niggers is spelled with two g's btw

its strange coz Nigeria is spelled with with single one... o_0

and that's why they're pronounced entirely differently? :)

not in other languages

oh ok. i thought it would be called something different in other languages though... like how the United States is Etats-Unis or something like that in French.

most countries have the same root in other languages

even the country niger is pronouced different

LMFAO took me 20 seconds to click on

lmao@russia is what i think.

this journal is WIN

ibtn

I think you make Jamerio look like Steven Hawking.

he's not?

Steven Hawking could be so nice president for American Imperia ^^
Plus Chris Crocker as prime minister ;)

No it had nothing to do with the lack of oversight and predatory lending. It was the goddamn niggers!


Stupid third world ruski idiot.

I dont tell its not the lack of oversight and predatory lending. The whole idea of this post is that if there was no political correctness - Subprime Mortgage Crisis would be possible avoided for now (but anyway it would take place in the future, thats for sure)

Again what you think is not what happens in the real world.

your friend doesn't know shit. california had more homes foreclosed than any other state and only 6% of the population here is black.

i wouldn't be surprised if the default rate was highest among niggers, which is essentially the basis you should be making assessments on vis à vis this journal

http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1511573#pid1511573

http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1524318#pid1524318

r u trying to say im lolograde or some shit? i dont get it.

kewl B>

hi jamerio

...

A) I'm on dialup:(

B) Way2smart to route via UK.

poor u, all the polish people in england get free 2mbit dsl when they arrive

It´s sort of correct. They have this law that banks must lend 2% or smth of their total credit volume to ppl from "underpriveleged communities" which of course dont have the securities for these credits. I´m not into american societal demographics, but those special communities could be mainly populated by black ppl.

On a note: This law seems idiotic to me.

Edit: Oh and this law existed long time before the house prices went through the roof.

plz give me a link to read.

I would have to search it myself and this would prolly take more time then I´m willing to spend on this issue right now.

i really don't think there is such a law.

I´ve written some coursework about the causes and I discovered this law accidently while I wondered where this base level subprime mortgages came from while there were still high interests. You can of course refuse to believe that. Have fun.

i think it would be all over the news and it's clearly a racist law. i choose to disbelieve because you haven't provided any evidence. 'the burden of proof lies with the one who makes the claim' etc. you think i'm supposed to be gullible or wtf?

cmon there are myriads of stupid laws and "advices" in USA - as the first one that came up to my mind is that every hollywood movie should have at least one black character...

Btw they are going to refilm "Snow-White and Seven Gnomes" coz all the gnomes are white plus Snow-White offences afroamericans. Uberfucking bullshit but true story tbh.

Where do you get this retarded shit from?

probably from the russian media...

they're dwarfs

read my initial post again and understand why it has nothing to do with racism

also: i dont need you to believe me. i´m fine when someone on the other half of the globe thinks something different

oh yea i thought u said 'minorities' instead of "underprivelidged communities". either way, i'm going to be skeptical of someone on the other half of the globe has to say about where i live.

i just want you to give me something credible to read, other than your esr posts, thx.

I don't know if the theory is correct, but on an American website, this whole thread would be censored. Ironic, really.

they could possibly cut it down, but that wouldnt keep back the fact that this political correctness led USA to "woman" vs "black" pres elections as apotheosis of "lol gief rights to the women wtf" vs "omg shiet niggers are ppl too".
Im not nazy, I'm just a friend with my brain.

Seems like your brain doesn't want to be friends with you anymore though.

the media chose the "frontrunners" for us. the two that the corporations like most are obama and clinton. doesn't really have anything to do with how the general population thinks about these things.

more due to the fact that most americans don't understand how to live within their means. you can't have a $500,000 house while making $40k a year.

exactly

30 years of serfdom? Why not? :>

very true. i see it happening in India now with credit card companies pretty much giving away gold and platinum cards to anyone with a decent job in a good company.

WOW HAHA

Just say no!

oh btw replace "suited" with "sued".
My poor engish...

also replace "brain" with "icecream".

zing

i think you're pretty stupid, thx for asking

afro americans ruin it for everyone

Attached Thumbnail: 63607-afro.jpg (944KB)

Y'know they drink from the same waterin' holes as us now? It's political correctness gone mad.

yeah, and novadays they are even allowed to enter same restaurants as us !!!!

damn nigger stole my seat on the bus the other day
i got on & there he was sitting down when there was no free seats meaning i had to stand ;(

aaww. that sucks !

You seem to overlook Birmingham is full of blacks but moan about one taking your seat on a bus?

was a rosa parks jk
stfu

rolf whoosh

Race really has nothing to do with it, they just simply can't afford their payments. There might be legitimate claims about different solvency rates amongst the different races, but it probably had little to no impact on the eventual foreclosures.

Like Poindexter said, people can't afford living in a $500,000 house when they only make $40,000/yr. But part of the reason why they even would have a mortgage for 90% of their home value on a house like that is two fold: 1-- bad lending practices (not predatory, necessarily, but definitely not conservative) and 2-- the housing boom (built up by speculators and house flippers) didn't appear to be slowing down even by late June 2007.

The problem is that everything in housing was overvalued. Now people have a $450,000 mortgage on houses that only cost $300,000 or less. A house that would naturally cost a reasonable amount would have doubled in the past two or three years. Even today we see oil (way overvalued) and gold (equally overvalued) really being driven by speculation.

But where there are losers there are winners and there's a lot of smart, intelligent people out there making money off this crisis. So part of this 'collapse' is being turned into wealth transfer by those day-traders out there. Moreover, house flippers leading up to the bubble popping got a pretty damn good deal too. Not all bad, imo. Just bad for the big banks that were holding these bundled mortgages. :-P

Yep but his message was "Omg we gave poor ppl, who are mainly afroamericans and mexicans, an apportunity to buy a house and they ruined all the stuff coz of their greed"

i thought we already established that your friend was fucking retarded and is not to be taken seriously, no matter how much he believes his own racist bullshit.

I don't know about gold, but oil is most definately not overvalued.

How much does Exxon pay you? :(
j/k

The only reason the oil price is so high is speculation. So imho, it is overvalued.

you are partly right. The price at the moment is mostly due to speculation. Even though most of the oil price is traditionally set by the OPEC not Exxon or any other Western company.
And for decades especially the Saudis have basically been throwing their oil away for next to nothing.

Yes, at this time oil can be produced pretty cheaply, but that doesn't mean it should.
However, what you have to realize is that oil is a very finite ressource. While it will last longer than panic makers say it can simply not be produced (at least efficiently).

Therefore the actual price it should have must be calculated in order to stop wasting of oil while still making sure everything that is neccessary is possible to maintain. It simply isn't good that people can afford to drive as much alone and use as much electricity and heating and throw away plastic bags and the list goes on and on.

Of course it isn't nearly perfect that all the profit goes to oil companies and so on, but I for one think the price is not too high. Even though, personally, I just had to pay my heating bill :(

The way I see it is there no real cause of why oil prices should be going up so drastically other than bearish speculation.

Here's 2007 crude oil --> http://futures.tradingcharts.com/hist_CO.html

Looks like it was trading at just above $60 or so at the start of 2007. Now it's $110 per barrel. I can't see any correlation to any MASSIVE cut backs in supply or any MASSIVE increases in demand. I know the value of the US$ is slumping which may have had some effect on crude oil prices. But beyond that, OPEC has been steadily increasing output and most major industrialized countries are sincerely cutting back on wasteful usage of oil.

You know, oddly enough, a lot of major money and financial news sites do not keep historical charts on crude oil. Hmmm...

Also, just on a side note, I remember the days when I was a young kid and the media was pushing people to ask for plastic bags at grocery stores because using paper-bags was wasteful and killed lots of trees. Nowadays, it's the other way around. Anyone else remember those days?

In my first sentence I agreed that the pricces atm are mostly due to speculation ;) But my reason for why I think a sensible price for oil is high is completely different.

The fact that the OPEC is increasing oil production deosn't mean they can't also increase the price. It's what being a monopoly is all about.

While I agree that lots of countries (tried to) cut back on their oil use, countries like India and espcially China didn't. And that does make a huge difference.

Can't remember ever getting paper bags at the supermarket (only at real farmers markets on marketplaces). But when I was around ten people did start to advertise linen bags which are stronger, washable and can be reused countless times.
I'd wish those bags would be mandatory all over the world. Imagine how much less trash there would be.
(And no I don't have long hair, drink herbal tea or hug trees, tyvm :P)

OPEC doesn't have a monopoly. Russia is still not a member of OPEC (afaik) neither is Venezuela. Brazil is soon to be a major supplier of oil (within the next couple of years) and they are also not apart of OPEC. OPEC probably makes up a portion. But still not enough to entirely manipulate prices as much as we've seen in the past year.

Besides, Futures markets (like the one crude oil is traded on), really is more in the hands of corporate and large entity investors than OPEC. At least, in the short run, in terms of prices.

Venuzuela is a founding member of the OPEC.

I still think thy have a monopoly simply because if they don't deliver the world stands still and they have used that power in the past. Or do you really think companies started the Energy Crisis?

Anyway, if you want to call them a cartell and not a monopoly that's fine with me.

They may have been a monopoly before, but I think OPEC holds far less clout now than they did 30 years ago. Afaik, Russia isn't a member and they do a significant portion of the world's oil supply. I'd call OPEC a cartel simply because they do not hold a majority of the oil supply but only a third or something like that. If they held like 70 or 80% then I'd call them a monopoly.

All oil producers are reaping the benefits of this surge in price... but I don't believe it is their doing to cause this huge upwards trend in oil prices.

This is just my opinion, and I'm probably wrong, but I think a lot the speculation and hysteria regarding oil prices is due to the political season in the US. Politicking plays a lot on fear and hysteria and "the world is falling apart and you have to vote for me cause I know how to fix it" rhetoric. And I think what is happening in the housing market combined with the jump in oil prices is played up like the crescendo of the upcoming presidential elections. I know it sounds outrageous, but a lot of the times when commodities/assets are over/under-priced it is because of skewed public perception (the housing bubble in the US for instance was all skewed perception about how real estate values could *never* go down). And all the presidential candidates make a point of describing the dire nature of the world around us and they in turn get media attention to these situations and those situations are talked and discussed on by experts ad naseum and before long everyone is buying into it.

My point is that the actual intrinsic value of oil has changed not nearly in proportion to the extreme change in it's perceived value.

sorry to say but you have it wrong. The OPEC is a monopoly for a different reason. They control way more that half of the world oil reserves, which is more important than the actual yearly production.

Meaning Russia will run out much sooner than the OPEC states will. So if Russia decided to fight the cartel by producing more they would run out even sooner.

And with running out I mean the next 25 years.

Unless the the oil prices rises by a lot (that's right) in that case many Russian oil ressources become feasible to exploit.
Likewise with the oil sands in Canada. (An environmentalists nightmare, btw).

So yeah at the moment, oil could be sold for a lot less than the actual price but eventually it will have to rise.
Keep in mind that the current estimate says that about 40% of the worlds reserves are already depleted!


Interestingly enough you then blame American politics for the high oil price, even thought the US "only" make up around 25% of the yearly oil comsumption. So why can suddenly 25% influence a price that much while the OPEC can't?

Especially if you consider the dynamics, in which the US HAVE to buy the oil, while the OPEC doesn't have to sell (as much).

It sounds like you kinda agreed with me that oil is over-valued. I dunno even what we're arguing about anymore... :-)

I looked around the web and found a lot of conflicting info on how much OPEC produces. Some sites claim they were doing 70% in 2004 and then some say 35%. I did find this though: http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/glob...n_2006.pdf

At the bottom it says OPEC is at 41% of total oil production. I dunno if that's accurate or not.

do you even read what I write?

Stuff like:

"They control way more that half of the world oil reserves, which is more important than the actual yearly production."
meaning:
The actual production is not that important because oil is a finite ressource. The one with the most reserves has the power and that is definately OPEC

or

"Therefore the actual price it should have must be calculated in order to stop wasting of oil "



I mean this whole argument got started because I said it's not overpriced because the price for oil SHOULD be high.
Not that the actual price is the lowest possible AT THE MOMENT.

It will have to go up in the near future no matter what, so it's better to stop wasting now and maybe last a few years more.

And the only fucking way people learn to stop wasting fuel is if you make it expensive. I mean even Americans now consider buying fuel efficient cars. And I don't think Al Gore has all that much to do with it.

Well my point is that oil RIGHT NOW is overpriced. That's what I said in my initial post. Oil and Gold.... and that's because of speculation driven by skewed perception. Saying something should be at a high value is useless without having something to compare it to relatively. If you're saying it's supposed to be higher than $60 like it was last year, I agree. If you're saying it should be higher than $100, then I'm disagreeing.

If you're also arguing that there's some kinda grand, beneficent scheme in teaching people to stop wasting oil which is created by the intentional manipulation of oil prices I really gotta say that people are going to waste what they're going to waste and those who really know the deal are going to be more efficient. That's life. Eventually those people who are wasteful won't be doing it anymore. OPEC wants us to buy oil. They don't want you NOT buying oil. They'll keep it at a price where everyone wants to keep buying. At $100+, people are looking elsewhere. You'd be saying OPEC is shooting itself in the foot if they were behind the $100+ price.

With any finite resource I definitely agree the price should continually rise as it is consumed, however, like I said in my post before, a barrell of oil last year was $60 in January, this year in March it's above $100. When did we suddenly, over the past year, find out that oil had nearly doubled in value? Production and supply has been consistent, there hasn't been any huge shocks to either... nor has consumption changed in such a drastic move. I've already said this in my previous posts, dunno why I'm having to say it again.

If you say oil right now is overpriced then I'm satisfied.

And you're right about oil will eventually run out and people will move on. Everyone knows and agrees that oil isn't infinite. But oil is overpriced RIGHT NOW. Intrinsically, it is not at $100+. I'd say it is far less than that. And it isn't because of any drastic moves that OPEC has been doing. It is speculation on the futures market.OPEC hasn't changed production or supplied amounts in any direction besides UPWARDS.

but I won't

My point is that it's true value is way higher that what was paid in the last tfifty years, since people where not thinking ahead at all. So arguing with an older price is just pointless.


And about "we still have a few decades left" as it that was a good thing.
Don't you realize at all how dependent our civilisation is on oil?

There is simply no ecuse for wasting it, and a high price very much ensure it. While if they kept going with that dumping price it would just encourage waste as it has been the last decades.


If I offered you $1000 for your kidney would you take that? I mean it didn't cost you anything to produce and you really don't need it at the moment. It's a bargain!

Oil is only worth something because it can be readily purchased and consumed. If oil was $1000 per barrell, no one would or could buy it. The world would cease to function as quickly as it is going right... and for years, people would walk and bike ride everywhere. And, eventually, maybe in a year or 100 years, some entrepreneuring genius comes along and finds something to replace oil.

You're acting like people will buy oil no matter what the price. WRONG. There is a very real amount that people can AFFORD. And we're seeing that people are reacting to high prices negatively. We are seeing people all across the world being unable to afford the gas that they normally would use.

If you're a heroin dealer, you don't sell your heroin at more than what your customer can afford. Nor do you sell it them too much. You sell it to them at the price they can afford. And right now, if OPEC is intentionally pushing the price skyhigh, all they're doing is forcing people to buy hybrids and forcing companies to seek other types of energy.

If prices keep doubling each year, you better believe that OPEC will be left with massive reserves of oil with no one who will buy it.

well I guess you really don't have a clue how dependent we are on oil

Dunno how we got to arguing about this... some sort of degradation of communication or something.

Oil is overpriced because of speculation.Okay? That's what I said to begin with, I'm not going to run laps with you on ESReality. Plz stop trying to turn the argument into some kinda baroque debate on economics.

People cannot afford to buy oil at any price. There is a point at which the inelasticity of demand for oil has an end. I know I can't afford playing $20/gallon for gas. I'll fucken walk to work or ride my bike if that's the price they're asking. If you're saying that OPEC can charge whatever and people will pay for it, you're wrong.

OPEC has the incentive to keep people addicted to oil. You don't start turning over tables by raising the prices on people. You keep it at a level people can afford. So I dunno why in hell you think OPEC would absolutely twist the arm of oil consumers by jacking up prices. All this has done and make people look elsewhere for energy needs (ethanol, coal, solar, nuclear) and as far as petroleum products use in manufacturered goods there is quite a good bit of interest invested in recycling in the US and even "garbage mining".

you said overvalued ;P

But ok, we agree to disagree.

semantics, you know what I meant when I'm saying "oil prices driven up by speculation."

quit playing games with my heart. :-(

I already wrote this "you are partly right. The price at the moment is mostly due to speculation" in my second comment.

so I did somewhat agree, but the "overvalued" did make a difference to me ;)

If you're saying that OPEC can charge whatever and people will pay for it, you're wrong.

I'm not saying that actually. If they would really set the price on $1000 per barrel my guess would be that the consumption would go down by about ten to twenty percent in the first two/three months. After that I think the most likely scenario is an ultimatum, and then criminal activities to secure the oil ultimately even through war.

You see personal transportation at the higher prices might be somewhat problematic but not really that bad. You share your car with more people, use public transportation, etc.
At the very least the military, police, ambulances and so on will have to buy gas.

Then there are quite a few problems with plastic of any kind, some fertilizersc cosmetic products and medicines.

More important is the energy deficit, especially the price for natural gas rises as well. If there is no oil to be burned there will probably lots of net failures and so on.

But even that is not as impotant as one single thing: FOOD

Only throught the use of oil did we ever manage to make fields as efficient as they are today. Without tractors and fertilizers you can not do it.

If the fields don't produce enough you have to import food from elsewhere but for transportation again you need oil.

And also during the winter you need oil or gas for heating. Cause going out and chopping would might prove a little difficult in major cities. Transporting the wood from forest again needs fuel.


See my point?

I kjust watched "Tooth & Nail". Can't say that it's a really great movie. But they actually used running out of oil for the setting of a horror movie...

The reason is greed nothing else.

Even if your firend is correct and they couldn't say no at all they could have used different conditions.
What really ruined that subprime system is that the banks WANTED to give away credits en masse. They simply added variable rates to the fine print which could increase with the base rates.
And that is when all those people couldn't afford the rates any more.

If they had had fixed rates in their contracts things would have been way more easy to calculate to the common people and many people would have signed those contracts. But the bank really really wanted their money.

tl;dr:

Hit your friend in the head for not admitting that the main fault lies with the bankers.

The word "niggers" in the topic was removed. Plz do not sue me, I'm so sorry!

censorship

wow, look a BLACK PERSON, omg! oololololololo

surely u see a lot living in nigger central?

Yes I do. You are a clever little shit, you know ;)

typical esr south african <3

how does he go to the bathroom?

fuck that's my second cousin

i bet your friend tells everyone back home he' works at a bank, but most likely sells hotdogs for a living

hes a bank?

While we are on the subject you really should watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnnOOo6tRs8

There is a growing concern that an estimated 8.8 million U.S. homeowners (10%) with negative equity (homes worth less than the mortgage principal) will have a financial incentive to "walk away" from the property, further exacerbating the crisis.


that sounds scary =x