Thanks, It is ironic, but I have just returned from a 3 day ban. I deserved it as I did spam quite a few (~20?) threads with the same brief post, directing readers attention to a longer post concerning my solution to the current economic crises and asking readers to contact their congress men/women if they thought my idea better than Paulson's.Billy, a warning. If you keep on making intelligent considered points like this, you'll get yourself banned.
I intend to make post about ones duty to violate rules (civil disobedance) but when doing so one must try to make the least inconvenience to others possible. Thus, immediately after spamming, I reported myself for doing so and promissed to clean up my spam, but the mod who banned me was quick and I am still catching up on 3 days of post so have not yet checked to see if all my spam is gone.
Other essential thing about civil disobedance is that you must feel so strongly about your cause, that you gladly accept the punishment. I did and also in my self report stated that I would accept it. In fact now than I am back, I praise the mod who, doing his job well, banned me. As a leader in the civil right movement of the 60s, I have a lot of experience about what works to advance your cause. It may be too late, now, but if you agree with following, I again ask your to tell your congressman so. (I do not expect to be banned again for being in partly off thread in my reply to you, but if I am, more than half of the poster are often 100% off thread and we can start new forum.
)It was actually a benefit to be banned - Kept me from waisting time here when US is in crisis. - While banned I did contact many congress men, (One replied with more than form letter). I posted comments in current issue of The Economist's two lead articles and refinded presentation of my idea to be as follows (I will return and replace following with link when it is posted in more appropriate thread.):
Paulson’s plan will fail because it treats only a symptom and not the cause of America’s financial illness, which is: Too many were persuaded to buy more house than they could afford by irresponsible, greedy writers of innovative new mortgage types. Everyone was operating on the “greater fool” theory and assuming the un-payable mortgage would clear later when the house was resold. Many of these mortgages writers knew it was a criminal Ponzi scheme, designed to collect large bonuses.
A real cure must:
(1) Restore liquidity to financial system. (Make the toxic paper worth face value.)*
(2) Get Joe American into housing he can afford.
(3) Transfer real assets, not toxic trash, to Uncle Sam.
(4) Not significantly increase US’s already excessive debt.
(5) Prevent repetition of the problem.
All five are simultaneously possible. See full details of how in OP (and vote in poll) here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2025940&postcount=1
------------------
*The "feet dragging" Republicans refusing to accept Paulson's plan, even with the CEO bonus caps etc., have a good point (as do I). We only need to insure that ALL mortgages will be paid in full, not buy them all. These Republicans no doubt want to give this job to private insurance compainies, but as the biggest (AIG) has already failed, that will not work.
Last edited by a moderator:
