dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
4
share rss forum feed


lakerfan82

join:2009-01-30
Corona, CA

2 recommendations

reply to NetAdmin1

Re: Gov't and clear goals don't belong in the same sentence

said by NetAdmin1:

said by wifi4milez:

Take the DMV for example, those people are total bums and literally dont care about anything other than stamping their time cards.
Strange, I see that in the private sector all over the place too.
The thing is, if there's "waste" in the private sector, its not your problem. If you don't like the service, you don't have to continue as their customer. Corps at least have incentive not to waste to keep you as a customer and to stay in business. On the other hand, when there is gov't waste, it is your problem for 2 reasons. First, the DMV is your ONLY source of service, you can't go anywhere else. Second, your hard earned tax dollars are paying for their employees to be apathetic bums.


wifi4milez
Big Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace

join:2004-08-07
New York, NY

said by lakerfan82:

said by NetAdmin1:

said by wifi4milez:

Take the DMV for example, those people are total bums and literally dont care about anything other than stamping their time cards.
Strange, I see that in the private sector all over the place too.
The thing is, if there's "waste" in the private sector, its not your problem. If you don't like the service, you don't have to continue as their customer. Corps at least have incentive not to waste to keep you as a customer and to stay in business. On the other hand, when there is gov't waste, it is your problem for 2 reasons. First, the DMV is your ONLY source of service, you can't go anywhere else. Second, your hard earned tax dollars are paying for their employees to be apathetic bums.
Very well said!
--
D-Day; If you can read this thank a soldier
-The United States of America-



NetAdmin1
CCNA

join:2008-05-22
reply to lakerfan82

said by lakerfan82:

said by NetAdmin1:

said by wifi4milez:

Take the DMV for example, those people are total bums and literally dont care about anything other than stamping their time cards.
Strange, I see that in the private sector all over the place too.
The thing is, if there's "waste" in the private sector, its not your problem.
Ok, but that doesn't change my point. People to talk about corporations like they are the paragons of efficiency. In many cases, that's just not the case. Look at the whole concept of middle management. I'm of the opinion that the only reason people don't complain about the waste in business they way they complain about the waste in government is because business can manage to eek out a meager profit.
--
"This is a bus. You know how big a bus is?"


Bit00
Premium
join:2009-02-19
00000

1 edit

I agree and your point can not be disputed. We need only look at GM to verify what you say in true. There are certainly Corporations who can waste money hand over fist.
--
POKE 65495,1



lakerfan82

join:2009-01-30
Corona, CA

1 edit

1 recommendation

reply to NetAdmin1

said by NetAdmin1:

Ok, but that doesn't change my point. People to talk about corporations like they are the paragons of efficiency. In many cases, that's just not the case.
In "many" cases, that may be the case, but as a general rule, the private sector is MUCH more efficient than the government, and this is because they are accountable to both their customers and their share holders. Corporations that do not have a lot of competition are typically the least efficient, and these may be some of the companies you are referring to.

said by NetAdmin1:

I'm of the opinion that the only reason people don't complain about the waste in business they way they complain about the waste in government is because business can manage to eek out a meager profit.
I would venture to guess that most people complain about the waste in government because its THEIR money being wasted. If a corp is wasting money, its not their problem (unless the gov't gives that corp their money in a bailout).

Furthermore, apparently even a "meager" profit is too much profit for some of the clowns on this forum.

[edit: for grammar]


NetAdmin1
CCNA

join:2008-05-22

said by lakerfan82:

If a corp is wasting money, its not their problem (unless the gov't gives that corp their money in a bailout).
If you do business with them, it is your problem. Difference between government and business is that with government, you know your money is being wasted; business has a nice set of financial tricks that are perfectly legal to hide that waste.
--
"This is a bus. You know how big a bus is?"


lakerfan82

join:2009-01-30
Corona, CA

said by NetAdmin1:

said by lakerfan82:

If a corp is wasting money, its not their problem (unless the gov't gives that corp their money in a bailout).
If you do business with them, it is your problem. Difference between government and business is that with government, you know your money is being wasted; business has a nice set of financial tricks that are perfectly legal to hide that waste.
Actually, if I'm happy with the services a company provides, there is no problem, they can waste all the money they want. If their waste ends up driving up the price of their product I'll happily look elsewhere, because I can. With gov't, you can't look elsewhere.

As for your comment on "financial tricks", far too much is made of them, and even the gov't uses plenty of them. Any financial tricks companies use end up hurting their own shareholders, and they eventually have to answer to them at some point.


NetAdmin1
CCNA

join:2008-05-22

said by lakerfan82:

Actually, if I'm happy with the services a company provides, there is no problem, they can waste all the money they want.
So you are okay paying more for something than it should cost because of waste within a company but aren't okay with waste in government? Flawless logic there.

If their waste ends up driving up the price of their product I'll happily look elsewhere, because I can. With gov't, you can't look elsewhere.
You assume that waste would drive the price of a good up. Not necessarily the case. The price could have always been based on inefficient business practices.

As for your comment on "financial tricks", far too much is made of them, and even the gov't uses plenty of them.
Too much is made of them? I guess you haven't been paying attention to the whole mortgage derivatives debacle, have you?

Any financial tricks companies use end up hurting their own shareholders, and they eventually have to answer to them at some point.
Once again, you assume they get caught.
--
"This is a bus. You know how big a bus is?"


lakerfan82

join:2009-01-30
Corona, CA

1 recommendation

You apparently don't understand the concept of CHOICE. I'll pay whatever I think a product is WORTH. If I'm satisfied by the product there is NO PROBLEM. Furthermore, I know that if a company has a significant amount of competition, I can be assured that my product was produced in the most efficient way possible. If it wasn't produced efficiently, it would cost more than the product 10 other companies are producing. However, any product the gov't "produces" must be purchased from the gov't because the gov't inherently has no competition. If I'm not satisfied by the product (ie dmv), tough shit. I can't take my money elsewhere and I can't stop the gov't from taking money out of my paycheck.

Please enlighten me what "waste" was hidden using "financial tricks" with the mortgage derivatives debacle.

How much is Enron stock worth right now?



NetAdmin1
CCNA

join:2008-05-22

1 edit

said by lakerfan82:

You apparently don't understand the concept of CHOICE.
I actually do, so let's not change the topic of discussion and make it about choice.

Furthermore, I know that if a company has a significant amount of competition, I can be assured that my product was produced in the most efficient way possible. If it wasn't produced efficiently, it would cost more than the product 10 other companies are producing.
Really, you think a company with lots of competition but an inefficient business is going to cost more than their competitors? Two letters, GM. The company was like a drunken sailor on shore leave with money, yet it managed to keep its product line priced along with everyone else. What that basically boils down to is that for YEARS people overpaid for a product. When a majority of the cost of your product is not attributed to the cost of producing that product, that product's price is more than it should be.

However, any product the gov't "produces" must be purchased from the gov't because the gov't inherently has no competition. If I'm not satisfied by the product (ie dmv), tough shit. I can't take my money elsewhere and I can't stop the gov't from taking money out of my paycheck.
And the reason government is in that business is because private enterprise is smart enough to know if could never turn a profit doing the same thing. Government takes the work that needs to be done but the private sector won't touch.

Please enlighten me what "waste" was hidden using "financial tricks" with the mortgage derivatives debacle.


If you can a post where anyone said that waste was hidden using financial tricks in the mortgage derivatives mess, I'll give you a cookie. You said that "far too much is made of them", referring to financial tricks, however that just isn't true and the derivatives snafu proves your statement wrong. Financial alchemy doesn't receive enough attention.

How much is Enron stock worth right now?
Funny, you talk about how "far too much is made" of financial trickery and mention Enron in the same thread... Major hole in your logic there. If financial trickery really was not as big of a deal as you make it sound, Enron and the current mortgage debacle would be non-issues.

*I added -ity to majority. I got distracted while typing.
--
"This is a bus. You know how big a bus is?"


lakerfan82

join:2009-01-30
Corona, CA

No one is changing the topic. The reason I don't care if a business "wastes" is because a) that waste will only affect their own profit (assuming they want to stay in business) b) I can so CHOOSE to go elsewhere if I think their waste is affecting the product (price or quality). With the gov't, that waste directly affects my pocketbook because a) they must steal from me in order to pay for their services b) I can't go elsewhere. There is no flawed logic.

Interesting that you bring up GM, because that company illustrates my argument perfectly. GM's waste most notably affected the QUALITY of their vehicles. Comparably priced Toyotas and Hondas have gotten much higher quality marks for years. I switched to Toyota as many others did. Where is GM now? They are bankrupt, and their waste did them in. People stopped buying their vehicles and they couldn't compete with the quality and price of Toyota and Honda.

Government gets their hands into plenty of things they shouldn't be in that private enterprise ALREADY does. Public Schools, Social Security, on and on (Private: Private Schools, 401ks). Right now the feds are talking about nationalized health care.

As for "financial tricks", far too much is made of them. There is a difference between legal "tricks" and illegal activity. Those who partake in illegal activity almost inevitably get caught. Are their exceptions? Sure. Same as in the gov't. Not every corrupt politician gets caught. Enron is a perfect example of a company that got caught, which is why I brought it up. As for the mortgage debacle, what trickery was used? These banks legally sold their subprime mortgages (as well as the risk associated with them) to gov't backed agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The gov't allowed those two agencies to control over 50% of the mortgage market, so is it any surprise when all these subprime borrowers can't pay back their inflated mortgages that Fannie and Freddie go broke and start this mess?



NetAdmin1
CCNA

join:2008-05-22

said by lakerfan82:

There is no flawed logic.
Uhh huh.

Interesting that you bring up GM, because that company illustrates my argument perfectly. GM's waste most notably affected the QUALITY of their vehicles.
The problem of quality and quality perception had been a problem for a long time before the current financial problems sunk the company. Let's get our history straight. The waste came after the quality problems.

Comparably priced Toyotas and Hondas have gotten much higher quality marks for years.
And in the recent years, that quality gap shrank.

Government gets their hands into plenty of things they shouldn't be in that private enterprise ALREADY does. Public Schools, Social Security, on and on (Private: Private Schools, 401ks).
Public schools exist because not everyone can afford private schools; private schools also don't typically turn a profit, hence the reason they constantly need fund raisers and donations. Social security is not just a retirement program and does things that 401ks don't do; social security also fills the gap for folks who don't make enough to save for retirement.

As for "financial tricks", far too much is made of them. There is a difference between legal "tricks" and illegal activity. Those who partake in illegal activity almost inevitably get caught. Are their exceptions? Sure. Same as in the gov't. Not every corrupt politician gets caught. Enron is a perfect example of a company that got caught, which is why I brought it up. As for the mortgage debacle, what trickery was used? These banks legally sold their subprime mortgages (as well as the risk associated with them) to gov't backed agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The gov't allowed those two agencies to control over 50% of the mortgage market, so is it any surprise when all these subprime borrowers can't pay back their inflated mortgages that Fannie and Freddie go broke and start this mess?
Yes, you have stated the obvious; yes there is a difference between legal and illegal. And every illegal financial trick was a legal one at one time. And the reason they become illegal is because those once legal financial tricks caused collateral damage, not even related to the shareholders and bondholders.

Talk about only having part of the story. Familiarize yourself with things call CDOs and CDSs. Learn about how the ratings agencies were rating junk quality bonds and debts as AAA quality investments by the virtue that a small percentage of the debt was actually AAA. Read up on how the rating processes made little sense even to the folks doing the ratings sometimes. Do some research on the cozy relationship between investment originators and the rating agencies.

As well, nice how you ignore the role of private industry in this whole mess and focus solely on government. I guess you didn't pay attention the whole time companies were writing loans to folks when the banks knew borrower couldn't afford the loan; in other words, banks wrote loans know they would go into default! Did you miss the news several months ago about lenders failing to verify basic financial information, such as income and the amount of debt a person holds? I assume you also missed the exotic, non-conforming loan products that were coming out of places like Daniel Sadek's Quick Loan and how places like that mislead borrowers?

If you honestly believe that legal financial trickery is nothing to be worried about, I am correct in my assumption that you aren't even close to being familiar enough with the topic to say that "far too much is made of" it.
--
"This is a bus. You know how big a bus is?"


lakerfan82

join:2009-01-30
Corona, CA

1 edit

said by NetAdmin1:

The problem of quality and quality perception had been a problem for a long time before the current financial problems sunk the company. Let's get our history straight. The waste came after the quality problems.
The waste was always there, it just became more apparent when the competition increased.

And in the recent years, that quality gap shrank.
And in the recent years, so did GMs profitability, meaning they had to sacrifice their own profitability to improve quality. They couldn't stop the waste because they were under contract with the unions.

Public schools exist because not everyone can afford private schools; private schools also don't typically turn a profit, hence the reason they constantly need fund raisers and donations. Social security is not just a retirement program and does things that 401ks don't do; social security also fills the gap for folks who don't make enough to save for retirement.
Private schools need fund raisers and donations to help defray the cost, but they still create choice, and that is why they are better and more efficiently run than public schools. Social security was meant to be a retirement fund, but continued waste allowed it to be raided for other things like welfare, etc.

Talk about only having part of the story. Familiarize yourself with things call CDOs and CDSs. Learn about how the ratings agencies were rating junk quality bonds and debts as AAA quality investments by the virtue that a small percentage of the debt was actually AAA. Read up on how the rating processes made little sense even to the folks doing the ratings sometimes. Do some research on the cozy relationship between investment originators and the rating agencies.

Tell me how any of this would have been possible if 50% of the mortgages weren't backed up by Fannie and Freddie? It would have been much harder to rate these crappy debts and bonds as AAA because the buyers would have looked at them a lot closer if it wasn't assumed these mortgages were backed by the full faith of the US Government. You have to realize what made it POSSIBLE to even sell them in the first place. The "cozy" relationships you speak of sounds an awful lot like the cozy relationships between lobbyists and politicians.

As well, nice how you ignore the role of private industry in this whole mess and focus solely on government. I guess you didn't pay attention the whole time companies were writing loans to folks when the banks knew borrower couldn't afford the loan; in other words, banks wrote loans know they would go into default! Did you miss the news several months ago about lenders failing to verify basic financial information, such as income and the amount of debt a person holds? I assume you also missed the exotic, non-conforming loan products that were coming out of places like Daniel Sadek's Quick Loan and how places like that mislead borrowers?
Sounds like you need to read up on the CRA. Like I said, it was so easy to pass on the risk, it didn't even matter how closely they monitored the loans.

If you honestly believe that legal financial trickery is nothing to be worried about, I am correct in my assumption that you aren't even close to being familiar enough with the topic to say that "far too much is made of" it.
If you honestly believe that even more government control over the mortgages was going to change anything that happened last year, you are kidding yourself. Corps don't have a monopoly on trickery, the government has plenty to go around. The difference is that corps have to answer to shareholders and customers and the government doesn't.

Anyway, I'm done with this argument, feel free to reply all you want but I'm off to the Laker game...


NetAdmin1
CCNA

join:2008-05-22

1 edit

said by lakerfan82:

Tell me how any of this would have been possible if 50% of the mortgages weren't backed up by Fannie and Freddie? It would have been much harder to rate these crappy debts and bonds as AAA because the buyers would have looked at them a lot closer if it wasn't assumed these mortgages were backed by the full faith of the US Government. You have to realize what made it POSSIBLE to even sell them in the first place.
You underestimate the power of the folks in the American financial system if you think this mess required Fannie and Freddie. Additionally, neither Fannie or Freddie loans are backed by the full faith of the US Government. That is a pervasive and erroneous myth. The only collateral those companies have to back the loan is the property that is mortgaged. Let's get our facts straight.

Sounds like you need to read up on the CRA. Like I said, it was so easy to pass on the risk, it didn't even matter how closely they monitored the loans.
I'm familiar with the CRA. Two facts you missed about the CRA and the subprime mess - one, the CRA was written on the assumption that lenders and borrowers would act in a financially sound manner and, two, major players in the subprime mess, companies like Quick Loan, weren't even regulated by the CRA.

If you honestly believe that even more government control over the mortgages was going to change anything that happened last year, you are kidding yourself.
Nowhere did I say that, now did I?

Likewise, I am done with the argument; I'm not going to debate the same agenda-driven talking points you counter with over and over again.
--
"This is a bus. You know how big a bus is?"