Thread: Upside Down Economics

Originally Posted by Jer

Yeah - that and they get $$$ from the government. See, dipshit, this is why I can't take anything you say seriously.

I never said they didn't get any money from the government, but it is a small fraction of their total revenue and Downbound's insinuation that they are functionally equivalent to a state-run news source is colossally dumb. Please STFU, dipshit.

Originally Posted by Dantheman

I never said they didn't get any money from the government, but it is a small fraction of their total revenue and Downbound's insinuation that they are functionally equivalent to a state-run news source is colossally dumb. Please STFU, dipshit.

Well, since we're dealing with insinuation here, my take of your retarded post was that you were insinuating that NPR gets only $5 annually from the government. I have no problem with NPR spewing their boring, biased bullshit but if they want to continue doing so they shouldn't be getting one red cent from the government.

Telling me to STFU isn't going to get me to STFU, you know. Maybe you could petition for some kind of TGR fairness doctrine so you wouldn't have to read any opinions that run contrary to your own fucked-up world view. Oh wait - we've already got that! It's called the IGNORE FUNCTION, stupidass.

Wow, so basically here is the sequence of events in a nutshell

1. Clinton hears from HUD that the POOR (yes, white folks can be poor too Benny) are being underserved by the mortgage industry. Regs are changed to encourage loans to the poor folks.
2. Banks resist the new regs saying it's a big risk to give out loans to the NINA crowd. They manage to find buyers for the paper anyway and comply.
3. The program worked as intended, until the upper-middle class and wealthy saw these new NINA loans on the market and used them to leverage themselves into oversized/overpriced homes, or investment properties. (Get rich quick scheme)
4. Mortgage sales begin to shoot through the roof, lenders get more and more aggressive with practices as EVERYBODY wanted one, and they could unload the risk to fanny, freddy and others (Business get rich quick with no risk).
5. More home sales -> rise in home prices -> more loans sold -> repeat

Home prices reached unsustainable levels, loans began to adjust. Price of homes begins to fall, leveraged out investors walk. House of cards falls.

This cycle could have been stopped at any point by anyone involved. EVERYONE who touched this mess is at fault. Nobody politically wanted to stop it (Clinton or Bush) until it was too late. Now Obama has a giant pile of shit to clean up.

Originally Posted by Dantheman

I never said they didn't get any money from the government, but it is a small fraction of their total revenue and Downbound's insinuation that they are functionally equivalent to a state-run news source is colossally dumb. Please STFU, dipshit.

I sort of feel their pain a little bit...in that it would suck if NPR was like right wing radio...but in reality NPR is nothing like Air America, which is what DTrain and others insinuate here all the time when talking about NPR. I agree, comments like that make it difficult to take the right wing blowhards here seriously.

Next we'll be reading about how even though what you've said is correct it only means that the "donors" to NPR are super leftist socialist pigs.

Does anybody here have a credit card balance? student loan? auto loan?

678

Originally Posted by Jer

Well, since we're dealing with insinuation here, my take of your retarded post was that you were insinuating that NPR gets only $5 annually from the government. I have no problem with NPR spewing their boring, biased bullshit but if they want to continue doing so they shouldn't be getting one red cent from the government.

Telling me to STFU isn't going to get me to STFU, you know. Maybe you could petition for some kind of TGR fairness doctrine so you wouldn't have to read any opinions that run contrary to your own fucked-up world view. Oh wait - we've already got that! It's called the IGNORE FUNCTION, stupidass.

STFU.

Hey, Jer, wazzup? How's life 4 hours from nowhere this winter. I sense anger. Cabin fever?

NPR is a bastion of civility in a sea of hyper-reactive media, FWIW. But Daniel Shore, what a blowhard. But hey, when you can do what he does at 90, give him some slack.

Originally Posted by rideit

NPR is a bvastion of civility in a sea of hyper-reactive media, FWIW. But Daniel Shore, what a blowhard. But hey, when you can do what he does at 90, give him some slack.

He sounds like his mouth doesn't work too well.

Originally Posted by Benny Profane

Does anybody here have a credit card balance? student loan? auto loan?

Anybody?

3k on an auto loan, what are you getting at?

Where do you think that money came from? And, why do you think it was so easy for the past fifteen years to walk into a car dealer and drive away with a car with no money down?

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

I sort of feel their pain a little bit...in that it would suck if NPR was like right wing radio...but in reality NPR is nothing like Air America, which is what DTrain and others insinuate here all the time when talking about NPR. I agree, comments like that make it difficult to take the right wing blowhards here seriously.

Next we'll be reading about how even though what you've said is correct it only means that the "donors" to NPR are super leftist socialist pigs.

If NPR were like right wing radio, Mel Block and Terry Gross would be millionaires.

Hey - I don't get right wing talk shows, but if I was forced to listen to Rush's show or Fresh Air I'd take Rush in a heart beat. At least he's somewhat entertaining. Plus - he doesn't even take 2% from the government.

Adolf and Dan - don't get your panties too knotted. I'm sure in a year or two the fairness doctrine will be back to reduce everybody to the lowest common denominator. At least on radio.

Oh yeah - Benny - yes (like $200) no and no. Shack paid off too.

Jer, you're confused. You just contradicted yourself in one sentence. Slow down, take a deep breath. Now, think. Type slower........

What sentance would that be, Ben?

The second one, Jer.

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

I sort of feel their pain a little bit...in that it would suck if NPR was like right wing radio...but in reality NPR is nothing like Air America, which is what DTrain and others insinuate here all the time when talking about NPR. I agree, comments like that make it difficult to take the right wing blowhards here seriously.

Next we'll be reading about how even though what you've said is correct it only means that the "donors" to NPR are super leftist socialist pigs.

NPR is biased. Because they don't have to compete straight up in the free market, they can say and do what they want without the market having it's say.

Right wing radio and Air America have every right to be biased because they function in the free market and can therefore do whatever gets them listeners and advertisers.

NPR takes EVERYONE'S money and therefore should have a "Fairness Doctrine" applied to it's content.

Actually it should have it's funding pulled and sink or swim on it's own merits. What is the public good provided that the free market wouldn't provide on another channel?

NPR is for people who are much smarter than you guys. You don't get it.

Originally Posted by Benny Profane

Does anybody here have a credit card balance? student loan? auto loan?

Nope....

Originally Posted by Benny Profane

The second one, Jer.

Still not seeing the contradiction, Ben. Could you highlight it or something?

Originally Posted by Jer

Still not seeing the contradiction, Ben. Could you highlight it or something?

Sigh. Jer, sometimes you just have to slow down. Take a Zanax with a beer, and read a book or something. Not Mein Kamph or that silly thing O'Relly put out a few months ago. I suggest a history book of some sort.


I gotta take a dump. Be thinking of you guys!

Originally Posted by Benny Profane

Sigh. Jer, sometimes you just have to slow down. Take a Zanax with a beer, and read a book or something. Not Mein Kamph or that silly thing O'Relly put out a few months ago. I suggest a history book of some sort.


I gotta take a dump. Be thinking of you guys!

Funny, I'm reading The Last Expedition right now. About Stanley's last doomed African expedition.

Hey, but Benny - way to prove your point. Next thing you know you'll be posting photos of Mexican food when you've been backed into a corner.


OK - back to the OT topic: How many of you talk radio hating NPR lovers would be ok if Bimbaugh's show recieved even .0001% of funding from the government? NPR get's about 2% and everybody's supposed to be ok with that, yet a very large percentage of liberals want conservative talk radio (which recieves ZERO government funding) to be censored out of exsistence? You don't see the hypocrisy there? No, of course you don't.

NPR and Rush Limbaugh aren't even comparable.

Please shut up.

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

NPR is biased. Because they don't have to compete straight up in the free market, they can say and do what they want without the market having it's say.
Right wing radio and Air America have every right to be biased because they function in the free market and can therefore do whatever gets them listeners and advertisers.

Your argument is based on the assumption that they get most or all of their funding from the government which makes them separate from the market, but they don't. They are funded by payments from member stations which are almost entirely funded by listener contributions and advertisers. They "do whatever they want" to get contributions and advertisers, and what they do is put out really high quality journalism. That's why I contribute to my local station, and if NPR suddenly turned into Air America I would stop. The fact they get so much of their funding direct from listeners means they compete more directly in the free market than typical media outlets, not less.

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

NPR takes EVERYONE'S money and therefore should have a "Fairness Doctrine" applied to it's content.
Actually it should have it's funding pulled and sink or swim on it's own merits.

For fucks sake, the CPB's appropriation for all of 2009 (which mostly goes to public television, not radio) is 400 million. NBC pulled in over 260 million just on the day of the Super Bowl. NPR's own merits will keep it afloat with or without guberment funding.

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

What is the public good provided that the free market wouldn't provide on another channel?

Content that isn't driven by sensationalism and constant pressure to appease major advertisers and increase ad revenues, which is almost completely absent from corporate media. Not that it really matters because as I have already pointed out, the free market is sustaining it just fine.

Originally Posted by char

NPR and Rush Limbaugh aren't even comparable.

You're right, of course. NPR is boring, tedious and inconsequential - hosted by failures who still haven't figured out that speaking in a monotone turns listeners off. And listened to by self-important douchebags who think a monotone is edgy. Rush may be a complete windbag, but he's also a millionaire who actually has an effect on national politics. I'm not saying that's good or bad, but his influence is undeniable. Why else would he be called out on a regular basis by Obama and Dem congressmen? I don't hear about Bush calling out Keith Olberdouche or Palin calling out some boring ass NPR host.

Please shut up.

What is it with people wanting everybody to shut up around here? You guys do know about the ignore function, right?