costard

[quote=Lars;1092141\ Would you like a few more financial papers to argue with?

Nonono - you miss the point. W is the model for the future Leader of the Western World, and the more ignorant the better.

Lars, from jsw: Quote: "It is important to understand that, as GSEs, Fannie and Freddie were viewed in the capital markets as government-backed buyers " But they weren't. How could they reasonably be viewed as such? Quote: "Their buying patterns and interests were followed closely in the markets. If Fannie and Freddie wanted subprime or Alt-A loans, the mortgage markets would produce them " In other words, this was viewed as a rort that needed to be exploited. Quote: "Their accounting had just been revealed as fraudulent, " but no-one was tried for or convicted of fraud. Where was the executive? - I mean we're talking about a huge amount of money here, and the potential to severely damage the market. Also, some of the sub-prime mortgages being bought and traded were known to be shonky deals, with unrealistic expectations of sky high interest rate rises after the initial honeymoon period: I can imagine new home buyers might not be bothered to read the contracts, I can't see a banker doing the same thing (unless s/he was criminally negligent of his/her responsibilities). Quote: "In contrast, Sen. Obama's conversion as a financial reformer marks a reversal from his actions in previous years, when he did nothing to disturb the status quo. " faulty logic. The other article you cite is equally devoid of worthwhile analysis.

Bah - you have the opportunity to run for the legislature, and its possible you have a social conscience, why don't you do it? (I know why I don't - I'm waaay too lazy. So sucks to me.)

Runyan99 The change to the bankruptcy laws in 2003? gave the banks the legal right to pursue debtors who would have been protected under the original laws. This gave the banks the legal position that the money could be recovered and that therefore the risk of loaning to individuals was mitigated. Actually, it gave the directors of the banks the legally safe position of not having to defend their incompetence in deciding to loan to high risk individuals. This set the scene for a housing boom, a very welcome stimulus to a stagnating economy (one that had been doing so since the dotcom crash). These same directors had sought to improve their cost positions by paying their staff on commission - no loans made, no money coming in and no extra goodies to the hard working bank officer. This system, of course, drives the making of many loans, with whatever justification deemed necessary given, justification hardly likely to be questioned up the line by anyone keen on keeping their job. Anyone who did - and there have been quite a few in the press over the years, wondering how long it could all go on - was subjected to the same sort of bullying that anyone seriously questioning the Iraq war was likely to encounter. And while it was all going good, and no-one being hurt, where was the harm? At the same time that the banks were funding a home building boom, they were quite happily funding the move offshore of many many manufacturing jobs. The jobs market in developed economies has shifted to tertiary and quaternary industries - service industries. This is fine provided the demand for the services expands or remains steady. [rant] Freddie and Fannie happily watered the currency to the tune of some trillions of dollars and sophisticated traders, lawyers and accountants rode the wave as hard as they could. And if they might be ignorant of their misdeeds, they sure as **** don't care what I or anyone else might have to say about them. Why should they? Good on them for driving the legislature with greed and fear and getting theirs. The rest of us are just jealous.[/rant] Rising oil prices squeezed what remained of US manufacturing, and jobs started to go. Inflation brought rising interest rates. A vicious cycle was promoted - jobs in an area went, which meant that houses bought on tick were foreclosed on due to non-payment, which meant that service industries in the area had to cut costs, which meant more jobs going, which meant more houses foreclosed on and less demand for services - etc. This is still happening, and is why I don't think the bailout will do much for anyone other than the owners of the banks and the traders in their shares. I don't believe we have avoided the second great depression. History hasn't been a long suit for the legislative representatives for a decade now - why should that change?

No, none at all. Why then was it done? Capitalism won't go away - it's too efficient a means of transferring goods and ownership. Any attempt to get rid of it has historically meant that the rich who don't flee get it in the neck, the mob wanders around for a bit before they're re-organised and the whole thing takes off again. That's why its called revolution - it comes around, again. As to the bailout - I'd be surprised if it ends up helping. The US has to stop spending money it doesn't have on wars it doesn't need and corruption it can't afford. Just like the rest of the world, really.

Moon, this forum is one of the busiest around lately: how 'bout chucking us a bone? Please?

Was the leadership (Captains and such) truly thinking that way? I can't see US or Commonwealth leaders being particularly successful with that gambit. USSR, however, and Germany... Sven Hassel stuff? I can see the point: in terms only of a game, however. And recon armed, a truly combative tank unit would be tough enough to do any job suited for it.

Wittman, you out there? Come and take your lumps like a man.

First turns are in. I really like the look of "I Woke Up Dead."

Well, there is a good case for regulating the market. Mr Putin tends to interpret regulations um.. strictly? As for money staying in Russia - I believe there is too much money to be made from bringing Russia to a level of wealth comparable with Western Europe for it just to be left as a basket case by the global currency barons. Besides, his natural resource base guarantees him long term profit in terms of trade. The problem seems to be with nobody knowing who owes what to whom. I'm guessing that AIG went under because it had insured risks taken by companies dealing with Freddy and Fanny. Who loses because AIG can't be saved. I think there's about 3-4 trillion US dollars to be made up in losses. Since last August. I'm likely to be wrong.

Hi Banjar. ISTR that one of the training scenarios required area fire to be used by the StuG? So scouting makes sense, to spot the guns. vs the AI the guns might open up on infantry, unless the designer has limited their ammo to AP, so scouting need not be too expensive. The AI can be quite clever at picking places to shoot from - its easier for a computer to do the maths.

CoFarmer, your display of your weak points is hardly an effort to communicate. The piece brings up my bile, and that is why I won't be sorry to see you go.

If I were the arresting officer, I'd be quite happy that the 20 mines weren't under the road somewhere.

Hang on, see if I can answer that second one myself... A recon company - two steps down from a regiment. Therefore the expected area assigned would be the entirety of the area the regiment would be fighting in, plus a bit around the edges. The tactics dependent on terrain, task, time, and thought. oh and TOE. 's.

How was the intelligence sent back for analysis? I mean, if you're sending men back with it (not using a radio net), then you're going to reach a limit for your "reach". Of course, they're going backwards and forwards anyway, for fuel and water. What sort of area would a Recon Company, say, be tasked to cover?

I don't think the tactic is gamey - howitzers were designed for plunging fire, as are their shells. Fine result. With indirect fire you're actually aiming at a point in the air. I can only set an aiming point on a surface in CM, so I have to use an approximate point in direct line, and factor in some error giving me the actual desired result. This results in wastage of HE, but with the correct judgement of curve this result can be ameliorated. Any chance we can get a dial-able elevation on field guns? - the game would change...

Try a 150mm field gun. You can get them to drop fairly steep slopes, and can deny cover with the size of the blast. Try push it up roads when you forget to buy a prime mover - you can find positions for the dropping shots, it just takes a practiced eye (as you've developed with the JS2). Reverse slope ambushes can become reverse slope graveyards, particularly if he's cleverly hidden in forest - and if you can't be seen, it's difficult for the other chap to get you with his mortars.

Do I have to go, or can I just send my money? Who do I send it to? Where is New Zealand? Do you accept rubles?:eek:

It's a good speech - did he give it to the kids?

fer sure. you rock. Actually, this thread has a goodly number of "views", even accounting for those that posted returning and being disappointed with the lack of replies. I am acutely aware of my limitations discussing this level of tactics and so can only contribute irrelevancies, but I do enjoy the learning aspect - this place has a good set of teachers/writers. Nukes is not worth discussing, IMO. History please, not fantasy.

Speedy, it is ALL politics - religious politics, sexual politics, family politics, military industrial politics; crikey, even the football threads are politics at some level. It's all about "I'm me, here I stand, oh and by the way, there's a couple thousand mates standing with me." mostly pfffft... At least they're not frightened to post their opinions - a signal victory in the fight against the politics of fear that has been practised so well for the last 10 years hic

The Roman Catholic church has only just (this year) recognised the sense in any form of contraception other than abstinence - its not hard to believe that practicing Catholics will take a generation or so to begin following the change as a matter of course (I have no idea which sect of the Judaeo-Christian church the Palins or their friends belong to). The taboos associated with sex and its discussion are deep seated within most societies, again, time and education will eventually effect a change here. The taboos exist for good reasons - disease control, the cost to the society of supporting single parents, the gestalt of valuing the intimacy of the sexual act. The idea that a more informed individual will make far better life choices is easy to refute on an individual basis, less so on general terms. Teenagers take risks - irresponsibility programmed into their behaviour. In this fashion they discover boundaries and learn about the world they live in. Legislating against this is bound to fail - thus the sense in informing the child and providing him/her with the knowledge of work-arounds to problems they will encounter. Promoting a willfull ignorance in your populace is tantamount to inviting it to behave in a socially destructive fashion. Leading by example achieves a great deal - but if the example is counter productive (or worse, hypocritical) expect the followers' behaviours to be counter-productive.

She's just saying, "There's no way I'm responsible for this mess - its all God's plan." The fact that she is elected to a position of responsibility escapes her. The buck stops in heaven.

Quote: Palin: Iraq war 'a task that is from God' By GENE JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer blahblahblah "Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God," she said. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan." She hit the nail on the head there - you're praying for a plan. Help. Great stuff to inspire the troops with.