History 101 - Or, Where It All Began - Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

Crafty Angler · 01-31-2009, 05:35 AM

"Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness...
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it...."
~ George Santayana (1863-1952)
Life Of Reason (1905)

I ran across this gem below while doing research - and I think it will give you a little insight on how we came to the point at which we now find ourselves.

It's Forbes first list of the wealthiest Americans published in 1918 and the descendents of these men still shape and run our country today. An interesting read when you think about the consequences.

It was written by BC Forbes himself, and doesn't take much reading between the lines. Robber barons or captains of industry will depend on your point of view - and remember, these figures are in the value of the dollar at that time.

The source of income for the 30 wealthiest Americans should come as a surprise to no one.

http://www.forbes.com/2002/09/27/0927richest.html

RIJIMMY · 02-02-2009, 09:57 AM

and in every country of the world, this list would be filled with people who are royalty, where wealth was bestowed on them. yet in this country the list is filled with people who did not descend through royalty, whose familys were not part of an elite class. These people are immigrants or decendants of immigrants who achieved their wealth. they may not have been the most honest people, but they were not entitled to their wealth, and many, many lost as much as these people earned.

Mr. Krinkle · 02-02-2009, 10:10 AM

Interesting. Thank you for the link. When you look at the guilded age you think of the extreme wealth that existed with Rockefeller and Morgan and Vanderbilt. However, if you look at the dollars in 2002 that they would have its not as much as I expected. Rockefellers annual income would be approx 60 million dollars. I think Oprah makes that much money. If you look at the wealth today I think it is reasonable to say that we are in a second guilded age.

The Dad Fisherman · 02-02-2009, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

and in every country of the world, this list would be filled with people who are royalty, where wealth was bestowed on them.

Isn't all the wealth, that the descendants of the people on this list have, "Bestowed" upon them.

Just saying....

I actually agree with what your saying....just making an observation.

There is a lot of "Old" Money in this country and it isn't because of the hard work of the current descendants....look at the Kennedy's and Bush's for example.

Crafty Angler · 02-02-2009, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Krinkle

If you look at the wealth today I think it is reasonable to say that we are in a second guilded age.

Exactly -

That's my point about knowing US history - I told my wife some time ago - before the scheisser really hit the fan - that the current situation we are in now is right out of the same playbook. The parallels are phenomenal and in many cases the prime movers are direct decendents of those very same men - old habits die hard, I guess.

It's been said that every fortune begins with a great crime - while that isn't true in every case, I'm afraid it occurs more often than not. However, there were some who went on - like Carnegie - to do good works with their accumulated wealth.

What we are seeing now - or what is coming to light - is just a latter day version of that sort of ruthless greed and arrogance at it's very worst.

If you're interested, pick up Joseph Matthewson's The Robber Barons from the library for a complete well-writen history or his later book The Money Lords.

It was written during the Depression in 1934 and now, oddly enough, there have been several revisionist books published in an undoubtedly conservative effort to discredit Matthewson -

All written during the Bush years, by the way...

RIJIMMY · 02-02-2009, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crafty Angler

What we are seeing now - or what is coming to light - is just a latter day version of that sort of ruthless greed and arrogance at it's very worst.

Crafty, I know we dont agree on much, so it should come at no suprise that I disagree stongly with this. The very root of the problem today is that we, all Americans, lived to high on too much credit. Its too easy to blame arrogance and greed. This was not a top down problem, but a bottom up one. The greed in our situation was due to a hunger, by consumers, both at the indivudual and corporate level, for cheap cash based on US home values. While some fortunes may have been made, for the most part, the American consumer was benefitting from this and investors wanted what was incorrectly classified as a safe investment.
If we come away from this crisis demonizing Wall Street and other corporations, we will miss the real lesson to be learned by this. That lesson is that not everyone can afford a house, not everyone can have a SUV, not everyone can have a 50" tv. We need to earn, before we can spend.

Joe · 02-02-2009, 03:31 PM

Very true.
Investors, consumers, and welfare recipients bought and bundled bad debt and passed it off as securities. Later, these same thieves and liars conspired to seize the credit markers.
The good and noble bankers did all they could to stop them, but alas the mongrel horde's numbers were too great. For their efforts, they are deserving of government subsidized bonuses.

RIJIMMY · 02-02-2009, 03:43 PM

Joe, who put the "bad" in the bad debt? The core of the problem is the "default". Are you blaming bankers for that? No one forced people to refinance and borrow more than they could afford.
Your generally a smart guy, the research on the causes of this problem are widely published and I'm suprised you dont have a better understanding of the problm and its causes. Wall St reacted to a need for these bundled investments which were purchased by institutional investors (ie: smart people running big money). Of course there was a profit motive, but not some sham set up to screw people.

The Dad Fisherman · 02-02-2009, 03:59 PM

If I give you something to sell for me for $100 and a guy comes up to you and says I can only give you $10 now and you say "You can take it and give me the rest later"....and the guy skips town and I'm out $90....who's fault is it? The guy that skips town or the guy that should have known better than to give it to him in the 1st place......

Isn't that pretty much what the Mortgage Companies did?

RIJIMMY · 02-02-2009, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

If I give you something to sell for me for $100 and a guy comes up to you and says I can only give you $10 now and you say "You can take it and give me the rest later"....and the guy skips town and I'm out $90....who's fault is it? The guy that skips town or the guy that should have known better than to give it to him in the 1st place......

Isn't that pretty much what the Mortgage Companies did?

isnt that what they're in business to do? Otherwise I wouldnt have a house and neither would 100 millions of other people.

To put it simply, mortgages, mortgage backed suecurites and every single investment is a GAMBLE. This gamble made some people money and everyone wanted in, it crashed and everyone lost. greed is easy to blame and was a factor, but the major factor.
I blame the Government, thats right, me, I blame the Bush admin and mostly Greenspan for propping up the stock market by lowering interest rates. Thats the real cause of the problem and it wasnt greed, but misguided good intentions.

The Dad Fisherman · 02-02-2009, 04:13 PM

When you word ity like that I agree with you...before you made it sound like they did nothing wrong and it was all the little guys fault.....everybody, top to bottom, has a hand in this mess

RIJIMMY · 02-02-2009, 04:26 PM

yup, it was Mr. Potter and the Bailey Building and Loan that caused this problem.

Crafty Angler · 02-02-2009, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

Crafty, I know we dont agree on much, so it should come at no suprise that I disagree stongly with this.

Hey, no worries, mate - that's what makes America great.

You've got good musical taste, anyway, Jimmy -

Listen, the bankers indulged in risky behaviors - lending money to people who didn't have a snowball's chance of being able to meet their financial obligations. So how can the money-lenders cry the blues -

Their current dilemma is the result of self-inflicted wounds. If you indulge in risky behaviors, you have to be willing to suffer the consequences. And the whole sub-prime fiasco was hardly the result of a noble effort to help consumers enjoy a home of their very own.

They said yes to these people without the prudence that should have been exercised by someone who knew with the outcome would be. That begs another question - why?

How can you justify giving those people in finance TARP money - our money - when they blew the fundamental premise so badly? That being, if you're gonna loan someone money, make sure they can pay you back, like The Dad Fisherman said.

Not a very complex set of groundrules for institutions that make their living that way...for a banker, that has to be covered in Intro To Lending 101 when they get the gig...

Nebe · 02-02-2009, 09:27 PM

So crafty.. who on that list was fishing off of bass stands?

Crafty Angler · 02-03-2009, 01:57 AM

Nearly all of them at one point or another - including at least 3 presidents and a couple of people you might know, the Tiffanys, both father and son -

More on that - much more, in fact - coming soon to a theatre near you...

detbuch · 02-17-2009, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crafty Angler

Hey, no worries, mate - that's what makes America great.

You've got good musical taste, anyway, Jimmy -

Listen, the bankers indulged in risky behaviors - lending money to people who didn't have a snowball's chance of being able to meet their financial obligations. So how can the money-lenders cry the blues -

Their current dilemma is the result of self-inflicted wounds. If you indulge in risky behaviors, you have to be willing to suffer the consequences. And the whole sub-prime fiasco was hardly the result of a noble effort to help consumers enjoy a home of their very own.

They said yes to these people without the prudence that should have been exercised by someone who knew with the outcome would be. That begs another question - why?

How can you justify giving those people in finance TARP money - our money - when they blew the fundamental premise so badly? That being, if you're gonna loan someone money, make sure they can pay you back, like The Dad Fisherman said.

Not a very complex set of groundrules for institutions that make their living that way...for a banker, that has to be covered in Intro To Lending 101 when they get the gig...

Is it true that before the Community Reinvestment Act was imposed on the lending institutions that they DID issue mortgage loans by "Lending 101" guidelines, i.e. 20% down and the ability to pay off the loan? And once the GOVERNMENT not only okayed, but to some extent mandated, that loans were to be issued to those that did not meet Lending 101 standards, it was THEN that the banks went with the new flow?

likwid · 02-17-2009, 03:16 PM

Edward Howland Robinson Green

Ahhh the Colonel.

I'm sure someone can pick out other noteable people who spent extensive time in New England.

Raven · 02-18-2009, 06:55 AM

I disagree

we are being taxed to DEATH

the American People are not to blame for that.....

they are not the ones collecting the Taxes...

the Taxes collected are not being spent wisely
and never have been.

Sure Americans haven't been responsible with Credit...
but the Government and it's tax policies are as responsible for this dilemma
just as much as the American Public.

Crafty Angler · 02-18-2009, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by detbuch

Is it true that before the Community Reinvestment Act was imposed on the lending institutions that they DID issue mortgage loans by "Lending 101" guidelines, i.e. 20% down and the ability to pay off the loan? And once the GOVERNMENT not only okayed, but to some extent mandated, that loans were to be issued to those that did not meet Lending 101 standards, it was THEN that the banks went with the new flow?

While I'm not familiar with the CRA, I would guess the intent was to keep banks from red-lining certain neighborhoods.

I'll also have to admit that predatory borrowing as a root cause has really never crossed my mind...

The subpoenas for that Senate investigation will probably have to be delivered to the van down by the river that those folks are living in now -

And I don't think the Nuremburg defense - that the banks were only following the orders of their government - really applies here either as a justification for their lending behaviors.

detbuch · 02-19-2009, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crafty Angler

While I'm not familiar with the CRA, I would guess the intent was to keep banks from red-lining certain neighborhoods.

I'll also have to admit that predatory borrowing as a root cause has really never crossed my mind...

The subpoenas for that Senate investigation will probably have to be delivered to the van down by the river that those folks are living in now -

And I don't think the Nuremburg defense - that the banks were only following the orders of their government - really applies here either as a justification for their lending behaviors.

As far as I can gather, intent of CRA is to loosen Lending 101 standards so that less fortunate folk can also enjoy the "American Dream" of home ownership, and, probably, to get and keep their votes in the future.

Borrowing and Lending is a two way, agreed upon transaction. It is not forced. Ergo, if one is predatory, so is the other. Predation, as far as I know, is not agreed upon. It is, as far as I know, forced.

I don't think there will be a Senate investigation of the CRA. If there were, it would be a whitewash. When Government ivestigates itself, the conclusion is foregone.

I don't think our Government is Nazi . . .yet. But I do believe we have to follow its laws. Consequences are usually dire if we don't.