Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 491049)

OK, so my hypothesis here is that Islam is a symptom of the violent extremism you're describing rather than the cause -- i.e., that what you are describing is true in a bunch of countries that happen to be Islamic, is the result of factors other than their religion, and is expressed in an Islamic form because because such things often find a religious outlet and the religion in these countries happens to be Islam.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 491083)

They definitely compete with each other. It's a big reason why the recession lasted as long as it did. Back in '05 to '07, things were so good that (corporate) borrowers who were even a mediocre risk started demanding that banks remove the protections in credit agreements that keep borrowers in line and provide warnings and protections to banks in case the credit starts going south. They called them covenant-light loans. Some banks wouldn't give in at first, but they eventually came around when there were 10 other banks ready to make that loan. And if you were making no loans, guess what! Loan officers were missing out on all those huge bonuses paid based on the size of your book! Plus your bosses were mad when they looked around at everyone else making tons of cash hand over fist.

When the crisis hit, lenders were stuck with lots of shitty credits that they couldn't default or, more likely re-work to keep the credit flowing at better rates, because the covenants on which they typically rely didn't exist. That kept them from lending way longer than it should have. Well, that and the fact that Lenders couldn't buy a LIBOR contract because the stated rate was pure fabrication (if published LIBOR was 5% on a 30-day contract, no bank could actually get a 30-day contract at a rate lower than fucking 20%).

I knew of banks who were calling their borrowers and saying, "Look, I know LIBOR is currently at 6%, but it is actually not available. Can you please allow us to change the LIBOR provisions of our credit agreements so that it says 'If no LIBOR contract is available at the published rate, we don't have to lend at the rate we agreed on?'" If they hadn't negotiated away their protective covenants in the first place, they would have been in a position, when borrowers blew their covenants, to say, "We'll continue to lend to you, but we need to revise the LIBOR language."

A lot of money ended up being lost because of competition. And it surely extended the recession.

You know what? We're already back in a covenant-light market (somewhat)!

TM

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 491086)

Occam's Razor doesn't apply here? I mean, the demands or complaints or whatever you want to call them, are never "we need jobs" or "hope" or "freedom." The demands are always Allah ain't happy with something or other.

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 491089)

The problem with that is that Allah ain't happy because people can't get jobs, or can't get citizenship in Qatar or the UAE, or Saudi, which creates a wealthy, bottle-fed class of citizens and an underclass of guest workers. Thus, Allah ain't happy because the Wahabbi are oppressing the Shia.

Just one example. There are many others.

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 491084)

I understand how banks work. And I did see "It's a Wonderful Life." I was suggesting that, instead of just throwing a bunch of money at the same assholes who blew it all in the first place, the G should have restored depositor accounts, wiped out the equity and debt on the bank itself, so the losers were the ones who invested money and then failed to keep an eye on the management, and turn the institution over to someone who would run it the way a bank is supposed to be run. Like George Bailey. What I am having trouble understanding is why it would cost so much more to do it the way I suggest than it did to just give more money to the fuck-ups?

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 491087)

Could the Fed issue regs prohibiting covenant-light loans? Or raise reserve requirements, if you prefer, to make them less attractive to all banks?

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 491091)

I learned to speak Italian earlier this year. Sometimes I wonder if my posts include Italian words so that they can't be understood. The one you were responding to was pretty straight forward.

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 491094)

I thought I was being pretty straight-forward, too. Apparently I'm just having trouble communicating all around today. Maybe I should just shut the fuck up.

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick (Post 491098)

Regarding the new thread title, I am relatively certain that I am the only person on the board that voted for Ted Cruz (primary and general election).

I am further certain that I am alone on this board in my love for him. Were I not happily married with 3 kids, I would have his babies. Mr. Chick is aware and has assented to Ted Cruz being on my "laminated list" of the Seinfeld era.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 491055)

If I had to identify the biggest things I thought fueled the rise of ISIS, they would be as follows:

1. Assad. Lots of causes for him being there and being what he is, but the chaos and brutality of his reign have a lot to do with creating the conditions in Syria for ISIS.

2. The Iraq war. We are the primary drivers of the conditions for ISIS' existence on the Iraqi side of the border. The combination of destabilizing local governments when we took out Hussein's people without having people and systems to put in place and leaving enormous caches of arms and large numbers of disenfranchised soldiers and police has a lot to do with why ISIS spread in Iraq.

3. Oil. Lots of people keep buying ISIS oil. It's their main source of funding. The pay their soldiers ten times what the other members of the Assad opposition pay their soldiers.

4. Gulf oil. Additional funding has come from individual oil barrons in the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia. Governments are tightening the screws on this now, but ISIS has alternative financing.

5. Theology. Being the baddest guy on the block helped them get off the ground by raising money originally and gets them some Jihadis, especially the ones they use for suicide attacks, even though their elite troops seem to be drawn more from the ranks of unemployed professional soldiers out of Iraq than from jihadis.

There are four things on that list the US can or has influence, but we're spending more time on the 5th. We seem to have drawn a line around Baghdad and Mosul, and along the Turkish border. If that holds, their rampage is unlikely to exceed Assads in body count. If that doesn't hold, you are exactly right.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 491058)

We have had a few drinks together. Have you ever seen me waste good scotch?*


* Also, note, I have inserted several disclaimers that I think no one on the board is a racist. At least, I largely think that.

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 491108)

Fair enough, and I was trying (failing) to be tongue-in-cheek. Though I've seen us both waste good booze putting Wonk into the hospital, which was a true shame.

You called me a racist, threw a drink in my face, stormed off in anger, then felt bad about it and arranged for Gwink to come in and give me a five-hour blowjob. Better? (Much, in my view.)

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 491111)

See, now if I'd gotten the five-hour blowjob, I probably wouldn't have wound up in the hospital.

ETA, Why does the five-hour blowjob make me think of the five-dollar milkshake from Pulp Fiction?

Originally Posted by sidd finch (Post 491112)

ggg was too tired. Besides, we were in chicago, so the only candidate for services was ruysbroeck and he starts at the wrong end.