RDKirk wrote:
Yes, there are such banks. At one extreme, I was recently reading about a small, locally owned bank that almost exclusively serves an Amish farming community. Yes, the Amish farmers do borrow money, but they only borrow what they need, what they know will increase their own income, what they can pay back well within their means, and they are scrupulous about paying it back. Because these Amish farmers don't have official credit references (the bank loan officers know them, know their families, know their parents, know their aunts, et cetera), the bank can't "securitize" and sell the loans--the bank owns and services the loans directly. That bank is still doing quite well, and will do well as long as the Amish farmers can continue to sell their crops profitably.
There are actually a lot of banks that never tried to get into the schemes that were essentially gambling with other people's money. Those banks were considered dumb schmucks a few years ago....Show more →
My suggestion is that we take all the wizards in the Mortgage Banking and Investment Banking industries, who dreamed up the exotic financial instruments that have caused this global mess, and do what the Maoists in the 1960s did with elites during the Chinese Cultural Revolution: Send them "back down to the farms" (i.e. the Amish farms) to relearn good banking skills.
I always thought it should be the responsibility of oil companies to bail out car companies! Or at least take on the color inkjet business model of giving away printers (car) to sell people ink carts (oil)! I guess car consumers are not as demanding.
Let's go easy on the republicans, I for one didn't care for bush, but I'm going to give the messiah a break: I want to know if I will be better off in 4 weeks than I am now?
I had a huge rant, about people stealing from the government, and such, but I'll stop and try and remind us all that we're all very fortunate to own whatever camera gear we have, and have internet available somewhere to even be discussing this online.
Yaay for Canon. I was pissed when Nikon advertised the D90 as the "first" DSLR with HD video when we all konw that canon released the 5DII first, and it's better.
Is Canon in trouble ?
Oh, boy, Did you just come back from the 6 month tour from Mars ?
I know only two companies that do OK today - Exxon Mobil and John Power the Attorney You know, think about it. Those two business cannot have any down-turn. You have to drive. And you have to sin, no matter what..
RikWriter wrote:
There may be a lot of photographic knowledge on this board, but I swear to God, there's not that much economic knowledge.
+1
A few years ago I pointed out the dangers of a consumer society- & industries-satisfying wants rather than needs. I was accused of being a neo fascist & given a 10 minute lecture on how safe the US economy was with countries lining up to invest therein. I am only too aware of the problems & dilemmas facing industry today & feel for those affected by the greed of many at the top. The problems have been caused by pure greed be it personal or corporate. In Western Australia there has been a mining boom with many workers earning in excess of $100.000 US. What did they do with their money -bought boats, cars, large houses on credit. Many have now lost their jobs & are in economic strife expecting the more frugal to have sympathy. It does not take a genius to work out that if you spend more than you earn it is a recipe for disaster. Charles Dickens espoused this 150 years ago. So if Canon are making a small profit & continue to do so I see no cause for concern in light of world woes. As long as they are not cooking the books.
Tony B wrote:
So if Canon are making a small profit & continue to do so I see no cause for concern in light of world woes. As long as they are not cooking the books.
91% drop in Q4 profits is generally not a trend to be sought...
RDKirk wrote:
But we've already paid $350 billion for nothing, and we're about to pay another $350 billion for nothing. I'd darned sure rather have paid $350 billion for maybe $100 billion worth of real estate and solved the problem than to pay $700 billion for nothing and still have the problem.
Oh, it's been spent on something - it's just not something that is benefitting the general public, let alone the 54% of us that are actually federal taxpayers.
canvasback13 wrote:
I don't think a flat tax is fair for the lower earners, it does shift too much of a burden on people who can't afford it.
I think it's very "fair".
After all, it'll force many of them to finally see an actual tax bill for Federal Income Tax, rather than always getting a refund (since they end up owing no federal income tax at all).
THEN, and only then, maybe they'll care about reducing the spending of the federal gov't.
jvarszegi wrote:
It's nuts how people are allowed to pass so much of their accumulated wealth on to their heirs. It ensures class separation and maintenance of the status quo.
I'd like to be the first to request that you leave all your money to ME in your will. I wouldn't want you to pass it on to your heirs, after all.
You know, think about it. Those two business cannot have any down-turn. You have to drive. And you have to sin, no matter what..