. There are significant differences between the situation at the beginning of the present crisis and that in 1929.

First, state expenditure has for nearly 70 years been central to the system in a way in which it was not in 1929. In that year federal government expenditures represented only 2.5 per cent of GNP. In 2007 federal expenditure was around 20 percent of GNP:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/

And the speed and vigour with which the government has moved to intervene in the economy has been much greater this time. The Hoover administration (March 1929-February 1933) did make a few moves aimed at bolstering the economy, so that state spending rose slightly in 1930, and federal money was used to bail out some banks and rail companies through the Reconstruction Finance Corporation in 1932. But the moves were very limited in scope—and the state could still act in ways that could only have exacerbated the crisis in 1931 and 1932.

The Fed increased interest rates to banks and the government raised taxes. It was not until after the inauguration of the Roosevelt administration in March 1933 that there was a decisive increase in government expenditure. But even then the high point for total federal government spending in 1936 was only just over 9 percent of national output—and in 1937 began to decline.

By contrast, the cost of bailouts pushed through by the Bush government in its dying days, just as the credit crunch began to turn into a recession, could amount to an extra 10 percent of GNP:

http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=506&issue=121#121harman_65

The increased importance of state expenditures—and the willingness of central banks and government to spend rapidly in trying to cope with the crisis—means there is a base level of demand in the economy which provides a floor below which the economy will not sink, which was not the case in the early 1930s. In this way, military expenditure, at $800 billion twice the level in current dollars of 2001, plays a particularly important role guaranteeing markets to a core group of very important corporations. Such spending can clearly serve to mitigate the impact of the crisis.

But there is an important second difference that operates in the opposite direction. The major financial and industrial corporations operate on a much greater scale than in the inter-war years and therefore the strain on governments of bailing them out is disproportionately larger. The banking crises of the early 1930s in the US was a crisis of a mass of small and medium banks—”Very big banks did not often become insolvent and fail, even in periods of widespread bank failures:

http://www.questia.com/library/book/too-big-to-fail-policies-and-practices-in-government-bailouts-by-benton-e-gup.jsp

This time we have seen a crisis of many of the biggest banks in most major economies. Within a day of Lehman Brothers going bust, banks such as HBOS in Britain, Fortis in the Benelux countries, Hypo Real Estate in Germany and the Icelandic banks were all in trouble. From there the crisis spread to affect other major banks and the “shadow banking system” of hedge funds, derivatives and so on. The total losses as of 2008 from the Bank of England, amounts to a staggering $2,800 billion:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/oct/28/economics-credit-crunch-bank-england

Despite this, global industrial production now shows clear signs of recovering. This is a sharp divergence from experience in the Great Depression, when the decline in industrial production continued fully for three years. Paradoxically, staving off a catastrophic slump may have simply guaranteed that problems linger on, ensuring that recovery remains weak.

The recovery is also uneven. The US is growing faster, and is also faring better than Germany and Japan, which are more export-oriented and have suffered more from the decline in world trade than from the initial financial meltdown. China was also hit by falling demand for its exports but has continued to boom due to a massive state-sponsored domestic investment programme:

http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=11255

This has revived the fortunes of some of the developing economies that supply it with raw materials. But even in China there are fears that growth is unstable, with widespread concerns about an emerging property bubble, a glut of lending raising the prospect of colossal levels of bad debt, and the danger that too much is being produced for still-limited markets.

The weakness of the global recovery means that workers will continue to suffer. In some countries this takes the form of high unemployment and attacks on wages, as in the US, Spain and Ireland. In others, such as Germany and Japan, where unemployment has not risen as fast, companies have sought to hold on to workers but have cut pay rates, reduced hours or shifted workers onto part-time contracts. Britain lies somewhere between the two extremes. ibid.

Unemployment and underemployment will persist well into any recovery. A recent IMF report argues that employment falls further and takes longer to recover during recessions that have a significant financial component. The report indicates that it could take a year and a half from the end of the recession for any substantial improvement, assuming that the recovery continues:

http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2010/04/22/imf-global-recovery-stronger-than-expected-but-strength-varies/

Finally, any recovery is and will remain uncertain. State interventions replaced private borrowing and investment with mountains of public debt, and falling tax revenues made it difficult to recover the money spent. Now governments everywhere face a dilemma. Do they cut back to pay off their debts, risking a “triple-dip recession” as the stimulus is withdrawn? Or do they continue spending and risk a run on their currencies, as the eurozone experienced amid fears of a Greek default?

 

What is (in your opinion) the mechanism(s) for consolidation of the national wealth?

 

The debt to GDP in 2007 for the US was about 60%, a healthy level. As I already pointed out, in Spain it was about 36%. Almost no country currently facing a deficit or debt crisis, was facing such a such a crisis prior to the financial collapse. The US had a deficit of less than 500 billion in 2007, and almost 1.5 trillion in 2008. That has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with long term liabilities or social programs. It has everything to do with a loss of revenue, and increased spending related to the fiscal collapse. You can cherry pick whatever data you want, and it is true that we have long term budgetary problems unrelated to the financial crisis, but any current budgetary problems are largely the result of the financial collapse. This is something that cannot be denied, except by people who put adherence to ideology above reason and evidence.

Which entitlements are you talking about exactly? The only entitlements that play a significant role in accounting for our current deficits, are the entitlements related to medical care. SS consistently ran a surplus for much of it's history, and accounts for something like 3% of the deficit now. It is not at the heart of our current deficit problems. The current deficit is largely the result of 4 things. The Bush tax cuts, the financial collapse drastically reducing revenue, medicare/medicaid spending, and defense spending. Only one of those issues is related to entitlements. Once again, you are allowing irrational adherence to ideology to dictate your opinions as opposed to reason and evidence.

That is largely because neither this thread, nor my post were particularly focused on deficit or debt. There are long term budgetary problems in the US, and they would be largely manageable, if we had competent and decent people governing our country. Instead we have Democrats and Republicans, so we are forced to choose unnecessary cuts or fiscal hell, death, and destruction. No nuance or thoughtful consideration of the issues is ever done, and doesn't need to be, because politicians and pundits can peddle simplistic nonsense like what you have done in your post, and most people eat it up. So why include thoughtfulness, when knee-jerk reaction, hyperbole, and extreme partisan theater make for much better ratings.....

 

Huh ? Bush got shut down ? Hmmm frankly , I find it hard to believe that any group could've "shut down " GWB /Cheney + those arrogant SOB's during their reign.

But if that's what you believe O K , but dont expect everyone else to swallow that BS .


byeeeee

 

I am not one of those too brainwashed to call out my own country.

This is a dirty country now. It need not be that way. It could be cleaned up, and it can be healed. Even in some simple and constructive ways, no pissing around, no half truths and measures, basically, the opposite to what our pissant career, weak, rat faced, ferrety, traitors in their moronic Parliment are like.

Things we need to remove, that are like a PLAGUE on us, and don't just palm me away as being stuffy, I have really thought this through, and read up, and while I do not wish to dictate ANYTHING a person says or writes, I do want to get rid of certain things with immediate effect, just small things.

1) All those cash for gold and pay day loan places. Shut them all down. Licence denied. They are SHARKS. I don't want to hear how they provide a service, and all of that crap, it's a nasty + parasitcal trade. Close it all. If people need loans, lets see more credit unions again, or provide some method of a person getting a loan for a few days, at no interest. I don't care. Shut them down.

2) All this freaking internet poker, gambling, etc. Sorry, again, if you are just going to allow an addictive force into your society, that is not good enough. I am okay with people going to the bookies etc, like they did, but making it so easy, and 24/7, all you are doing is pouring misery on your people, by opening your national legs, and letting this filth in.

3) Google and Starbux. No worming out, like Fagan, pay up, or FO.

Things like that.

Decisive actions, with no fannying around.

 

It seems Frances expieriment with Socialism isn't going so well. Who woulda thunk it?

 

Define what you think it is?

 

Altruism. The rape and death of mans mind.

 

It was 'privitisation'.

Back in the 80's.

It did not just happen here, but globally.

We were all lied to it would make things cheaper, and that standards would raise.

It was lies. They used this as one of the mechanisms, because all our infrastructure was sold off, and it ends up in fewer hands.

It is not cheaper, and they all miss their basic targets.

So, that ripped that arse out of that, and what is more, they flattered us, created a temp wealth,and like weak like maggots, people cheered their own infrastructure into the sunset. And now we do not have that any more, it has fallen into the hands of a few, gas, electric, trains, etc, etc.

 

They are all capitalists. 100%. Not even an inkling of socialism!! Government is an ever-present and fundamental element of every capitalist system in the history of the world, and yet still the uneducated insist on asserting that any government involvement equates to socialism. It is insanely stupid.

On top of that, the real estate bubble was a GLOBAL phenomenon. It happened all over the world. To claim that one small element of US policy was at the heart of a global real estate bubble is ridiculous to say the least.

PS. Republicans controlled the house, the senate, and the presidency from 2001-2007. How stupid do you think people are to believe Democrats are solely at fault? Seriously?

 

Altruism means that to you?

Different men, different meanings I guess.

 

Explain privatization. What do you mean? In America, banking procedures are almost totally controlled by the Federal Reserve.

 

I can't claim to be an expert on the housing bubble but the global manifestations occured because other countrys/banks bought all these rotten loans from us.