Democrats cave on ACA shutdown.

[BlueOak]

@Elliott Right of where they were?

Are you really asking why a country wants another to align with it ideologically, economically, and militarily?  - Is this something that needs an answer?
China specifically wants them authoritarian and (in my view of a global context) slight right of center, buying, trading, and allowing China to expand what it wants where it wants.They want policies in Europe that benefit them, they want to remake Europe and America in a way that suits Chinas continued interests.

I mean that's just common sense.

Or this is again about my personal view of the political spectrum? Why is that so important to you?

Again you've failed to mention why the vietnam war has anything to do with China and European relations? Do I have to guess? I can hazard a guess but I doubt it'll be whatever you are hinting at. Are we saying that because France was involved in a conflict in 1955 (don't quote me on dates its before my time), that in 2025 China is what, angry at France?

Is this map an attempt to tell me that China's aggression and expansion is justified due to European colonies from hundreds of years ago? Are we hinting that a militarized Europe is going to, what, invade vietnam? I am not sure what you are getting at.
 

Edited Friday at 11:40 PM by BlueOak

[Elliott]

2 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

@Elliott Right of where they were?

Are you really asking why a country wants another to align with it ideologically, economically, and militarily?  - Is this something that needs an answer?
China specifically wants them authoritarian and (in my view of a global context) slight right of center, buying, trading, and allowing China to expand what it wants where it wants.They want policies in Europe that benefit them, they want to remake Europe and America in a way that suits Chinas continued interests.

I mean that's just common sense.

 

That's definitely a "common sense" analysis, let's use something a little more than common sense now.

So, you claim China wants to take over the world or something like that, I think you said that, and you think they want other countries to have the same ideology that leads them to also want to take over the world, or whatever expansionism you see with China?

 

[BlueOak]

3 minutes ago, Elliott said:

That's definitely a "common sense" analysis, let's use something a little more than common sense now.

So, you claim China wants to take over the world or something like that, I think you said that, and you think they want other countries to have the same ideology that leads them to also want to take over the world, or whatever expansionism you see with China?

 

I doubt they want the entire world. 
They certainly want BRICS dominance of it, and they are the majority partner in BRICS yes.

For their own ends, as in China itself, they want continued expansion both in terms of territory, trade, influence and military power yes.

Edited Friday at 11:45 PM by BlueOak

[Elliott]

2 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

I doubt they want the entire world. 
They certainly want BRICS dominance of it, and they are the majority partner in BRICS yes.

For their own ends they want continued expansion both in terms of territory, trade, influence and military power yes.

You see no conflict here with China, in your words wanting Europe to have that same ideology? Europe wanting to takeover the world, right? China wants Europe to have this ideology?

 

 

Edited Friday at 11:47 PM by Elliott

[BlueOak]

Just now, Elliott said:

You see no conflict here with China, in your words wanting Europe to have that same ideology? Europe wanting to takeover the world, right?

 

Aligned with China's interests? No. China would be very happy if Europe started giving them everything they wanted, including arms, money, military allies and political support.

I have however mentioned, and will do so again, that creating authoritarians, and right-wing ones especially (as Russia is attempting), can backfire quite spectacularly. 

[Elliott]

1 minute ago, BlueOak said:

Aligned with China's interests? No. China would be very happy if Europe started giving them everything they wanted, including arms, money, military allies and political support.

 

Quote

I have however mentioned, and will do so again, that creating authoritarians, and right-wing ones especially (as Russia is attempting), can backfire quite spectacularly. 

You think Xi is oblivious to this?

 

 

Edited Friday at 11:50 PM by Elliott

[BlueOak]

Just now, Elliott said:

You think Xi is oblivious to this?

No he's not as desperate as Putin, but then his country isn't as radicalized and far right either.

He works with many authoritarian governments, and they have adequate relations. I would say China is considerably more balanced and stable. This changes nothing about what i've said.  You tend to look at absolutes, I don't. I think if Russia fights their wars, weakens themselves, and radicalises Europe that presents opportunities and dangers for China, I think if Russia has peace, NATO grows bolder, and China more subtly competes with trade and industry that creates opportunities and danger for Chinese influence.

Either way they are still influencing directly and indirectly, both by their existance and intent the course of the world.

[zazen]

2 hours ago, Elliott said:

So Goldman Sachs/the systen, harmed people, by giving people loans for homes they otherwise wouldn't have been able to get?

Don’t be dense dude. You’re either a troll or contrarian cos you get a kick out of it lol.

The harm was in setting up loans designed to fail, lying about the risk, dumping the toxic loans onto pension funds, betting against the people they sold them to, and then getting bailed out when the whole thing exploded.

If a doctor knowingly gives you a drug that makes you feel good today but destroys your organs over the years, you can’t say “well the doctor gave me medicine”

Your charts are showing metrics that go up (cars, coverage) but they don’t show people being squeezed (cost of basics relative to wages). They show activity not affordability.

People have more “stuff” because they take on more debt. Show me a chart of how many hours of work it takes to afford a home, healthcare, and college today vs 40 years ago.

Watch the videos I shared - worth your while bro. I’m off to debate a superfacist.

Edited Saturday at 12:09 AM by zazen

[Elliott]

47 minutes ago, zazen said:

Don’t be dense dude. You’re either a troll or contrarian cos you get a kick out of it lol.

The harm was in setting up loans designed to fail, lying about the risk, dumping the toxic loans onto pension funds, betting against the people they sold them to, and then getting bailed out when the whole thing exploded.

If a doctor knowingly gives you a drug that makes you feel good today but destroys your organs over the years, you can’t say “well the doctor gave me medicine”

The people that were given the loans were harmed? Elaborate. Even if it was risky, it was obviously the consumers choice, AND houses were not expensive then if you're basing anything on high prices you're absolutely wrong. You would rather they been relegated to renting?

 

And cutout the ad hominem, you already look dumb enough.

47 minutes ago, zazen said:

Your charts are showing metrics that go up (cars, coverage) but they don’t show people being squeezed (cost of basics relative to wages). They show activity not affordability.

People have more “stuff” because they take on more debt. Show me a chart of how many hours of work it takes to afford a home, healthcare, and college today vs 40 years ago.

 

The first one is wages. Quit wasting people's time with your lies.

Edited Saturday at 12:54 AM by Elliott

[zazen]

14 minutes ago, Elliott said:

The people that were given the loans were harmed? Elaborate. Even if it was risky, it was obviously the consumers choice, AND houses were not expensive then if you're basing anything on high prices you're absolutely wrong.

And cutout the ad hominem, you already look dumb enough.

A chick being pumped and dumped by a playa isn’t harmed? Because even if it was risky, it was her choice and he promised her monogamy, marriage and kids.

Selling that subprime like so playa:

The issue isn’t just the sticker price - but the debt product attached to it. A $200,000 house is unaffordable if the loan is structured to make the payments explode beyond your income. That’s the fraud.

They created artificial demand by giving mortgages to anyone with a pulse - little to no income verification or down payment, with adjustable rates that would explode later. That demand drove prices up - then when loans started failing (as expected) the bubble popped.

We’ve gone from discussing structural power dynamics to how the 2008 crash harmed people as if that’s a serious question to begin with. Your strawmanning my points then reducing it to “it was their choice”.

You have Google and AI to elaborate the obvious - but keep asking questions as if you want to be hand held through the obvious - AI not feeling personable enough for you? You are simply not engaging in good faith or as BlueOak said on the previous page being “deliberately obtuse”.

[Elliott]

32 minutes ago, zazen said:

A chick being pumped and dumped by a playa isn’t harmed? Because even if it was risky, it was her choice and he promised her monogamy, marriage and kids.

Selling that subprime like so playa:

The issue isn’t just the sticker price - but the debt product attached to it. A $200,000 house is unaffordable if the loan is structured to make the payments explode beyond your income. That’s the fraud.

They created artificial demand by giving mortgages to anyone with a pulse - little to no income verification or down payment, with adjustable rates that would explode later. That demand drove prices up - then when loans started failing (as expected) the bubble popped.

We’ve gone from discussing structural power dynamics to how the 2008 crash harmed people as if that’s a serious question to begin with. Your strawmanning my points then reducing it to “it was their choice”.

You have Google and AI to elaborate the obvious - but keep asking questions as if you want to be hand held through the obvious - AI not feeling personable enough for you? You are simply not engaging in good faith or as BlueOak said on the previous page being “deliberately obtuse”.

That's also not what happened. Get a grip and lay off the drugs, your brain is cooked. You would rather they been relegated to renting, so they're out nothing then, some benefited even, if they kept paying or sold the house if it got too much. Since trump went bankrupt 7 times you think the system screwed him too. Is there any personal mistake a person can make that isn't the systems fault? 🤣

Edited Saturday at 01:43 AM by Elliott

[zazen]

9 minutes ago, Elliott said:

That's also not what happened. Get a grip and lay off the drugs. You would rather they been relegated to renting, so they're out nothing then. They were normal mortgages at 4% interest bruh.

Some people survived the Titanic so was it really harmful? A Ponzi scheme is fine because early investors get paid?

They weren’t normal mortgages at 4% bruh. All kinds of toxic loan products were being provided - hence it was called subprime ie subpar or shit in simple English.

NINJA loans (no income, no job, no assets) ie homie wasn’t legit or credit worthy enough to repay the loan, but it was given anyway. They were pushed heavily because lenders were paid per loan, not per risk level. They began with low teaser rates 1-4% for the first 2-3yrs before resetting (adjusting) much higher which is where people got screwed with repayments at that higher rate. Then there were ballon loans, interest only etc being pushed also.

You’ll say “but the consumer should have known better” - that the math don’t math. But consumers weren’t given amortization schedules, the reset timelines, real post-teaser payment, the terms that triggered payment spikes or the long term cost in plain language ie that it would be a shit deal.

You think because no one’s gone to prison for that systemic fraudulence that no one was harmed or no wrong occurred. But that proves my point in our initial discussion from which we’ve veered off: that the state serves capital rather than disciplining it in the service of the citizenry.

[Elliott]

32 minutes ago, zazen said:

Some people survived the Titanic so was it really harmful? A Ponzi scheme is fine because early investors get paid?

They weren’t normal mortgages at 4% bruh. All kinds of toxic loan products were being provided - hence it was called subprime ie subpar or shit in simple English.

NINJA loans (no income, no job, no assets) ie homie wasn’t legit or credit worthy enough to repay the loan, but it was given anyway. They were pushed heavily because lenders were paid per loan, not per risk level. They began with low teaser rates 1-4% for the first 2-3yrs before resetting (adjusting) much higher which is where people got screwed with repayments at that higher rate. Then there were ballon loans, interest only etc being pushed also.

You’ll say “but the consumer should have known better” - that the math don’t math. But consumers weren’t given amortization schedules, the reset timelines, real post-teaser payment, the terms that triggered payment spikes or the long term cost in plain language ie that it would be a shit deal.

You think because no one’s gone to prison for that systemic fraudulence that no one was harmed or no wrong occurred. But that proves my point in our initial discussion from which we’ve veered off: that the state serves capital rather than disciplining it in the service of the citizenry.

The premise is that something has gotten worse in a few decades.

Re-sell the house! Subprime just means the client is high risk, it means nothing in loan terms. Lending to risky people HELPS THEM, you'd rather they not be leant to. No one held a gun to their head, no one made them choose the more expensive house. And they could have re-sold the house. The mortgage rates were well within legal limits, within their income, obviously. Regardless still, that was a minority of the populace, and the practice has been regulated away, now your friends can't get the mortgage.

 

Edited Saturday at 02:16 AM by Elliott

[zazen]

10 hours ago, Elliott said:

Subprime just means the client is high risk, it means nothing in loan terms.

It's both about the borrower and the nature of the loan itself. ''Evidence shows that a large number of borrowers of color were targeted and steered into toxic mortgages even when they qualified for safer and more responsible loans with cheaper costs.''

''Borrower characteristics did not explain the differences in lending. Many of these borrowers qualified for credit on better terms but were steered into subprime loans because brokers received extra compensation for placing them in loans with higher costs.''

 https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/109438/witnesses/HHRG-116-BA04-Wstate-BaileyN-20190508.pdf

Subprime was about a predatory loan design deceptively sold. The structure of the loan was high risk as well as the client - but even lower risk clients were ''steered'' into higher risk loans.

10 hours ago, Elliott said:

Re-sell the house!

You can't just sell when you're underwater and the market has collapsed putting you into negative equity. If you took out a mortgage of $200k and your house value is now $100k - you still owe the bank the difference ie $100k. If your unable to pay the difference then you get foreclosed ie bank takes the property, evicts you and still comes after you for the remaining debt.  What follow is your credit is destroyed (7+ years), you lose access to normal loans, interest rates jack up, renting becomes harder and some jobs wont even hire you.

This has ripple effects on not just in the US but globally due to the US being the largest economy. But you think there's no harm or ''only 10 million Americans affected''. And you don't see how this is a crime because a gun wasn't pointed to peoples heads - only that it was the individuals choice and that they shouldn't be poor victims. That's like Andrew Tate's view of hyper accountability - ''everything is my fault bro, my destiny is in my own hands - I can get a Bugatti if I so please'' lol.

If a mechanic messes up your brakes and you drive off a cliff - you "chose" to drive. But the mechanic still committed a crime and caused harm.

10 hours ago, Elliott said:

The mortgage rates were well within legal limits, within their income, obviously.

10 hours ago, zazen said:

NINJA loans (no income, no job, no assets) ie homie wasn’t legit or credit worthy enough to repay the loan

The whole scandal was that income was not verified.  In fact incomes were even inflated by the brokers in order to approve the borrower for a loan they weren't actually qualified for. Brokers were paid for closing such loans - so they massaged the numbers to get their fee's and cash in on it. Their called liar loans.

11 hours ago, Elliott said:

Regardless still, that was a minority of the populace, and the practice has been regulated away

As I mentioned earlier - the ripple affects aren't on a minority of the populace. Pension funds and retirement portfolios collapsed, state budgets collapsed, unemployment exploded. Household wealth dropped by $19 TRILLION.

Just because one drug is gone (subprime loans) doesn't mean the drug dealer isn't still there dishing out new drugs. The predation has moved into different forms. Private-label securitization is back, non-bank lenders have replaced old banks, subprime auto loans are exploding, adjustable-rate mortgages are back, negative-equity car loans are rampant. Corporate landlords (Blackstone) are the new subprime machine.

Today the global financial system is running on massive interconnected leverage. See a thread integral just started yesterday: 

Your chart shows ownership but tells nothing about affordability. It's like me saying people still eat food today - but says nothing about how affordable it is for people. People are now financing their groceries with klarna and buy now pay later schemes. There's a massive difference between being able to buy a home on one income outright or with a mortgage you can pay off within a decade vs buying a home with debt that even two incomes will takes multiple decades to pay off, if ever.

 

[Elliott]

On 11/15/2025 at 8:14 AM, zazen said:

It's both about the borrower and the nature of the loan itself. ''Evidence shows that a large number of borrowers of color were targeted and steered into toxic mortgages even when they qualified for safer and more responsible loans with cheaper costs.''

''Borrower characteristics did not explain the differences in lending. Many of these borrowers qualified for credit on better terms but were steered into subprime loans because brokers received extra compensation for placing them in loans with higher costs.''

 https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/109438/witnesses/HHRG-116-BA04-Wstate-BaileyN-20190508.pdf

Subprime was about a predatory loan design deceptively sold. The structure of the loan was high risk as well as the client - but even lower risk clients were ''steered'' into higher risk loans.

You can't just sell when you're underwater and the market has collapsed putting you into negative equity. If you took out a mortgage of $200k and your house value is now $100k - you still owe the bank the difference ie $100k. If your unable to pay the difference then you get foreclosed ie bank takes the property, evicts you and still comes after you for the remaining debt.  What follow is your credit is destroyed (7+ years), you lose access to normal loans, interest rates jack up, renting becomes harder and some jobs wont even hire you.

This has ripple effects on not just in the US but globally due to the US being the largest economy. But you think there's no harm or ''only 10 million Americans affected''. And you don't see how this is a crime because a gun wasn't pointed to peoples heads - only that it was the individuals choice and that they shouldn't be poor victims. That's like Andrew Tate's view of hyper accountability - ''everything is my fault bro, my destiny is in my own hands - I can get a Bugatti if I so please'' lol.

If a mechanic messes up your brakes and you drive off a cliff - you "chose" to drive. But the mechanic still committed a crime and caused harm.

The whole scandal was that income was not verified.  In fact incomes were even inflated by the brokers in order to approve the borrower for a loan they weren't actually qualified for. Brokers were paid for closing such loans - so they massaged the numbers to get their fee's and cash in on it. Their called liar loans.

As I mentioned earlier - the ripple affects aren't on a minority of the populace. Pension funds and retirement portfolios collapsed, state budgets collapsed, unemployment exploded. Household wealth dropped by $19 TRILLION.

Just because one drug is gone (subprime loans) doesn't mean the drug dealer isn't still there dishing out new drugs. The predation has moved into different forms. Private-label securitization is back, non-bank lenders have replaced old banks, subprime auto loans are exploding, adjustable-rate mortgages are back, negative-equity car loans are rampant. Corporate landlords (Blackstone) are the new subprime machine.

Today the global financial system is running on massive interconnected leverage. See a thread integral just started yesterday: 

Your chart shows ownership but tells nothing about affordability. It's like me saying people still eat food today - but says nothing about how affordable it is for people. People are now financing their groceries with klarna and buy now pay later schemes. There's a massive difference between being able to buy a home on one income outright or with a mortgage you can pay off within a decade vs buying a home with debt that even two incomes will takes multiple decades to pay off, if ever.

 

House sizes have increased significantly, how many people per house has DECREASED, how many cars people own has increased significantly('2 cars person'). How many people are on health insurance has increased significantly, how many people do outpatient visits has increased dramatically, Wages have surpassed consumer staples, not by much, but it hasn't gotten worse, prices have gone down compared to wages but consumption has increased, poverty has decreased. There is a problem with housing, but it's lifestyle changes, houses are gigantic now with only 2 people living in them, in the past 3-generation homes were normal, 3 generations and a third the size, houses with no a/c, barely any insulation, full of lead and formaldehyde; making things safer and more efficient also increases cost. I also believe it's clear home prices are a bubble, not permanent, just from huge market disruptions like trumps tarrifs on building materials his first term and then covid, Trump also did fsa loan changes his first term helping more people enter the homeowner market.

Edited yesterday at 09:29 PM by Elliott

[zazen]

@Elliott Consumption going up doesn’t mean affordability going up. All that consumption is being afforded through debt which is hard to pay off.

A big reason for housing size increase is due to developers incentivised to build bigger which provide higher returns -  which is why starter homes cost so much these days.

”Housing platform app Zillow reports there are now 233 locations in the U.S. where a simple “starter home”—a smaller, less-expensive route to owning a larger house—will now run you $1 million or more.”

https://fortune.com/article/housing-market-outlook-starter-home-costs-million/

It’s about how many hours of work it takes to afford the basic essentials compared to the past. Price to earnings ratio for houses used to be 2-3x income compared to 6-8 today or 10x plus in top cities.

AI:

”Hours-of-work comparison:

A median worker in 1970 could buy a median home with ~17,000 hours of labor.Today it’s roughly 35,000–45,000 hours, depending on location

A degree used to require ~5,000–7,000 hours of labor equivalent. Now requires ~20,000–30,000+ hours, often financed.

Healthcare used to require ~1,000 hours of labor yearly. Now requires ~3,000–5,000 hours depending on family size and insurance type.”

https://www.ilr.cornell.edu/scheinman-institute/blog/john-august-healthcare/healthcare-insights-how-medical-debt-crushing-100-million-americans

Boomers managing to pay off their mortgages and debts despite higher rates back then indicates their buying power compared to today. Because even if rates are low - the principal (asset price) is so inflated that even cheap debt becomes decades of financial servitude. How are people supposed to plan for retirement etc when many sink 30-50% of income into just their housing.

https://www.newyorkfed.org/microeconomics/hhdc

Debt is at record highs even prior to 2020 COVID - housing and non-housing debt.

Edited 3 hours ago by zazen

[Elliott]

14 minutes ago, zazen said:

@Elliott Consumption going up doesn’t mean affordability going down. All that consumption is being afforded through debt which is hard to pay off.

I posted a graph showing wages outpacing consumer goods prices, three times.

14 minutes ago, zazen said:

A big reason for housing size increase is due to developers incentivised to build bigger which provide higher returns -  which is why starter homes cost so much these days.

”Housing platform app Zillow reports there are now 233 locations in the U.S. where a simple “starter home”—a smaller, less-expensive route to owning a larger house—will now run you $1 million or more.”

https://fortune.com/article/housing-market-outlook-starter-home-costs-million/

You believe the system has caused this by practices like 07' subprime loans? The larger houses are custom builds, spec builds are the smaller. Of course they're more profitable, because they're more desirable. Spec builders are going to build the houses that sell the fastest, not the biggest they can build if it sits longer than a slightly smaller one, neither the bank nor builder dismiss turnaround.

 

What is your systemic solution, tighter loaning regulations?

14 minutes ago, zazen said:

It’s about how many hours of work it takes to afford the basic essentials compared to the past. Price to earnings ratio for houses used to be 2-3x income compared to 6-8 today or 10x plus in top cities.

It's about an increase in the standard of living, a substantial increase.

 

 

 

We've also phased out lead gas, coal power, gas guzzling death-trap cars, and smog; these advances in the standard of living come with some cost.

 

 

what is your theory on the systemic problem and solution with college? My opinion is the demand is too high, too many people wanting college degrees, and not from community college for free for the same exact career outcome. People can get college for free in the u.s. with FAFSA, but they want to go to a big name party school for social reasons, again overconsumption.