Beemaster's International Beekeeping Forum
BEEKEEPING LEARNING CENTER => GENERAL BEEKEEPING - MAIN POSTING FORUM. => Topic started by: winginit on July 19, 2010, 03:51:50 pm
-
Found the headline story on "Healing Honey and the New Queen Bee(keepers) to be okay, even if it did hit home. I enjoyed the video on "Is Honey Good Medicine or Just a Sweet Treat" a lot more.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128574280 (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128574280)
In the video, it says that when substituting honey for sugar, the following rules apply:
1 cup sugar = 1 cup honey
Reduce oven temperature 25 degrees
Reduce liquids 25%.
But another site I just checked said that because honey is sweeter than sugar, reduce it a bit. I can't wait to get baking!
-
Driving to work today, I turned on the radio just as this program was coming on. They spoke about how women are becoming beekeepers in very large numbers. Of course, I screamed "Yeah Baby", you got it.
Very interesting program.
-
"Urban women" I believe.
-
I'm "rural" :cindi:
-
Is this a result of the "queen bee" promotions through state & local bee clubs? Or have those been going since the 30's?
If we are trying to get more young men also involved in beekeeping should we have er, King Drone competitions? Maybe not....Somehow lacks the same appeal....
In seriousness, I have talked to a number of young women who are interested in beekeeping from the scholarship aspect of it - cash assistance for college etc.
To what are they attributing the increase? Grants/small business loan programs targetting women entrepeneurs into traditionally male dominated fields?
-
"Urban women" I believe.
Yep. Young urban women. I'm an old rural male... but I think this is great. It's going to shift some frames of reference in the beekeeping world. These new beeks tend to be more interested in natural beekeeping without pesticides and antibiotics. As the NPR program mentioned, they are also part of an urban "local foods" movement which we are seeing in North Carolina. Farmers' Markets, health food stores, and direct honey sales to friends and neighbors. And higher prices for honey made by untreated bees. The Certified Naturally Grown program is growing among beeks here as well.
-
I heard that story on the radio too. I enjoyed it and thought it very interesting.
Until they got to the end and started to talk about CCD and what causes it and they went through the list of possible effects and threw in global warming. :roll: :roll: :roll: Oh bother. Must be an obligatory NPR thing.
-
NPR is the voice of the left side of the govt. always has been. it's another thing we should not be paying for.
seems like there are more women on here now. maybe they have just found this site? it would be interesting to know......
-
I listen to NPR every morning going to work. I know every one talks about how left NPR is, but on the big political stories, they do interview both sides of a story. Now it may be one side one day, and the other side, the next day. But I think they are doing a good job at trying to show both sides. And they do own up to their mistakes on the air when they are corrected by the listeners. It is a good trade off to listen to before Boortz and Beck come on.
-
it's important to be well rounded. X:X my biggest problem with them and the PBS is that we are paying for it. why?
-
I think the majority of it is paid for by viewers like you. And the letters J and f. Why do they have a week long fundraiser every quarter?
-
I know I've given my share to NPR, and have worked the PBS fundraising efforts (you know, the silly people on the phones).
Looks like about 15% of NPR's member stations' funding is federal funding; less for larger stations and more for rural.
-
it's a bit higher when you factor in government grants and funding from places like universities that get government funding. if they were totally supported by the public, i'd be all for it. i see no reason for any government funding. it's not like there are not plenty of sources of info out there. we are not limited to a couple of networks and tv stations anymore.
-
I enjoyed the story on bees and enjoy NPR every morning. It provides a balanced account of the news, and has interviews of people with very different opinions which encourages viewers to think about the issues from a different perspective.
Many people are not able to have civil discussions about issues and NPR staff fosters a forum for discussion rather that radical ranting from either the far right or far left that I am tired of. Most news stations seem to promote the sensationalized news. NPR is not dependent on the government for funding and if it was I would see that as tax dollars well spent.
-
I enjoyed the story on bees and enjoy NPR every morning. It provides a balanced account of the news, and has interviews of people with very different opinions which encourages viewers to think about the issues from a different perspective.
Many people are not able to have civil discussions about issues and NPR staff fosters a forum for discussion rather that radical ranting from either the far right or far left that I am tired of. Most news stations seem to promote the sensationalized news. NPR is not dependent on the government for funding and if it was I would see that as tax dollars well spent.
LOL keep drinking the Cool-Aid Blackoakbees, keep drinking.
-
Sure beats Fox Unfair Unbalanced Un-news.
-
In terms of intellectual content, there is no radio programming that equals NPR. We donate to WUNC Chapel Hill every year. They do local programming as well as carrying the NPR national feed. My radio stays tuned to 91.5 all the time. :-D And you can listen over the internet using their streaming audio. http://wunc.org/about/online-streams-mobile-podcasting/listen.pls (http://wunc.org/about/online-streams-mobile-podcasting/listen.pls) Some of the national programming originates at UNC.
I actually agree that government funding of programming is generally a bad idea but I'm also glad it was done in the 1970s and 1980s so this high quality programming could get established. It's funny that some folks think NPR is liberal just because they refuse to repeat all the ignorant right wing dogma. They are quite broad in their coverage and present all points of view that can be logically supported. They occasionally allow unsupportable views to air as well.... I guess to remind everyone just how out of touch some folks are.
-
Sure beats Fox Unfair Unbalanced Un-news.
what i expect from an NPR listener. :-D
i don't care what's on radio or TV. i do care that the government is funding "news". that's a bad recipe no matter who's in charge of government or what the programing it.
if you are listening to NPR you are being fed left slanted news only slightly above the Huff. they throw in the occasional opposing view to claim balance. if you know that, it's ok. if you think you are getting balanced news, you are in trouble. if it's your only source of news, you are missing a lot.
read/watch what you want, but do understand what you are reading/watching. many more "journalists" identify themselves as liberal rather than conservative. the highest number identify themselves as moderates. a moderate is someone who has not yet been convinced that Marxism is the way to go, but they are leaning that way.
back in the day when they taught critical thinking in school, we used to listen to news and read stories. the assignment was always to pick out the words that change the tone of the story. when you have done it a few times, the words jump out at you.....like finding your queen on a frame full of bees. try it. it's fun. you'll read/listen to your news in a different way.
one of my favorite words is 'alleged'.
-
one of my favorite words is 'alleged'.
One of mine is "Marxism". Just can't beat it for changing the tone of a piece. :-D Oh look, I know there is bias on NPR but it varies with which reporter is doing the reporting. Nina Totenberg is silly and very biased to the left. She gives the left a bad name because she is not well informed. I have on occasion caught Rachel Maddow making an argument so obtuse that I know she doesn't believe it herself. But it's distressing when you say you don't care what's on radio or TV. It matters what people are exposed to in the way of information content and intellectual rigor.
Have you heard any other radio programming try to address the issue of young urban women entering beekeeping? But I know it's happening because my daughter is one of those new urban beeks and so are many of her friends. Beekeeping is changing fast and nobody but NPR is trying to tell the story. NPR has it's failings. You notice that, like most journalists, they did not run this story past any beeks before it was aired. If they had, someone would have pointed out to them that the drones are not just sitting around because they have already fertilized the queen. :? It would have made a better story to say that the males give their lives in the process of mating, but NPR missed that one.
You are right that the government should not be financing news. Makes for conflict of interest. But NPR also is criticized for accepting corporate sponsorships. They claim to have a firewall between fundraising and the news desk. but in the end.... people are people and they can always be corrupted. But I think the content of NPR is so much better than any other radio news source that even you..... extremist that you are :-D... should consider supporting it with your hard earned conservative dollars so the government doesn't have to.
-
But it's distressing when you say you don't care what's on radio or TV. It matters what people are exposed to in the way of information content and intellectual rigor.
no, it's about choice. if you choose to listen to things that are consistently in error in their reporting, or that consistently show only one point of view, i think that's stupid. i think it is your right to be stupid. (not talking about NPR)
ah, but you miss my point about Marxist. Obama was sold as a moderate. he is a Marxist. he was brought up that way, has associated with people who embrace the ideology, taught Marxist revolution ideology in his classes, sat in a black liberation theology church for 20 years (Malcolm x Marxism), and has done nothing since being elected except go farther left.
Hillary has been sold as a moderate. in truth, i think she has moderated some of her original Marxist views, however, she clings to many yet.
it is true that most of our progressives do not want to have a USSR outcome to their beliefs. they think that Marxism can be done right this time. i'd kind of like to see an example of it done right before we dive in.....so far, it hasn't worked out to well.
But NPR also is criticized for accepting corporate sponsorships
i guess that could apply to any network or news show that depends on advertising.
But I think the content of NPR is so much better than any other radio news source that even you..... extremist that you are ... should consider supporting it with your hard earned conservative dollars so the government doesn't have to.
maybe after the govt stops supporting them, i'll consider it... :-D
Have you heard any other radio programming try to address the issue of young urban women entering beekeeping
no and it's an interesting human interest story...or...you could see it as another media attempt to classify people by age and gender. gender and race have nothing to do with beekeeping. age might........
-
ah, but you miss my point about Marxist. Obama was sold as a moderate. he is a Marxist. he was brought up that way, has associated with people who embrace the ideology, taught Marxist revolution ideology in his classes, sat in a black liberation theology church for 20 years (Malcolm x Marxism), and has done nothing since being elected except go farther left.
Yeah and he's not even a US citizen!!!
Somehow I knew the teabaggers would hijack this thread.
Why does the government (minimally) support NPR and PBS? It provides the only free, educational, advertising-free programming that exists in those media. Everything else is brain-rotting, intelligence-insulting crap.
-
Somehow I knew the teabaggers would hijack this thread.
do you understand that this is a derogatory term?
Why does the government (minimally) support NPR and PBS? It provides the only free, educational, advertising-free programming that exists in those media. Everything else is brain-rotting, intelligence-insulting crap
.
so advertising dollars are bad...they might corrupt? but government dollars are good...because we know that the government has only the best of intentions when it comes to information.....
i would argue that your conclusion is crap, but your conclusion might make the point about what comes from NPR?
-
I refuse to listen to NPR. I make up my own mind for myself and can rationalize and think. God gave me a brain to use......enuff said. I went to school, they taught me what they thought of the world, I went to college, they taught me what they thought of the world, none of them taught what the world really is. They keep rewriting history. I read for myself and find out what the world really is. :-D
-
Don't be a sheep! ;)
-
ah, but you miss my point about Marxist. Obama was sold as a moderate. he is a Marxist.
blah blah blah... Marxist... blah blah blah. note the words that set the tone! :-D This is where the extreme right falls apart. Assertions with no reason, evidence, I was a Marxist when I was 12 years old. Lasted about 6 months. Does that make me a Marxist today? And you want an example of where Marxism has worked. How about a bee hive?
Can you provide an example of where libertarianism has worked? Not likely since no libertarian society has ever existed. I don't know what Obama was "sold" as, but he has been more conservative than I expected. More than anything, he is trying to synthesize solutions that can pass the Congress. In no way do I see a desire on his part to introduce socialism, "the ownership of the means of production by the state". The only truly socialist thing he has done was to buy GM and Chrysler. I think he hated doing that and will be selling off all government shares as soon as possible. I think he did this because he saw the cascade of collapse that would follow if those companies went down. Remember that it was Bush who bought AIG and the banks... and for the same reason.
Honestly, I think the cult of the individual reached absurd extremes under 8 years of Republican rule. No regulation led to the housing collapse, banking collapse, and the BP oil leak. But in the end, where was the corporate responsibility? If the government fails to regulate, the government ends up picking up the pieces. Companies will always be ruined by the demand for short term profits at the cost of long term sustainability. Someone has to actually be looking after the public interest. NPR is doing its part.
-
he has no problems getting things passed. he has the majority in both houses.
while i personally have some libertarian leanings, i do not advocate it in it's pure form.
the housing and banking collapse came from regulation. see Community Reinvestment Act. it was done by the very same democrats who today were applauded as Obama signed legislation that will further slow any recovery and cost more jobs.
Auto industry. banking-dictating salaries, bonuses, taking over student loans, todays legislation. health care. energy (soon to pass). there is very little that he has not put his finger into.
even he knows that doing as Hugo did would not fly. it has to be done be degrees. you can compare what has happened in Venezuela to what has been done here, if not to the same degree. regulation is control.
i don't believe that individualism can be over done. government certainly can be.
i'll let you know when i'm ready to move into a beehive....it probably won't be soon.
If the government fails to regulate, the government ends up picking up the pieces
when the government regulates, it ends up picking up the pieces of the unintended consequences. see above. if the government allows market forces to dictate success and failure, people make the choices about what to support. he didn't take GM and Chrysler because he was afraid of a cascade, he did it because it was a chance for the government to intervene and to support all those union (socialist) workers that voted for him.
-
the housing and banking collapse came from regulation.
Don't agree on this point....The 1999 repeal of Glass-Steagall made it OK for both Investment Banking and Deposit Banking to be under a single corporate umbrella. After that the banking PhD's figured out how to bundle crappy loans and sell various tiers as investment grade bonds. This created lots more demand for these crappy loans (even to the point where Wall Street created synthetic versions to track various portfolios). The companies doing the loan origination got more and more lax in their standards as everything they wrote got bought by the investment banks (since they didn't have to hold the note).
one of my favorite words is 'alleged'.
I love this point...It is so true. My favorite ones are "Linked to" and "associated with" which are usually in health related articles. I remember from my first day of Statistics that "correlation doesn't equal causation" but it seems like most journalists never had to take stats; otherwise they would call BS occasionally.
...Tim
-
he has no problems getting things passed. he has the majority in both houses....
the housing and banking collapse came from regulation. see Community Reinvestment Act. it was done by the very same democrats who today were applauded as Obama signed legislation that will further slow any recovery and cost more jobs.
Lots of irony here. Republicans had the Presidency and a majority in both houses for 6 years under Bush. Why did they not rescind this horrible law of which you speak?
even he knows that doing as Hugo did would not fly. it has to be done be degrees. you can compare what has happened in Venezuela to what has been done here, if not to the same degree. regulation is control.
Seems to me people are working themselves into a froth over nothing. There was far more government regulation under Nixon, who introduced wage and price controls . If Obama got everything he wanted in terms of regulation, it would take us back only to the days of JFK and Johnson. Not back to Nixon.
i don't believe that individualism can be over done. government certainly can be.
Well, we've had this discussion before. It comes down to whether you want to have a country or just an aggregation of individuals. Social and economic stability are just as important as military defense if you want to have a real country. America has never been this unrestricted individualistic model you seem to want. Even the Wild West had laws and regulations. i'll let you know when i'm ready to move into a beehive....it probably won't be soon.
I can see you as the queen. Well.... a queen who gives the workers lots of autonomy. :-D
-
some stuff you might fine interesting.
"The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty"
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/A%20Strategy%20to%20End%20Poverty2.html (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/A%20Strategy%20to%20End%20Poverty2.html)
the really interesting stuff is about half way through the article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Fox_Piven (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Fox_Piven)
this, along with Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals have been the blueprints for the left. Hillary was an admirer of Alinsky and had met him. she referenced to him several times in her writings. when Obama was involved in community organizing, several of his mentors had trained at an Alinsky foundation called the Industrial Areas Foundation. the IAF is involved it the "social justice" movement, which is a socialist community organizing (surprise) movement. these are the people that the left reveres and who's methods they follow. nothing happens by accident.
-
I remember from my first day of Statistics that "correlation doesn't equal causation" but it seems like most journalists never had to take stats; otherwise they would call BS occasionally.
...Tim
You have reminded me of my favorite xkcd cartoon:
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/correlation.png)
Our hives are in Carrboro. Where are you?
-
Republicans had the Presidency and a majority in both houses for 6 years under Bush. Why did they not rescind this horrible law of which you speak?
good question. bush did warn about the collapse of Fannie and Freddie, but the dems in congress blocked any regulation. he never had the super majority that obama has. those were better times, though...weren't they. look what happened after the dems took over congress :evil:
-
Don't agree on this point....The 1999 repeal of Glass-Steagall made it OK for both Investment Banking and Deposit Banking to be under a single corporate umbrella. After that the banking PhD's figured out how to bundle crappy loans and sell various tiers as investment grade bonds. This created lots more demand for these crappy loans (even to the point where Wall Street created synthetic versions to track various portfolios). The companies doing the loan origination got more and more lax in their standards as everything they wrote got bought by the investment banks (since they didn't have to hold the note).
that might have contributed, but the crappy loans came because congress demanded that banks loan to people who could not afford the loan. they they gaunted through Freddie and fanny that there would be no risk to the banks. threaten banks, then guarantee no risk....even then we knew the outcome.
-
nothing happens by accident.
Well.... alright then. :-D
-
that might have contributed, but the crappy loans came because congress demanded that banks loan to people who could not afford the loan. they they gaunted through Freddie and fanny that there would be no risk to the banks. threaten banks, then guarantee no risk....even then we knew the outcome.
I don't dismiss the roll of the changes that Clinton and Congress made to increase home ownership...Good intentions, bad result. And also the roll of the GSE's; but that said, subprime lending was only about 9% of the market for mortgage loans from 1996 until 2004. In 2004 the rules for capital at banks were relaxed so that the banks could lever up at 30 to 1. Then came the explosion of loans (then up to 21%). So my contention is that the blame mostly is at the feet of Wall Street who created huge demand for subprime and liar loans and enabled lots of shady loan origination companies to pop up almost overnight. A lot of this origination wasn't being done by the FDIC banks (the ones that had a mandate from Congress).
Our hives are in Carrboro. Where are you?
About 5 miles north...
-
About 5 miles north...
Soooo, if my newly mated queen took her flight to a drone congregation area 2.5 miles north of me.....OMG!!! :-D
-
She must be desperate.
-
the housing and banking collapse came from regulation. see Community Reinvestment Act.
The rapid increase in subprime loans--from 4% to 25% as I recall--was the prime factor. The majority of these loans originated from lenders not regulated by CRA. And CRA loans performed better than subprime. The CRA line is something fed to the public via such austere news organizations as Fox. And people believe it because they hear it so much.
Remember when you had to have a certain income in order to get a loan? Well from 2005-2007 (and even early into 2008) there were "Liar Loans" where you didn't have to show income, just had to have a good credit rating. People in California bought 3,5 or even 10 properties, betting that they would increase in value and then they could sell them. It was a Ponzi scheme. Then there were "Pick-a-Pay" loans where you could pick a payment that didn't even cover interest. Of course, after 3 years the payment "reset" to a fully amortized payment that would cover the interest and repay the (now larger) principle over the remained 27 years of the mortgage. Didn't take much to sink that ship. When I saw the reset graph, I knew we were in big trouble. I hadn't been in the banking business for 20 years, and I knew immediately. I'm not a rocket scientist (big surprise). So someone knew. Many people knew. But greed reined adn the naysayers were probably labeled as liberals.
Then, these subprime loans that were destined to fail were packaged together and somehow received high credit ratings from Moodys and Standard and Poor's. Why? Because Moodys and S&P are paid by the people they are rating. In the late 90s, I heard Moodys admit that they kept the investment grade country rating in place for Indonesia longer than they should have because they wanted to support the clients (e.g. our pension funds and insurance companies and banks) that had already invested there based on the old ratings. So what did that do for the ones that were just about to invest? Good money after bad. This whole house of cards could have been avoided with just a bit more regulation. But I guess "regulation" is anathema. Just tell that to the people in the Gulf.
-
Well from 2005-2007 (and even early into 2008) there were "Liar Loans" where you didn't have to show income, just had to have a good credit rating. People in California bought 3,5 or even 10 properties, betting that they would increase in value and then they could sell them.
you are right and wrong and believe it or not, we can have a discussion without you trashing fox news of whom you obviously know nothing about.
the beginning of the problem started in 1977. every point that you made can be traced back to the original CRA and it's later '90's evolutions EXCEPT the low interest rates that made the loans all the more attractive.
while i am not usually a fan of wikipedia, this lists all the changes to the original act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act)
it's not that there was no fault with the banks for what they did, but they did not cause the problem, the regulations did. the banks saw a chance to make money at no risk because they were guaranteed no risk. all the risk was put on the governemnt...or more accurately, the tax payer.
this is simplified, but covers the basics. you may research further if you wish.
http://www.chronwatch-america.com/articles/3649/1/Congress-Encourages-Irresponsibility/Page1.html (http://www.chronwatch-america.com/articles/3649/1/Congress-Encourages-Irresponsibility/Page1.html)
here are the first warning i remember.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/bush-adviser-warns-of-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-risks (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/bush-adviser-warns-of-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-risks)
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2008/09/bush-called-for-reform-of-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-17-times-in-2008-alone-dems-ignored-warnings/ (http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2008/09/bush-called-for-reform-of-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-17-times-in-2008-alone-dems-ignored-warnings/)
the CRA was a pet project of Barny Franks, Chris Dodd, etc. even when the republicans had the majority, it was not enough to override their protection of the CRA and Freddie and Fannie. throw in a little Acorn and their intimidation tactics and you have part of the makings of a disaster.
bad as this is, it's a fantastic example of the Law Of Unintended Consequences.....after all, who could be against helping low income families??
-
and may i add that if someone is to stupid to know that they can't afford the loan, or they take out a loan for 125% of the value of their home, they are pretty much to stupid to live. but, hey, that's how we picked up the rental......
-
WOWIE! ZOWI! ~ I think this thread should be deleted! We're beekeepers for heavens sakes but it hurts my heart to read all this "crap!" I say "CRAP" in a loving way!
My dh works for NPR & it's the voice of reason! People who work there make little money, do the job for the love of the job, are so committed to the "TRUTH", are the best & nicest people I have ever met in my life that it kills me to to read the previous posts from beekeepers that I respect. I DO NOT WANT TO KNOW YOUR POLITICAL VIEWS....I only want to read about beekeeping...please!!!
(as an aside ~ I own a business & I am always donating to many businesses but especially public radio. I kid my dh that he only thinks that I am a NON PROFIT too because he expects me to donate. All businesses are having a hard time but PR has expecially been cut so please don't believe the posts that say they are gov. funded. It's not true...don't even get me started on the OIL SPILL in the gulf ~ I'm in ALASKA & have family who lost their lively hood to the Exxon Valdez.... OK ~ See what has happened!!!!!!)
PLEASE DELETE THIS THREAD!!!
-
it doesn't need to be deleted, it needs to be moved to the coffee house. in the mean time flygirl, thank you for sharing your views on NPR and donations :-)
-
Flygirl--It's okay, we're having fun :-D
Kathy--You are obviously an intelligent woman who does her homework. Sounds like you might have a bit of a jounalism background? I've worked in PR as well, and it's easy to separate the wheat from the chaffe. The Bush list of everything he did to try to prevent the financial crisis is chaffe as it was obvious that the White House had to do something to separate itself from the crisis. Plenty of examples of him in more compromising positions. Politicians play both sides all the time.
In the ChronWatch article, I am fascinated by the flow. It starts with a quote, which I haven't checked by I'm going to assume is correct: “discrimination may be observed when a lender’s underwriting policies contain arbitrary or outdated criteria that effectively disqualify many urban or lower–income minority applicants.” Sounds reasonable so far. Then the author goes on to say that Lenders were told that credit history, proof of income, and source of downpayment were outdated criteria. No quotes. So, who said that? How many lenders were told that? When were they told that?
There's no doubt that CRA is a tough sell. It was tougher in the Eighties. I worked for the nations largest S&L to fail in the S&L crisis of the '90s (Home Federal S&L of San Diego). While I was in the La Jolla, CA office, where nary a CRA was even contemplated, I remember the hand wringing of trying to meet CRA guidelines. The only poor folk we saw were my fellow UCSD students! We couldn't get CRA applicants and it became a matter of having branches in parts of town that weren't as appealing. Banks wanted to be where the money was. How do you attract good applicants, who may not have a lot of money but nonethelss can afford the mortgage payment on an inexpensive home? CRA no doubt had unintended consequences, but there was clearly a lack of lending to black communities.
If you are a lender, you are ultimately responsible for your lending practices. Plenty of lenders today are in great shape, even the ones subject to CRA. (HomeFed was severely weakened because of bad lending criteria in its commercial portfolio, not CRA by the way.)
Most of the blame lies squarely at the feet of Fannie Mae and Freey Mac, and I would argue Moody and S&P contributed by furthering the scheme. Fannie's and Freddy's egregious reduction of lending standards occurred int he 2004/2005 timeframe. You can find plenty of blame for both parties if you look but this is more of a systemic Washington issue. Fannie and Freddy had a lot of lobbying money. They pandered to both parties. Buying politicians is both cheap and legal, as long as you jump through the proper hoops. If there is one thing I would hope we could all agree on, it's that lobbying money is corrupting and we need stricter campaign finance laws.
-
Egads, I thought I started this thread in the Coffehouse. My bad. :lol:
-
you were ok here until i messed you up ;)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122290574391296381.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122290574391296381.html)
interesting transcripts.
i wish it went through 08/09, because there was more about F&F in that year.
------------
we should not underestimate the miscalculations from the feds either. cheap money had a part in this and still does.
and i understand that there were many components to this and many from both parties at fault. the thing that is so appalling about this is that franks and dodd had their paw prints all over most of the regulation, hearings, and franks not only resisted getting control of F&F, but assured everyone that things were fine. these same folks were just applauded for helping with the new financial reforms that obama signed.
if a little regulation is good, more is better. if a regulation is bad, lets write more legislation to fix it. franks and dodd are among those who have been there to long and need to go.....speaking of lobbying money!
-
You are talking too smart for me, I'm lost a mile back, sorry..... :idunno:
-
I love NPR, listen to our local version (WPR) as much as I can and wish I had heard this one!
-
I love NPR, listen to our local version (WPR) as much as I can and wish I had heard this one!
Did you click on the link to the NPR story? You can listen on your computer.
-
Not yet :) I'm at work right now, but as soon as I get my new home computer (the 11-yo one just got fried) and super-duper high-speed connection, I will do so!