Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

So, my personal expectation for how things go for the next few years:
<snip>
Happy new year, everyone!

CLOs will play out a lot differently to how CDOs did however.

First, the market is apparently a lot smaller, the whole CLO market is about 10% of the size of the mortgage market at the peak of the housing bubble. Current US mortgage debt is $10 trillion. CLOs total about $650 billion. Also, since the mortgages are linked to a physical asset, the price of the house, when the price of the asset dropped, people started defaulting en-masse so they didn't have to pay their mortgages, which of course led to an oversupply of vacant houses, and crashed the construction industry too. There's no similar mechanism at play with CLOs, along with the market being much smaller. Another blip in the housing market is thus a much more plausible thing to take the economy down than CLOs.

Also there is a fair bit more transparency with CLOs as to the credit-worthiness of the actual lendees than there ever was with CDOs. Rather than the millions of lendees involved with CDOs, there are 100-300 firms who are the recipients of the CLO loan money, and they get individually tracked for credit-worthiness. According to a number of articles, CLOs are limited to 7.5% of their credit to the lowest credit-rating allowed, CCC. What happens if the credit rating of the companies drop is therefore that they're blocked from receiving any more financing through CLOs, and they may have to file for bankruptcy. The CLOs themselves are therefore extremely unlikely to implode, and actually have a very good track record even through multiple crashes.

So, something else may take the economy down, but CLOs aren't actually a likely culprit.

[dragdeler]

-

[scriver]

If I can't have President Buttikrieg then I at least want to see Pirate President Klobucharrrrrh

[sluissa]

Let me paint another narrative: What if the democratic primaries turn out like the republican's in 2016? Remember they tried to peddle any candidate on the stage over DT.


Biden couldn't even secure Obama's endorsement that went to Warren recently. Cornpop? Longfriend? Fat? Record player?

Gillibrand is out.
Beto is out.
Kamala is out.

Buttigeg is being exposed everyday for knowing better than the path he's engaged on.
Klobuchar has a mild surge probably feeding on dropouts, I don't think it can last.
Nobody gives a hoot about the two billionaires except the media.
Warren doesn't seem to be making big surges, and while being kinda milktoast, she is definitly pushing the Overton window to the left.

Meanwhile the Sanders blackout has been less intense, it's probably the holidays but maybe, just maybe the media is aware that they don't have much more credibility to gamble. Let the market crash so he can put everybody to wall: "your bailouts didn't work last time, meanwhile we have an historical framework of something that did work". IDK probably everything is far too derailed... but maybe... just maybe.


2023 is far off

The only chance Sanders or Warren has is for one of them to drop out so the other can absorb the support base of the other. As it is they're splitting their vote, and they're going to need some early wins to push their legitimacy as "electable". They really NEED to figure their shit out before Iowa. But March 3rd, Super Tuesday is their absolute last chance. If one of them hasn't backed off by then, Biden is going to sweep.

I know this is "the process" and it has to play out this way, but if Biden wins, they only have their own egos to blame.

Buttigieg is the one wildcard that could upend this and I'm not sure which direction he'd take it. I don't expect him to drop out early, but if he does, it basically secures Biden the win, as he's currently splitting the moderate vote. If Sanders or Warren wait too late and lose their chance and don't look electable, I could see voters moving from them, over to Buttigieg as an "anyone electable but Biden" candidate which could give him the win if it happens early enough.

All of this of course flavored by my dislike of Biden. I might be assuming anyone not currently voting for him wouldn't be likely to switch, but I'm also aware that even where he's not first, he's still a lot of people's second choice. I'm probably wrong, but this is how I see it playing out in my head, anyway. 

[dragdeler]

-

[Iduno]

Biden and Warren... I feel like the worst matchups against Trump are Bernie's biggest obstacles.

Those Biden voters though... The man is somewhat implicated in the impeachment scandal and temperamentally he's the reverse Trump: scold your base, suck up to your donors. I mean what the fuck people don't you ever dare talk about electability again.

Fucking Biden couldn't get the approval of they guy he worked with, whose major notoriety as a Democrat is reapproving everything Bush wanted, and a Health care bill that Republicans have to admit they wouldn't change anything on (they want to get rid of it, and replace it with a clone, but it's not worth the effort).

Only thing Biden could win is "creepiest uncle of the year."

[Kagus]

Remember: Poor kids are just as smart and as talented as white kids, and deserve the same opportunities!

[Folly]

Trump's administration has issued a ban on e-cigarettes, effective for all flavors except Menthol and Tobacco.

First of all, I recognize that many people, including children, have gotten sick and died in connection with vaping. If a ban is deemed necessary until research can be done to ensure that these products are safe, I wholeheartedly support such measures.

That having been said, I strongly feel that this is the wrong way to go about it. Choosing to ban certain variants because they might appeal to children is completely arbitrary, and sets a terrible precedent. What if next they decide to ban sweet alcohols, because children are more likely to drink them? Or ban all colors of car except grey, because children are more likely to drive them? What if they start banning types of porn they don't like, because they might appeal to children? This pretense of banning certain types of things because they might appeal to children could easily lead to banning anything that consenting adults enjoy just because the current administration does not appreciate them.

E-cigarettes are already illegal for minors. If those laws are being circumvented, the correct response is to improve enforcement of the laws, not to ban the adult's supply.

[Kagus]

What if they start banning types of porn they don't like, because they might appeal to children?

I get the point you're making and I agree, but this specific snippet has completely distracted me with trying to think of what kinds of porn might appeal to children.

I don't like any of the images I'm coming up with.

[nenjin]

Cynically I'd say the ban is more about helping the established tabacco companies reclaim market share than any real concern about the dangerous of flavored e-cigarettes.

[Iduno]

I get the point you're making and I agree, but this specific snippet has completely distracted me with trying to think of what kinds of porn might appeal to children.

I don't like any of the images I'm coming up with.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Trump's administration has issued a ban on e-cigarettes, effective for all flavors except Menthol and Tobacco.

First of all, I recognize that many people, including children, have gotten sick and died in connection with vaping. If a ban is deemed necessary until research can be done to ensure that these products are safe, I wholeheartedly support such measures.

That having been said, I strongly feel that this is the wrong way to go about it. Choosing to ban certain variants because they might appeal to children is completely arbitrary, and sets a terrible precedent. What if next they decide to ban sweet alcohols, because children are more likely to drink them? Or ban all colors of car except grey, because children are more likely to drive them? What if they start banning types of porn they don't like, because they might appeal to children? This pretense of banning certain types of things because they might appeal to children could easily lead to banning anything that consenting adults enjoy just because the current administration does not appreciate them.

E-cigarettes are already illegal for minors. If those laws are being circumvented, the correct response is to improve enforcement of the laws, not to ban the adult's supply.

Also, it's only been knock-off weed vapes, made in an incorrect manner that have caused problems.

[Arx]

Those bans exist for regular cigarettes in many places, as far as I know, with the same reasoning.

[Doomblade187]

Like, yeah, fruit flavored nicotine is addictive, but Nicotine Vapes are already illegal to minors. This is just weird, especially if they outlaw non-nicotine vapor fluids with those flavors (unsure about impact there)

[Lord Shonus]

Cynically I'd say the ban is more about helping the established tabacco companies reclaim market share than any real concern about the dangerous of flavored e-cigarettes.

Big Tobacco owns most of the major e-cigarette brands, at least partially. Losing market share to e-cigs doesn't hurt them at all.

[sluissa]

Honestly, if anything, this ban will hurt the big tobacco companies. It's not illegal to buy the ingredients and mix your own vape juice. It's just illegal to buy it in the form that most of the big tobacco/e-cig brands are selling it in. So they're basically messing with the only reason a lot of people go for those brands. Ease of use and variety. Anyone who really wants to will still get their fruity flavor and their nicotine juice, mix it and put it in a refillable machine.

That's also where you'll probably see even more people get sick as they try to mix their own, screw up, and breathe something they shouldn't.

I don't vape and I'm not a fan of people vaping around me. But the way this has been handled has been completely idiotic.