Your Questions About Credit Reports Wiki

Mark asks…

Are deniers now attempting to re-write history?

I just posted an answer to another question one of the other answers had a list of crossing of the Northwest passage this was first name on that list
1588, João Martins (first recorded successful passage)
I have never heard of this person, as a student of history with an interest in the history of the Antarctic and Arctic, I had never heard of this guy or his supposed crossing.
Is this pretty sad attempt by deniers to make up history, Portuguese explorer João Martins seems to not exist anywhere but on this very recently created wiki page.
Even the name link on the wiki site links to on 3 modern people with that name. Apart from modern people with this name the only other hit I got was from denier blogs.
There is a Portuguese explorer on this list with the surname of Martins
Álvaro Martins Homem
He is thought to have sailed with João Vaz Corte-Real a separate person neither is credited with finding the Northwest passage.
This appears to be a recent addition to the Northwest Passage article, it wasn’t there a few weeks ago and I would say is a sad attempt by some denier the re write history, as such I have reported it to the wiki moderators.
If I am wrong, then could someone post a link to this explorer as if he really had crossed the Northwest passage He would have much information available about him.
Sorry dick? but I am already familiar with your link and know it has nothing at all to do with the question, it also has virus problems, so you can have a free thumbs down.
Nexus6: I did not say you were a liar, try reading my question again, unless you are the person who changed the wiki page in the last couple of weeks, who ever did that is the liar, you merely repeated what you thought was information that was correct, I only use links to wiki that i know from my work background or personal research I know are correct. Wiki is fairly accurate and it’s good to see they corrected the page within 24 hours of my reporting it.
Nexus6: I did do quite a bit of research before posting this The two names above who really were explorers João Vaz Corte-Real and Álvaro Martins Homem seem to be the source for this fake name except for the small fact that they were active ~100 years before the supposed passage. I did do quite a bit of searching with Google and apart from denier blogs pushing this (so much for their research) this explorer is totally unknown to anyone. As to ridiculing your answer you will note that when I posted this question I did not mention you or link to the origin question.
I do note that the half a dozen other answers from well known deniers didn’t even try to answer the question.

John answers:

Re-writing history is nothing new for deniers. They have tried to re-write the global temperature record to make the MWP warmer than today even though virtually every peer-reviewed global temperature reconstruction indicates otherwise. They’ve tried to re-write history to say that most climate scientists were predicting global cooling in the 1970s. They’ve tried to re-write history to say that Greenland was green when the Vikings colonized part of its shoreline.

When history doesn’t support your arguments, apparently you simply re-write it.

Carol asks…

Why has no one used the term “Junk Bonds” when talking about the Housing Bubble Burst?

From what I have read, a junk bond is:
“The holder of any debt is subject to interest rate risk and credit risk. Interest rate risk refers to the risk of the market value of a bond changing in value due to changes in the structure or level of interest rates or credit spreads. The credit risk of a high yield bond refers to the probability and probable loss upon a credit event (i.e., the obligor defaults on scheduled payments or files for bankruptcy, or the bond is restructured).”

Isn’t that what happened back in the 70’s & 80’s when all those Retirees lost their life savings?

What is happening TODAY sounds EXACTLY like what happened back THEN yet I have never heard anyone use the terms or the fact that we SHOULD have learned from what happened in the past.

What am I missing here?



p.s. I wasn’t around in the 70’s either, I’m just going on what I have been taught about the “Junk Bond” fiasco.

And if it isn’t as ‘bad’ as back then, how come THIS ONE ISSUE has been touted as one of the defining factors in not only the economic downturn in the US but in the world as a whole since so many international investors ‘invested’ in the ‘Junk Bonds’ that were the SubPrime Mortgage Insanity?

I’m not being ‘snotty’. (I know people misunderstand my wording & interpret it as hostility when I didn’t mean it as such)

I HONESTLY want to know!

John answers:

I was around in the 50’s and I’ve seen it all before. I have lived through many burst bubbles and it never affected me. I just tightened my belt and lived a normal life.
Every time the market falls, it is then a buying opportunity. Buying in at a lower level is always a good investment. As they say, “there’s never an ill wind that doesn’t blow someone some good”.

Betty asks…

Do R’s who lost their A’s in the stock market realize the R’s systematically orchestrated your loss for $?

[Given the above-stated chronology, it would appear that the House and Senate versions of the bill were introduced just prior to the Christmas holiday in December 2000, following George W Bush’s (first) election (in November 2000), while then-President Clinton was serving out his final days as President. The bill was never debated by the House or Senate. The bill by-passed the substantive policy committees in both the House and the Senate so that there were neither hearings nor opportunities for recorded committee votes. In substance, it appears that the leadership of the Republican-controlled Senate and House incorporated the deregulation of credit default swaps into an omnibus budget bill (without hearings or recorded votes)at a time when the outgoing president was in no position to veto anything. The following article suggests that Bill Clinton and Alan Greenspan endorsed this law The Bet That Blew Up Wall Street though Clinton’s position in 2000 is only suggested, not confirmed or made clear in the report.

The Republican leadership of the House incorporated “The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000(H.R. 5660)” by reference, as Section 1(a)(7), in a long and complex conference report to the 11,000 page long “2000 omnibus budget bill” formally known as “The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2001(Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Bill) (H.R. 4577).” 157 Democrats and 133 Republicans voted for the appropriations bill. 51 Republicans and 9 Democrats opposed the appropriations bill vote results in the house. The Senate version passed by “Unanimous Consent.” President Clinton signed it into Public Law (106-554) on December 21, 2000.]

[The act has been cited as a public-policy decision significantly contributing to Enron’s bankruptcy in 2001 and the much broader liquidity crisis of September 2008 that led to the bankruptcy filing of Lehman Brothers and emergency Federal Reserve Bank loans to American International Group[1] and to the creation of the U.S. Emergency Economic Stabilization fund.]

[The vehicle for doing this was an obscure but critical piece of federal legislation called the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. And the bill was a big favorite of the financial industry it would eventually help destroy.

It not only removed derivatives and credit default swaps from the purview of federal oversight, on page 262 of the legislation, Congress pre-empted the states from enforcing existing gambling and bucket shop laws against Wall Street.

“It makes it sound like they knew it was illegal,” Kroft remarks.

“I would agree,” Dinallo says. “They did know it was illegal. Or at least prosecutable.” ]

John answers:

No, the R’s were in cahoots with the DA D’s while the I’s and l’s stood by and L’d. This resulted in the DF D’s blaming both the R’s and the I’s for their own capital S.

Richard asks…

Politics – what are the government doing about fairness ?

How close is the correlation between bankers bonuses and the banks losses ?
I was wondering if any one knows how close is the correlation between the bankers’ losses {worldwide} over say the last 20 years and the bonuses paid to bankers over the same period.

Clearly this has been going on for decades – I’m surprised that more people have not pointed to the similarity With Nick Leeson’s {seee Rouge Trader 1990s film }.

I can only assume that merchant bankers think that we are either gullible, stupid or an enormous flock of golden geese.

I think that bankers really do consider that the money they have stolne to be their’s.

On my local TV news, they reported how two ‘cowboy’ builders {a UK term?} had charged an 85 year old woman, living on her own £100,000 for a few jobs on her house that should have cost no more than £5,000.

The cowboy builders were locked up ‘in the big house’ at ‘her majesty’s pleasure’ for 18 months.

I cannot see any difference between the cowboy builders the merchant bankers, other than that the builders provided much better value for money and only ripped off a hand full of customers ; the merchant bankers have ripped us all off.

The Credit Crunch and local TV news.

The Credit Crunch and local TV news.…
Hi John S,

I hear what you are saying: perfume costs £1, but sells for £100.

Trainers cost £5 to make, but sell for £100.

Clothes shops sell goods at 200 to 300% mark up.

Banks take ‘only’ 3% when you spend on credit cards, more when you spend in other countries.

But these gains and losses by banks are excacly that . One bank {its coustomers and the tax payers} make a loss, another bank makes a profit of exatly the same figure.

Banks, by deffinition, do not make money, they just move money back & forth.

Banks are like the friction in a gear box, the heat losses in a power station.

Like any such ‘syetem’ you alway get less out {in real terms} than you put in.

So even if one bank, ‘on paper’, makes a ‘profit’, it just means that another makes a loss and the tax payer pays out.

The only winners are the Bankers – everyone else, tax payer, share holder, any one with a pension pot past, current or future, loses out big style.

Look at Leeson – still he’s living like a king !

John answers:

Who do you trust less, the people who steal your cash or the people who steal your oportunities to make cash? I personally have more trouble with the latter. Why do you ask what the governments are doing about fairness? Governments are not fair. They are run by opportunists, and the same types are chosen to assume leadership in them.

You are right when you surmise that one bank’s profits are another bank’s losses. It is part of the “rob Peter to pay Paul” principle, or maybe lack of principle, better put, on which the entire System or the Establishment is run. Charging more interest on loans than is given out to depositers is a way in which the banks make money. Exchanging, and charging a fee for the exchange, is how traders work, and it may be the downfall of our entire civilization. The low of diminishing returns inevitably sets in. A fe people have a lot, and a lot of people do not have enough to get by. It is not fair, and it does not work in the long run. Skewed distributions are an inevitable result of situations in which people are allowed to help themselves to what righfully belongs to others under the guise of making a deal. Free exhange is not free. In Canada, with regard to the NAFTA “deal” it can be said that “Libre échange” (a common buzzword during the Reagan/Mulroney era) means “carte blanche”.

I think that banks create money out of thin air in the form of credit. The cash we see is literally token-istic of the entire system. As well, the power mongers connected with the banks lie to us about how much money and tangible backing in the form of resources really are available. If they can get us to believe that less is available than actually is, they can make people scrap and even go to war for what resources they think are present only in limited supply.

The following article might interest you. However, you can find many more that support the main ideas with an Internet search on your own.


Sandra asks…

Is Goldman Sachs too big to fail, or just too big? I’m doing ‘God’s work’. Meet Mr Goldman Sachs…a political force more powerful than governments. …When they have finished getting “filthy rich by 40”, as the company saying goes, these alpha dogs don’t put their feet up. They parachute into some of the most senior political posts in the US and beyond, prompting accusations that they “rule the world”.
[Goldman Sachs CEO Blankfein] is, he says, just a banker “doing God’s work”
New York City health officials have distributed small amounts of the swine flu vaccine to some major New York companies, including Wall Street banks like Goldman Sachs…, even as shortages continue. …Goldman received 200 [doses] …according to the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene . . .Many hospitals and pediatrician’s offices are waiting to get their supplies.

Goldman Sachs Bribed Senate to Pass Bailout Bill (great 5 minute video)  *********
…acts as a financial advisor and money manager for corporations, governments
, and wealthy families around the world. …It is a primary dealer in the U.S. Treasury securities market
. . .. …Former Goldman Sachs employees Robert Rubin and Henry Paulson served as United States Secretary of the Treasury after leaving the firm; Rubin under President Clinton and Paulson under George W. Bush. ………..On December 4, 1928, it launched the Goldman Sachs Trading Corp. a closed-end fund with characteristics similar to that of a Ponzi scheme. .. The fund failed as a result of the Stock Market Crash of 1929 . . . . …in 1999 ..18% was held by retired Goldman partners and two longtime investors, Sumitomo Bank Ltd.and……It also advised on a debt offering for the Government of China and the first electronic offering for the World Bank . . . .. . ..The firm is also heavily involved in energy trading, including the oil speculation market, on both a principal and agent basis. .. .In May 2006, Henry Paulson left the firm to serve as U.S. Treasury Secretary. . . Former Goldman employees have headed the New York Stock Exchange, the World Bank, the U.S. Treasury Department, the White House staff, and firms such as Citigroup and Merrill Lynch. …Goldman also received $10 billion of capital from the U.S. government in October 2008, under the Troubled Asset Relief Program . . . .. ….In March 2009 it was reported that in 2008, Goldman Sachs, alongside other major US and international financial institutions, had received billions of dollars during the unwind of credit default swap contracts purchased from AIG, including $12.9bn from funds provided by the US Federal Reserve to bail out AIG. . . .Goldman was among ten large financial institutions that the Treasury allowed to pay back their TARP emergency capital infusions, though this was after the firm benefited from the FDIC’S Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program when it issued $28 billion in debt to raise capital….As of 2006, Goldman Sachs employed 23,467 people worldwide. …It was reported that the average total compensation per employee in 2006 was US$622,000. However, this number represents the arithmetic mean of total compensation and is highly skewed upwards as several hundred of the top earners command the majority of the Bonus Pools, leaving the median that most employees earn well below this number. ..The current Chief Executive Officer … Lloyd C. ..Blankfein earned a $67.9 million bonus in his first year. …In mergers and acquisitions, it gained fame historically by advising clients on how to avoid hostile takeovers, moves generally viewed as unfriendly to shareholders of targeted companies. Goldman Sachs, for a long time during the 1980s, was the only major investment bank with a strict policy against helping to initiate a hostile takeover, which increased Goldman’s reputation immensely among sitting management teams at the time. …Former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson was a former CEO of Goldman Sachs. The current chief economic adviser to President Obama, Lawrence Summers, was noted for receiving $5.2 million from hedge fund D.E. Shaw
in 2008 and speaking fees (ranging from $45 thousand to $135 thousand per event) from banks including Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynchat a time when he was expected to become the most influential financial official in the U.S. Government…..the selection of former Goldman Sachs lobbyist Mark Patterson as chief of staff to Treasury Secretary ….Goldman Sachs was the largest single recipient of this money [the AIG Bailout] (USD 12.9B), . . .The relationship with, and bailout of AIG wa

John answers:

Neither, just too well connected.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.