Exactly as I've been telling a few friends. This is a problem with viewing this purely by mark-to-market accounting.

Your house could depreciate 20% overnight, but does that affect you? Well, if you want to sell soon, yes. Also, if you're one of the schmucks who decides to walk away from your debt obligations. With people like that, it's no wonder banks are hurting (and afraid to make more loans).

Gotta say, this is surprising from the Times. I'd expect more hysteria like the "$2 trillion lost in retirement accounts" manure.

Disagreed.

If you bought a stock at $20 and it goes down to $10, you've lost half your money. Not selling just to avoid a "loss" is a terrible reason to hold.

Even to Perry's housing example: If your house goes down 20 percent, you've taken an equity hit -- your ability to get further credit, a home equity loan etc. are hampered. It affects your finances even if selling your home isn't on the agenda.

People who walk away from their homes aren't "schmucks" -- they're rational actors given the rules of the game. In fact, you might argue that people who stay in their home out of some arbitrary sense of "rightness" are fools.

Credit crises aren't borne by the borrowers -- it's always the overzealous lenders who lose their heads.

Ah yes, another place in life where theory and practice meet in the night, and go their divergent ways.

What Joe said. BTW, the jingle mail has only just begun. For those too young to remember, that's when "homeowners" mail their keys back to the bank, and walk away. Kalifornia is a non-recourse state, so all you lose is your house, and a temporary hit to your credit. We have years of it in front of us.

No, Joe, like the article says, not unless you're actually looking to sell -- or in the additional example you cite, not unless you're looking to get a home equity loan. Here's a way to test your fallacial notion: if there's money "lost," then where did it go?

I have a friend who has $7K left on his mortgage (ARM, in fact). Housing prices could completely tank in his neighborhood, which still wouldn't affect him at all. He's not looking to sell, nor is he looking for a home equity loan. Similarly, a couple of friends are 3 years into a 30-year fixed, and the cookie-cutter house next door is currently on the market for half of what my friends paid for theirs. They're not looking to sell.

As for me, how much I "lose" in my equity investments will be determined only when I cash out. right now I'm not looking at how much I've "lost." The stuff is managed for me on a purely discretionary basis, so I don't know what goes on with individual trades, and for the next while I just won't look at the statements. I still have ~40 years in the workforce; I'm not worried.

People who walk away from their mortgages are simply thieves. They're breaking a promise to repay, and these are often the same schmucks with the audacity to wonder why banks are failing. It might seem "rational" to them, but it's also rational to a mugger to commit a crime, based on costs and benefits. "Rational" in economics only means that you're not making systemic errors.

The simple remedy is to dump laws "allowing" this thievery, so that lenders can sue to compel performance. Magistrates can order wage garnishments if necessary.

Oh, Casca, don't forget that the federal bankruptcy law of 1995 is partly to blame, as it shifted "walking away" from credit cards to mortgages.

Perry, Joe & I are looking at how things are, not how they should or could be. Anyone upside down in this market needs to make an intelligent assessment of their situation, and make a rational decision. Are they morally as well as financially bankrupt for doing so? Perhaps, but there are one hell of a lot of bankrupts in this country today, and there'll be more manana. The thing to do is position yourself to profit from this Tsunami of financial idiocy. I get a little giddy thinking about where real estate prices will be come next fall.

Perry, Joe & I are looking at how things are, not how they should or could be. Anyone upside down in this market needs to make an intelligent assessment of their situation, and make a rational decision.

If you're referring to "I lost $xxx today when stocks when down," again, that's only under a mark-to-market perspective. If you're not selling today, wait it out. I don't plan to liquidate anything or take retirement distributions, so any losses don't matter to me right now. The same goes for anyone who owns something that is worth less than what they paid.

Are they morally as well as financially bankrupt for doing so? Perhaps,

There is no "perhaps" when it comes to the morality of the situation. They're committing grand theft at minimum by abandoning their promise to repay, and fraud if they took out the mortgage with the secret intent to default.

Remember that you're not really borrowing from a bank. The bank is merely a broker who brings together a borrower and any lenders. You're borrowing from other people, borrowing their money with the promise to return it plus interest.

Cosa Nostra does it right. You don't pay, you get your kneecaps in a menage-a-trois with a Louisville Slugger. (Personal saying of Perry Eidelbus.)

but there are one hell of a lot of bankrupts in this country today, and there'll be more manana. The thing to do is position yourself to profit from this Tsunami of financial idiocy. I get a little giddy thinking about where real estate prices will be come next fall.

It might turn out to be a good time for those who buy properties to rent out rather than flip, but you'll need the ability to buy outright. Banks are already skittish about giving mortgages even to qualified people, because so many qualify for loans but can't be trusted to not "walk away."

And under an Obama-Biden administration, once bankruptcy judges start "renegotiating down" the principal owed, then what bank would be crazy enough to give a mortgage? Ah, but then Congress will simply invoke its powers to force banks to lend to anyone who demands a loan, meaning forcing banks to eat losses from bad loans. Hey, no worries, the feds will have taken over banks by then, and our taxes will be used to keep banks solvent. It'll just be a formally totalitarian way of making Peter pay for Paul's mortgage, instead of the current "bailout" plans for the federal government to buy up part of people's mortgages.

There are many repercussions of "walking away" namely your credit or future access to credit takes a severe hit.

The bank should do more due diligence into the asset it's effectively buying with typically only a small equity contribution from the buyer. Of course fraudulant activities should be prosecuted. I'm not sure anyone disagrees with that.

"People who walk away from their homes aren't "schmucks" -- they're rational actors given the rules of the game. In fact, you might argue that people who stay in their home out of some arbitrary sense of "rightness" are fools."

Well said Joe.

The bank should do more due diligence into the asset it's effectively buying with typically only a small equity contribution from the buyer.

Of course, federal blackmail (the Community Reinvestment Act and similar) and ACORN extortion made it impossible. Banks had to give loans to unqualified people. There's a lot of hogwash about "Minorities with similar income and credit history still got denied or were offered loans at higher rates." The use of "similar" tells you right away that the numbers are fudged. "Similar" meaning a $50K annual income versus $60K? And it doesn't tell you other things. Are the mortgages in the same neighborhood, or is one in a good area while the other is in a place notorious for defaults? How about long-term credit history, tax burdens (which change dramatically with dependents) and revolving debt history? For example, how high and how consistent are their credit card balances? I have other friends who somehow maintain truly excellent FICO scores, but they're in debt up to their ears.

Banks aren't stupid. They don't care about a person's skin color. The only color they care about is that of your money. In a free market, you'll get a loan if you're qualified. If you're denied, that's the incentive to improve your creditworthiness. In this political reality, though, as with all other things, people turn to government to force others.

Of course fraudulant activities should be prosecuted. I'm not sure anyone disagrees with that.

So why aren't there massive prosecutions of homeowners who tried to flip a house before payments went up, got stuck when the bubble burst, and have now walked away?

And what is the recourse for banks to recover their losses, other than my paying taxes for a "fair share" of something I had no involvement with?

"In fact, you might argue that people who stay in their home out of some arbitrary sense of "rightness" are fools."

So the friends I've mentioned are fools? Not in the least. Property values may have declined, but the house is still worth more to them than walking away. That is a rational decision.

Their intent was to buy a place to live, not a place to sell. Housing prices may have been high when they bought, but didn't they agree on the final price? Thus it's implicit that the house was worth the amount they borrowed.

I don't want to speak for Joe but his comment about folks staying in their home out of a sense of "rightness" to pay their debts is different than your "friends" who stay because their house is worth more to them than walking away.

And go look up the legal definition of Fraud and apply it to a non-recourse loan and you will see why "homeowners" are not being prosecuted for fraud when they "walk away".

I'm sure our economy will NOT be better off under the La Cosa Nostra school of usurious economics. You make some very good points Perry but for every good point you ruin it with ideas that make one think you do not understand the subject.

"Rightness" still applies. You made a promise to repay someone. If you don't, that's stealing.

And go look up the legal definition of Fraud and apply it to a non-recourse loan and you will see why "homeowners" are not being prosecuted for fraud when they "walk away".

Exactly. As I said in a recent thread, as I've said many times before here and elsewhere, that's why "the law" involved is wrong.

I'm sure our economy will NOT be better off under the La Cosa Nostra school of usurious economics.

Look up the definition of "voluntary" and ponder it. If you borrow, whether from a bank or a loanshark, YOU WEREN'T FORCED INTO IT. You had the choice not to do it, but you did, and you had full knowledge of the consequences.

What we have now is that lenders are being forced by government to eat losses, and our economy is in fact all the worse for it.

You make some very good points Perry but for every good point you ruin it with ideas that make one think you do not understand the subject.

You have this bad habit of claiming others don't understand when in fact it's you who do not. I'm showing you the way. If you disregard it, that's to your own peril.

"You have this bad habit of claiming others don't understand"

Not others, YOU.

"You made a promise to repay someone. If you don't, that's stealing."

Promise to pay vs the asset which secures the loan. You lose the asset if you don't pay. Otherwise why pledge it as colateral ?

"If you borrow, whether from a bank or a loanshark, YOU WEREN'T FORCED INTO IT."

You have no concept of finance. Sure from an Accountant's perspective it might be voluntary but certainly not practical from a business or homeowners standpoint.

My statement is correct you do not understand the subject. It's ok Perry, it takes years for some people to understand matters that are this complex.

Not others, YOU.

Gee, my congratulations for being the first to degenerate this to a "No it's not" argument. Are you going to make a rebuttal of any substance, or will you waste my time with your Pee Wee Hermanisms?

Promise to pay vs the asset which secures the loan. You lose the asset if you don't pay. Otherwise why pledge it as colateral ?

If you read any typical mortgage contract, forfeited collateral that has since lost value will not suffice to absolve the debt, unless the lender agrees (which means the government strong-armed the lender).

In other words, if the bank seizes a house but can recover moral thing.

You have no concept of finance. Sure from an Accountant's perspective it might be voluntary but certainly not practical from a business or homeowners standpoint.

I don't even have to work in the industry to know that I know far more than you'll ever know, no matter how many "expert" bloggers you fellate for their misleading advice.

From any rational and moral perspective, it's all voluntary. Put your rhetoric aside and add substance to your vacuity: how is it not practical from the lender's standpoint? You're considering only one side of the loan, not to mention that "practical" must eventually give way to "moral."

I'll try to be as nice as possible to help you think about it. If "practical" is all that's necessary, then it's fine for criminals to rampage throughout civilization, for that's "practical" from their point of view. But why don't we excuse it? Because their behavior is immoral.

My statement is correct you do not understand the subject. It's ok Perry, it takes years for some people to understand matters that are this complex.

For someone who professes to know more than others, you certainly don't know how to punctuate properly (not even in the British style of superfluous punctuation). But that's just nit-picking on the side.

I wonder what kind of convoluted reality you live in when you don't understand simple concepts like voluntary action and resulting moral obligations. What other absurdities do you cling to, in addition to "It's ok to default on a loan"?

You claim I have no knowledge of finance, when in fact it's obvious to any thinking individual that it's the defaults that precipitated the current problems. Must I lead you from A to B to C, to point out that people walked away, causing banks to eat losses, causing the banks to fail? Thus it all began because people refused to honor their moral obligations to repay loans.

But it's ok, my second favorite little bitch. You and most people sadly could never understand these simple concepts even after a lifetime. Then you go out and vote for politicians so the rest of us must bail you out of your moral obligations.

Perry,

You think funding a banks or firms capital needs is voluntary...hahaha...what an idiot. Listen, if I wanted help on how to order Chinese food off the menu then I would ask you to lead me from A to B to C.

After reading how you think Usurious mafia economics is viable and bankruptcy or default should be punishable by knee capping I think its fair to conclude that you have no clue about finance. Maybe Debtor's prison is next..??.lol

Your assumption that YOU, and your taxes you paid to import your wife, are the only one to pay taxes is absurd. Everyone who earns money pays. Even fellas that live with their Mothers, such as yourself, have to pay something.

I, won't, even, go, into; your, 1930's Germany rants..oh, b'oy....(punctuation added for Perry)

And I don't know what a Pee Wee Hermanism is but if that's who's feeding you your economic insight it would explain quite a bit.

**Tugs on Perry's leash....come boy...time to get owned....again..

You think funding a banks or firms capital needs is voluntary...hahaha...what an idiot. Listen, if I wanted help on how to order Chinese food off the menu then I would ask you to lead me from A to B to C.

Free clue for you, since you're reality-impaired: any business should acquire any necessary capital through voluntary means.

But I'm not surprised you're convoluting the issue from the morality of paying back mortgages to equating it with "Well businesses need capital."

After reading how you think Usurious mafia economics is viable and bankruptcy or default should be punishable by knee capping I think its fair to conclude that you have no clue about finance. Maybe Debtor's prison is next..??.lol

If those are the terms of the agreement, yes.

Your continued remarks make me wonder just how much you've defaulted on, that you support this and try to muddy up the discussion with rhetorical generalizations. Credit cards, student loans, a mortgage, or all three?

Your assumption that YOU, and your taxes you paid to import your wife, are the only one to pay taxes is absurd. Everyone who earns money pays. Even fellas that live with their Mothers, such as yourself, have to pay something.

Bullshit. There are over 40% of Americans who have no income tax liability whatsoever, and some actually get paid by the government via Earned Income Credits. If you knew anything about taxation, you'd know this.

And I make no bones about this: if I ever meet you, I will gut you where you stand for what you say about my wife. Got that, you racist little turd?

I, won't, even, go, into; your, 1930's Germany rants..oh, b'oy....(punctuation added for Perry)

Because you can't refute a single thing. Yes, we know! Just like we know you still don't know proper punctuation. You still didn't catch it, did you?

And I don't know what a Pee Wee Hermanism is but if that's who's feeding you your economic insight it would explain quite a bit.

Can't you even read your own words, let alone mine? You effectively said "No it's not" without any substance.

**Tugs on Perry's leash....come boy...time to get owned....again..

I may be a newly married man, but you will always be my bitch, douche. What size would you like for your T-shirt, extra-pusillanimous?

And by the way, lest you think I'm overreacting, I've put up with enough of your lies, but you're now lying about my wife, and that's where I draw the line. I hope you realize what you're getting yourself into, for I don't take slander lightly.

Slander, lies and allegations of racism!!...Do you read your own posts ???

You make homo sexual comments about people you don't know. Keep in mind people may not share your homosexuality and it could be deemed offensive.

You've used terms like "wetback", ridiculous threats of violence. When called out on it you don't show. You make wild claims about employment, debt or tax payments of people who disagree with you with ZERO knowledge of reality.

I will not compare the current US socio-eco-political environment to the pre-Nazi bankrupt Weimer Republic. The concept is sooo absurd it deserves no rebuttal. 35% unemployment, decade over decade decline in prodoction of 40% in 30's Germany. And FYI, through the 30's many German banks and co's failed because there was no gov't intervention. Gov't intervention and proactive monetary policy prior to complete collapse prevents nationalization of basic services and the rise of oh say...Nazis....ho hum....

You sir, are a fraud and a hypocrite.

Of course I read my own posts. Clearly you don't. Who's slandering who's wife? I'm certainly not.

So, you're a miserable little low-life racist. Q.E.D.

You make homo sexual comments about people you don't know. Keep in mind people may not share your homosexuality and it could be deemed offensive.

The word is "homosexual," no space. I'm sorry for presuming too much of you, but is English not your primary language and hence you need me to be gentle?

Now, homo I'm clearly not, but your tales of Tijuana certainly speak volumes about you.

You've used terms like "wetback",

Yes, which you'd know, if you paid any attention, has nothing to do with how they immigrate. (Notwithstanding none of my family ever had to cross a river to come here from Europe and Asia.) The disparagement stems from the billions in social services stolen from American taxpayers.

By contrast, my parents' respective families, and my wife, all immigrated to this country with the idea of working for their own bread and not robbing others. But somehow you like to make racist remarks about them, instead of the leeches who deserve it.

ridiculous threats of violence. When called out on it you don't show.

We couldn't get the scheduling right, but how about this: what's your home address, and I'd be delighted to personally deliver your "I'm Perry's bitch" T-shirt? Let's make it a holiday. I have very little free time these days, even on weekends.

But mark my words: you'd better watch your step and hope you never meet me, for you'll realize "ridiculous" was to take my promise too lightly.

You make wild claims about employment, debt or tax payments of

Aww, now you're getting all self-defensive! Whatsa mattah, kiddo? Please don't blubber when protesting your inadequacy!

The simple fact is that I'm the kind who works hard, earns money, and has to pay far too much in taxes to have it redistributed to the lazy, worthless likes of you. You clearly don't have much of a job, because your arguments and writing abilities don't show much developed gray matter at all. Moreover, you favor massive redistribution of wealth, no doubt because it benefits you far more than the minimal taxes you likely pay. Thus it's safe for me to conclude that my household's income is many times greater than yours.

people who disagree with you with ZERO knowledge of reality.

What ironic syntax. See what happens when you don't learn your punctuation and particles of speech?

Hint: you just called yourself, as you're someone who disagrees with me, someone "with ZERO knowledge of reality." And you clearly are that, as you demonstrate below.

I will not compare the current US socio-eco-political environment to the pre-Nazi bankrupt Weimer Republic. The concept is sooo absurd it deserves no rebuttal. 35% unemployment, decade over decade decline in prodoction of 40% in 30's Germany.

You really don't get it, do you? If you haven't paid attention, I'm the one who says the U.S. economy is actually doing very well. Six percent unemployment is hardly recessionary, and this economic downturn would have cured itself were it not for fed and Fed meddling.

But my whole point about the financial Reichstag fire is that the mythical "credit crisis" (which you've yet to debunk) is the perfect excuse for a federal takeover of the banking infrastructure. That's all I was saying. So stop putting words into my mouth, ok, douche?

Didn't you hear what happened when Paulson summoned top banking execs to a closed-door meeting? Like it or not, they had to sign. Shades of Vito Corleone.

And FYI, through the 30's many German banks and co's failed because there was no gov't intervention.

You really are clueless. The reason that so much of Germany failed fiscally was three-fold: inflation, the fallout from having paid heavy reparations, and building up a war machine that they couldn't afford. Didn't they ever teach real history at whatever middle school you dropped out of?

Gov't intervention and proactive monetary policy prior to complete collapse prevents nationalization of basic services and the rise of oh say...Nazis....ho hum....

Again, you're completely clueless. Reality is being shoved down your throat, but you instead gobble up Bush's lies, Congress' lies, and the mainstream media's lies as willingly as you swallow your boyfriend's feces.

What are we experiencing now if it ISN'T nationalization of health care, energy, finance, education, and even insurance? So much for your childish notion of "proactive monetary policy." It's nice you can spew terms you learned in introductory economics, but the question is never "what," but who and why. Proactive for whom, and why?

You sir, are a fraud and a hypocrite.

Coming from you, who continually reveals himself as the fraud here, and resultingly the hypocrite, I have to laugh. It tells me that I have absolutely nothing to worry about, as you, my half-wit critic, ought to look in the mirror first.

Anyway, I'm glad you're back after the weekend. Did your boyfriend take you anywhere?

"The word is "homosexual," no space. "

I'll be more careful Identifying your sexual persuasion. I'm sure when you bought your Wife you informed her of your tastes. I'm not the foreigner Mexican remember that when you look in the mirror and suddenly have the urge for Roz con Pollo or fried rice. European...haha..

Mythical credit crisis...ha x2.. Company's cannot borrow money in the market = credit crisis. You really are dumb.

"What ironic syntax. See what happens when you don't learn your punctuation and particles of speech?"

You've lowered yourself to correcting my punctuation. You would make an excellent Accountant. I paid more attention in Economics and Finance classes, you should have done so as well. Lord knows your lack of Economic theory would make your Thai wife look towards the staff for satisfaction I'm sure.

"Let's make it a holiday. I have very little free time these days, even on weekends."
I already hired a staff to serve me and my American family this holiday season. Maybe you and the Mrs. can come work for me next year.

"Anyway, I'm glad you're back after the weekend. Did your boyfriend take you anywhere?"
"The word is "homosexual," no space. "

I'm not gay Perry but even fat kids can have fantasy's to I guess...

"Reality is being shoved down your throat, but you instead gobble up Bush's lies, Congress' lies, and the mainstream media's lies as willingly as you swallow your boyfriend's feces."

What to say to this.... I mean this is some sick stuff your into. I don't know how they roll in the Phlipapines but we don't do that here bro.

"Coming from you, who continually reveals himself as the fraud here, and resultingly the hypocrite, I have to laugh. It tells me that I have absolutely nothing to worry about, as you, my half-wit critic, ought to look in the mirror first."

Perry is that one of your literary Pee Wee Hermanisms ?

I'm done explaing the markets to you. If you think there was/is no credit crisis and cite LIBOR as your example you truly are clueless. Get out of your cubicle and go ask one of the real market people at your firm about the volatility in LIBOR and it's credit crunch implications. Paulson prevented a bigger crisis and you do know the Economic figures you occasionally throw out are historical. This situation would have been significantly worse, perhaps on the scale of the Great Depression, had the powers that be not acted.

I'm sorry Perry but you are wrong. Wrong about America being akin to 30's Germany, wrong about the systematic credit crisis the US economy faces, wrong..wrong...wrong..

You continually lie, slander and threaten. I feel like I'm conversing with an overweight child (who has imported his Wife from a 3rd world country). A few more sessions with me Perry and your friends at the suspender shop will be amazed by your knowledge of money and markets.

You have been owned,,,,,, again.

I'll be more careful Identifying your sexual persuasion. I'm sure when you bought your Wife you informed her of your tastes. I'm not the foreigner Mexican remember that when you look in the mirror and suddenly have the urge for Roz con Pollo or fried rice. European...haha..

Why should we give a hoot about you when you continue deluding yourself about me?

You claim I'm racist for using "wetback," when I don't use it in a racist sense, but you seem to like putting people. You are the only hypocrite here, pendejo.

And once again, I hardly bought my wife, so you can stop the lies there. That or tell me where to find you, and I'll be happy to make you shut up.

Mythical credit crisis...ha x2.. Company's cannot borrow money in the market = credit crisis. You really are dumb.

Here's a free clue for you: there's lots of money out there, just not a willingness to lend it. Thus the whole idea of "frozen credit markets" is a myth.

You've lowered yourself to correcting my punctuation. You would make an excellent Accountant. I paid more attention in Economics and Finance classes, you should have done so as well. Lord knows your lack of Economic theory would make your Thai wife look towards the staff for satisfaction I'm sure.

I'm nit-picking your punctuation because it's one of a million ways I poke holes in anything you say.

You claim to know about "economics" and "finance" yet cannot rebut a single thing I say with any substance, style or wit. So whatever economics classes you took, they were clearly taught by idiots who don't understand markets, or you simply couldn't grasp the subject matter. Wait a minute, I think I remember you from one of my classes. You were the idiot who the college grudgingly accepted, because your mommy threatened to sue over her double-digit-IQ boy being unqualified. So while the rest of us tried to pay attention to lectures, you were babbling on about irrelevant things. Eventually you were given a "degree" to keep you happy, right? And now you still sit in mommy's basement where you leech off my tax dollars.

And my wife isn't Thai, bub. Do you live in any sort of reality?

I already hired a staff to serve me and my American family this holiday season.

Yeah, right. Keep deluding yourself, kiddo!

Maybe you and the Mrs. can come work for me next year.

And once again, you call ME racist?

I'm not gay Perry but even fat kids can have fantasy's to I guess...

What can I say, YOU were the one who kept going on about purse-wearing guys in Tijuana.

What to say to this.... I mean this is some sick stuff your into. I don't know how they roll in the Phlipapines but we don't do that here bro.

Unless your name is anonymous Dan, willing to swallow whatever lies he feeds himself, whatever his boyfriend feeds him, and whatever politicians feed him.

Can you not rebut ANYTHING I put forth, or are you going to dance around the issue with personal insults? I mean, every round I think you couldn't possibly show yourself to be any more of an intellectual weakling, but here you go again.

Perry is that one of your literary Pee Wee Hermanisms ?

No, it's calling YOU the hypocrite when you call me one.

I'm done explaing the markets to you. If you think there was/is no credit crisis and cite LIBOR as your example you truly are clueless. Get out of your cubicle and go ask one of the real market people at your firm about the volatility in LIBOR and it's credit crunch implications.

I'm never through trying to enlighten you. Even if you'll never "get it," it's fun to mock you and watch you wallow in further self-delusions.

Fact 1: any "crisis" has been entirely government-manufactured. Government is distorting markets' ability to determine true values, and the bailout frenzy plus FDIC rules are what makes banks unwilling to spend.

Fact 2: someone else cited LIBOR, so I beat the person at his own game. LIBOR is actually lower today than a year ago, so what does that say about today's "crisis"?

Refute those, little boy. Let's see you put some substance in your replies for once, instead of resorting to "No I'm right WAH WAH WAH, Perry don't make me cry anymore!"

Oh, if only you knew what I knew, what my co-workers know. Do you want to know why my firm is one of the few on the street who are still profitable? Because we in fact understand how money works, including how the crisis is really playing out.

I'll be happy to pound it into your head like a hammer -- like I said, let me have your home address and I'll deliver your "I'm Perry's bitch" T-shirt. Or we could do lunch. Just don't bring me to one of your fag hangouts, ok?

Paulson prevented a bigger crisis and you do know the Economic figures you occasionally throw out are historical. This situation would have been significantly worse, perhaps on the scale of the Great Depression, had the powers that be not acted.

I'm sorry Perry but you are wrong. Wrong about America being akin to 30's Germany, wrong about the systematic credit crisis the US economy faces, wrong..wrong...wrong..

Asked and answer

You continually lie, slander and threaten. I feel like I'm conversing with an overweight child (who has imported his Wife from a 3rd world country).

And back to square one: you can't refute anything I say, so you have to lie about me, lie about my wife, particularly when the truth is being shoved down your throat, and you dare to say that I "lie, slander and threaten"?

You just keep staying anonymous, you sorry excuse for humanity. It's the only way you'll save your skin.

A few more sessions with me Perry and your friends at the suspender shop will be amazed by your knowledge of money and markets.

More like I'll know far more than anybody but you ever wanted to know about your experiences with the gay Tijuana scene. Those are the only things you've posted about that have any semblance of truth.

You have been owned,,,,,, again.

No man owns me, but remember: you'll always be MY bitch.

Keep going as long as you want, douche. Your words are meaningless, for you haven't the balls to back them.

There is nothing of substance left to rebut.

I gave you facts and figures on why the US is not like 30's pre-Nazi Germany. How the "bailout" actually contrasts drastically with the nationalization of industry in pre-Nazi Germany.

I explained to you that the vol. in Libor clearly indicates a crisis. Absolute levels are irrelevant. Don't take my word for it ask someone who requires funding. Ask a bond fund manager at your firm. Ask someone who knows and likes you enough to explain how it works. I am not going to spoon feed you. I'm looking at a chart right now in a research piece that clearly defines this credit crisis with exact dates and points along the volatile path that Libor has taken. I certainly will not share it with you do your own research.

You say there is no credit freeze that instead lenders are refusing to lend out of fear... Well that's called a credit freeze dumbass.

You claim a bank financing its A/L position is voluntary. That's just incorrect. A bank that can't fund cannot lend and therefore is out of business. If it can't refinance to fund it's own portfolio vs. the cash needs of the operation (i.e. withdrawals for one) it's insolvency time. If being in business or in bankruptcy were the voluntary choice you refer to then you perhaps you would be right. That funding concept is true about GE, Valero, Morgan Stanley and many, many more companies besides banks as well. AIG has assets but ran out of liquidity....Liquidity, maybe that's the concept you just don't get.

Your recent post about your firm being one of the top owners of Lehman and the GSE's certainly tells me I wouldn't want your firm managing my money. Clearly they don't teach their accountants the fundamentals of money and banking either.

If you want substance in response you'll have to offer more substance yourself rather than just your opinions sandwiched with comments about eating shit and being gay.

Flip, Thai, Mexican...whatever. Just be grateful America offers your immigrant family the same security and freedoms it affords the rest of the citizenry.

There is nothing of substance left to rebut.

Thank you for admitting that you can't refute what I say. I guess I shouldn't be disappointed, but I did have a little bit of hope you might be a man and post something concrete.

I gave you facts and figures on why the US is not like 30's pre-Nazi Germany.

Here's your lie once more: how many times must I get it through to your ignorant little head that I never said the U.S. is like 1930s Germany, though you keep insisting I am? Why do I get the feeling you like to punch yourself in the face to claim you can win a fight?

One more time. Listen up, mmmk? Financial Reichstag fire. That's it. I'm the one over in the other thread saying that this is . I'm the one who said Phil Gramm was right to say this is a mental recession. So other than the fact you can't refute what I actually write, why do you have to keep lying about what someone else said?

Good lord, at this point I don't even know why I do you the courtesy of quoting (more like fisking) you line by line, when I should instead make shit up and claim you said this or that.

Economically, there's no resemblance to 1930s Germany. We agree. But you miss the point about nationalization. Hey, you want to ignore the coming fascism, or socialism, or whatever -ism you like to call it, go ahead. It's your life.

How the "bailout" actually contrasts drastically with the nationalization of industry in pre-Nazi Germany.

Different methods, same result: full government control.

Over the centuries, Western government has developed progressively more sophisticated tools to nationalize industries. Morales sending Bolivia's forces to take over gas fields would never be tolerated here, but federal "support" of certain industries is hardly questioned. Then there are contrived economic downturns, subtle takeovers via preferred stock and legislative blackmail, and so forth. These methods rely on people like you who fail to heed warning signs until it's too late.

I explained to you that the vol. in Libor clearly indicates a crisis. Absolute levels are irrelevant. Don't take my word for it ask someone who requires funding.

Do you understand the difference between "absolute" and "relative"? Since you weren't paying attention, I was talking about relative rates.

How do you explain that there's a "credit crisis" now when LIBOR rates are lower than a year ago when there was no crisis? That simple fact means that the Fed's idea of pumping up the supply of loanable funds has worked, for whatever it's worth. Yet banks are still not loaning. Why?

The simple answer: banks don't know if the borrower will go bankrupt, or more likely, be taken over by the feds. That is why lending has slowed down, not because of any "credit freeze." Any problem is purely government-created. It's that simple.

Now, what's your answer?

You invoke LIBOR rates only to be debunked by your own cited data. The only reason LIBOR rates are suddenly in vogue is because cherry-picking the short-term fluctuations advances the American and European governments' agenda of bank seizures.

Ask a bond fund manager at your firm. Ask someone who knows and likes you enough to explain how it works.

If you knew anything about the industry, you'd know it isn't the bond fund manager, but his credit market analysts who I should talk you.

But since could we trust that you knew anything about finance?

I am not going to spoon feed you.

Ha! I knew you'd say something like that. In other words, you have NOTHING to say in rebuttal.

You want to have any credibility? Give some concrete answers. I keep slapping down your idiotic "no it's not true" arguments, and you keep parroting "NO IT'S NOT TRUE, I'M RIGHT WAH WAH WAH."

I'm looking at a chart right now in a research piece that clearly defines this credit crisis with exact dates and points along the volatile path that Libor has taken. I certainly will not share it with you do your own research.

In other words, you made up your own data. Do you know what this is called in science? Junk. If you refuse to give your data, why should anyone believe you?

So tell us, what's the source? Your ass? And is that before or after your boyfriend stuck you again?

You say there is no credit freeze that instead lenders are refusing to lend out of fear... Well that's called a credit freeze dumbass.

And as I said, it's a "freeze" that the federal action created in the first place. There was no natural credit freeze, but now we're expected to cheer the feds for a "rescue" from a financial Reichstag fire they set. Get it?

Once more, you flatly lie about what I say. I don't know why I bother, maybe in the hope I'll someday get through to you. Or maybe because I so enjoy belittling you and your pitiful knowledge.

You claim a bank financing its A/L position is voluntary. That's just incorrect.

Non sequitur. Do you still not understand what "voluntary" means? A bank will lend to another bank because it wants to, not because it's forced to. This is a basic principle of human trade. A bank no more lends (well, ought to lend) money no more compulsorily than you buy your sexual favors from Tijuana transvestites.

What we have instead is central bankers telling all the banks that it's Santa Claus with his big black bag, ready to give presents to everyone to exchange, so go ahead and have Christmas. Banks are looking at each other, saying, "No way, I don't know if you're on the naughty or nice list. I'll be on the hook if I give you a gift I shouldn't!"

Is that a simple enough analogy for your child's mind?

A bank that can't fund cannot lend and therefore is out of business. If it can't refinance to fund it's own portfolio vs. the cash needs of the operation (i.e. withdrawals for one) it's insolvency time.

Did you have a point? You're stating the obvious when it does not contradict what I've said.

Tell me how what you mention is involuntarily done, unless the government gets involved?

If being in business or in bankruptcy were the voluntary choice you refer to then you perhaps you would be right. That funding concept is true about GE, Valero, Morgan Stanley and many, many more companies besides banks as well.

So here we go: you completely misunderstand what I've meant by "voluntary." See above. I hardly use "voluntary" to mean "whatever you want to happen will happen." "Voluntary" simply means not using force against the other party.

AIG has assets but ran out of liquidity....Liquidity, maybe that's the concept you just don't get.

AIG overextended itself and properly failed. No one wanted to trust AIG with a lifeline, because it was the equivalent of begging for a payday loan for 6-months' salary, based on selling your furniture to cover debts. What private entity would be stupid ?

No one, of course. But the feds had no problem, because it's not their money.

Your recent post about your firm being one of the top owners of Lehman and the GSE's certainly tells me I wouldn't want your firm managing my money. Clearly they don't teach their accountants the fundamentals of money and banking either.

Go ahead, it's your loss. Stick your money in a Vanguard index fund and watch it evaporate, I don't care. Like I said elsewhere, being top shareholders of failed firms still wasn't our core investment. Our portfolios across the board have taken far less of a hit than the major indices. Go figure.

If you want substance in response you'll have to offer more substance yourself rather than just your opinions sandwiched with comments about eating shit and being gay.

Look back to how you've escalated things, then look in the mirror and say, "I am a hypocrite." YOU were the one who brought up ethnic slurs first, insulting me and then my wife. YOU were the one who started homosexual comments. YOU were the one who falsely and stupidly claimed I'm a coward who wouldn't call someone an "idiot" to his face.

If you can't take my dishing back, then keep things civil. Hey, I'm willing to accept your apology anytime; I don't hold things against people if they're sincere.

Flip, Thai, Mexican...whatever.

Yeah, and again you have the audacity to call ME racist?

Just be grateful America offers your immigrant family the same security and freedoms it affords the rest of the citizenry.

You sound like some first-generation American whose parents were the wetbacks. My condolences to your mother for risking her life only to have you grow up this way.

And by the way, I ensure my own freedom at gunpoint. Want to find out sometime? You want to name a time and place that's good for both of us, instead of naming it on a few hours' notice?

Perry the 90 day t-bill vs. Libor will give you the relative answer you are seeking. I'm not sure you understand what a spread is but again, find someone who cares to explain it to you.

I've have repeatedly owned you. Just recently as today numerous Economists have cited the "Credit Crisis", the "Credit Tsunami" or "Credit Disaster". Perry the grown kid who lives with Mommy knows better than prominent Economists. I think not. Funny how the cover of the WSJ today proves my arguments correct and yours absolutely wrong. I'll take Greenspan over the flip that lives with mommy any day.

Do you get the WSJ? You have yet to site any hard evidence that any of your pontifications have any proof to support them. I don't mean proof that your gay and you eat shit as you previously disclosed but that your economic theory has some support in reality. And believe me flip, I use the term economic theory to describe your ideas very lightly.

Just admit defeat and go hide in a corner somewhere.

Perry's Economic Theory of Bangkok
1) There is no credit crisis, 3 month Libor at 3.51 vs. 3m T-bills at .85 proves it.

2) USA is akin to 1930's Gov't Economically, socially or politically. Sorry this is so asinine it's pathetic.

3) Financing a business is voluntary i.e. you can choose to stay in business or go out of business...a.k.a. Voluntary.

4) A bond fund manager can't explain Libor vol.'s implications on credit.

Perry the proper use of your fantasy firearm would be to take your own pathetic existence especially once you realize your wife is "fellating" the help. Hey the guy who cuts your Mom's lawn probably has more cash than you it's not your fault. Free market Wives, hey I guess it is like 1930's Germany....

"You sound like some first-generation American whose parents were the wetbacks. My condolences to your mother for risking her life only to have you grow up this way."

I get it now being gay, eating feces, being an immigrant...you are always talking about yourself in your post..Very interesting...

I'll be away on another fabulous weekend chubbs and I'll slap you around when I get back.

Perry the 90 day t-bill vs. Libor will give you the relative answer you are seeking. I'm not sure you understand what a spread is but again, find someone who cares to explain it to you.

Your cluelessness indicates that until this "crisis," when you and other wannabes suddenly became financial "experts" by virtue of idiot journalists and their equally stupid providers of soundbites, the only thing you knew about spreads involved your boyfriend.

Let me put it as simply as possible to educate you. Referencing the "spread" as some standard of "crisis" is meaningless, pure and simple. LIBOR indicates supply and demand for some of the loanable funds out there, while Treasury securities' yields are indicative of demand for safe investments.

Any "spread" doesn't mean anything, just like the U.S. economy was humming along despite an inverted yield curve (which sometimes means a recession).

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. That's what you've fallen for, and I'm here to pick you up.

I've have repeatedly owned you. Just recently as today numerous Economists

No need to capitalize, bub. What are you, German?

have cited the "Credit Crisis", the "Credit Tsunami" or "Credit Disaster".

If you did in fact know anything about economics, you'd already know these two jokes.

"Economists have successfully predicted 13 of the 10 recessions."

"Ask 10 economists, and you'll get 12 different answers."

Understand? Just because a few economists say so doesn't mean it is so. Just because someone's job title is "economist" does not make him omniscient, God, whatever. So name these "economists," would you, so I can tell you if any have inherent biases? Mark Zandi, who predicts recession after recession and pats himself on the back when there finally is one? Krugman, who prays for a recession when a Republican is in the White House?

I, on the other hand, do not claim to be an "economist," only someone who lays out the truth and has the facts to prove himself right.

Perry the grown kid who lives with Mommy

You know the truth about that, which means you're lying once again. To remind you, my mother was in fact living with me after she became a widow. She moved out just before I got married.

Since you bring that up, I can only surmise that's indeed your situation. Want me to ask your mommy to turn up the heat this weekend?

knows better than prominent Economists. I think not. Funny how the cover of the WSJ today proves my arguments correct and yours absolutely wrong. I'll take Greenspan over the flip that lives with mommy any day.

If you want to believe Greenspan, so far the biggest liar of the 21st century, be my guest. Do you realize the absurdity of throwing your lot in with a man who says "I didn't know" when he, if anyone, was responsible for starting any "crisis" in the first place?

Do you get the WSJ?

Online only. I don't have time to deal with any print media, which is old news by the time the morning edition is published. I was actually reading Greenspan's comments via better news aggregates not long after he made them -- and calling friends to see if they were as incensed about his lies.

So did you have a point about print media, or only to prove that, wow, you can spend a few bucks a week to get pulp dropped on your parents' doorstep?

You have yet to site

The word is cite

any hard evidence that any of your pontifications have any proof to support them.

We already knew you can't read, so of course you wouldn't understand the "proof" I've cited above.

I don't mean proof that your gay and you eat shit as you previously disclosed but that your economic theory has some support in reality. And believe me flip, I use the term economic theory to describe your ideas very lightly.

Just admit defeat and go hide in a corner somewhere.

You must not know anything about Filipino culture. "Flip" is something Filipinos call themselves, like blacks call each other "nigga," so it's hardly an insult.

It would be different if you actually offended me, but for crying out loud. And could you for once try saying something of substance, my little wetback bitch? If you want us to do no more than hurl racist insults at each other, I really have better things to do with my time.

Perry's Economic Theory of Bangkok
1) There is no credit crisis, 3 month Libor at 3.51 vs. 3m T-bills at .85 proves it.

If you didn't continue lying about what I said, you'd see I never said there isn't a crisis. But there is, in fact, a government-engineered crisis.

1. Your

2) USA is akin to 1930's Gov't Economically, socially or politically. Sorry this is so asinine it's pathetic.

Again you're lying about what I actually said, but that's par for the course for you.

But I do feel sorry for you, that you don't see what's happening with the nationalizing of so many industries. You're so completely blind to the near future.

3) Financing a business is voluntary i.e. you can choose to stay in business or go out of business...a.k.a. Voluntary.

You still don't get it, do you? After I laid it all out, you're still clueless -- or just so self-deluded that you can only misrepresent what I said.

4) A bond fund manager can't explain Libor vol.'s implications on credit.

And again, you lie about what I said. The record is right here, but you're so completely delusional that I can't understand what kind of pathetic little person you must be.

Perry the proper use of your fantasy firearm would be to take your own pathetic existence especially once you realize your wife is "fellating" the help.

Oh, you wish. I'm thinking more like .45 slugs into your non-vitals, but you're too much of a coward to meet me sometime when we can both make it.

Hey the guy who cuts your Mom's lawn

Debunked above.

probably has more cash than you it's not your fault. Free market Wives, hey I guess it is like 1930's Germany....

Yeah. And you say I'm racist? You're a sad little hypocrite, as always.

I get it now being gay, eating feces, being an immigrant...you are always talking about yourself in your post..Very interesting...

Like I said before, can you say anything more than Pee Wee Hermanisms? "I know you are but what am I?" goes only so far. Try something witty for a change.

Oh lord, I actually asked you to try something witty, when that's clearly too much to expect from you. Hold on a second, I have to laugh it out of my system.

Wheeeeeeew, ok. Anyway, remember that you were the one who brought up transvestite prostitutes in Tijuana, and mail-order brides. As I've had zero experience with either, how do you know so much?

Like I said before, you can apologize anytime, and we can keep things civil. I never had a problem personally with you, but the record shows that you were the one who couldn't keep things at a semi-intellectual level. So if you don't care to receive it back ten-fold, don't dish it out in the first place.

I'll be away on another fabulous weekend chubbs and I'll slap you around when I get back.

Did your boyfriend take you somewhere nice, or did he keep you in the dungeon?

I just realized, you might always be my bitch, but you're always his gimp.

Posted by: Dan at October 24, 2008 08:23 AM

I mean, do you actually have a life? None of us with actual jobs have this kind of time at 8 a.m. on a Friday morning, particularly in these times.