Obama in the proposed restructure of the company, took the collateral backing the loans and allowed it to be sold, thus no longer available to backup the loans.

How does a proposal turn into actual harm? Was the proposed restructuring actually performed, or was it canceled when the bondholders rejected the proposal?

So, in short, the hedge funds are horked off because the only player at the table with cash didn't put them first in line?

What do hedge funds have to say for themselves when they do this to other parties?

Is that supposed to be kinky?

Wall Street took other people's money and lent it out with wild abandon to create a monster housing bubble. They played both sides against each other so they could rake in fees: Homebuyers were told they HAD to take the crazy loans so they could buy before prices soared completely out of reach, and the people who were the source of the money was told that they were making a 100% safe investment that couldn't possibly fail.

And you think we should be GRATEFUL to them for screwing the entire world economy with this crap? I definitely don't want any of whatever you've been smoking.

Let me get this right with all the real subjects they could have discussed they wasted 7 minutes on who said hello to who first on a train?

Objection! Presumes facts not in evidence, namely the possibility of substantial discussion of real issues with a lying sack 'o shit.

I can understand why an asshole would be concerned about anal poisoning.

Also, technology has bmade the production and distribution of stuff much less labor-intensive, so we shouldn't all need to be looking for full-time jobs.

That's what popular magazines were promising us back in the 1950's. What actually happened is quite different: Everyone is busting their butts harder than ever just to make a handful of people wealthier as fast as possible.

The problem with this system is that the powers that be are running out of people who can afford to purchase these goods because only a few people are making any money for producing them.

This makes me wonder if the entire subprime disaster was deliberately engineered to reduce the remaining non-wealthy population to slavery.

Unlikely. The current world economic system is basically consumer capitalism. It can't exist witout consumers.

That's only true while there is still money to be extracted from consumers. Continued concentration of wealth will eventually make this pointless. What comes next?

Just declare that the problem is fixed. In the alternative, declare that there never was a problem.

My guess is that some people would like to see, and are perhaps working to bring about, your option #3 (return to feudalism).

A lot of money has been made from growth. Unfortunately, the planet is running out of room for new people and out of resources that are needed to make our technology work. The hyper-wealthy ain't gonna like it if we burn up all the oil trying to keep this going: They won't have any fuel for their Lamborghinis and Learjets.

If people are useless as consumers because they don't have money to spend, what's the point of wasting valuable resources to keep them alive? People who aren't needed to provide necessities, toys and services for the wealthy could just be allowed to die, or maybe even given some help. Factories that crank out toys don't need large customer bases so they can be profitable when there are desperate people who will work in slavery conditions just to get some food and shelter. The usual economic constraints of needing to earn money to buy raw materials etc. go away when all of the money and all of the property is in the hands of only a few people.

Maybe I need a new tinfoil hat, but I don't see us moving in any direction that would rule out this scenario.

DICK ... is the only thing standing between us and cadres of innumerable "nuclear-armed terrorists" slipping into the Homeland undetected.

Really? Please explain how DICK is protecting us. He doesn't have any power to command any U.S. resources. Is he patrolling our borders single-handed? If not, then what is he doing? All I see is DICK running his mouth.

... the housing bubble wasn't that long ago and I haven't forgotten what was going on.

What I recall was a situation where just about every source of information was shouting out that crazy loans were THE way to buy houses, that anyone who did buy a house was guaranteed to make a pile of money, and that nothing could possibly go wrong. The few people who dared to say otherwise were subject to a storm of scorn and ridicule.

It's easy to say in hindsight that people who took risky mortgages were foolish, but how exactly did we expect them to figure this out in advance?

Of course, that doesn't make Mr. Leonard's criticisms any less valid. Edmund Andrews is someone who probably should have known better, and this latest revelation about his omission of essential facts from his story seems to devastate his credibility on the matter.

You snark-challenged or somethin'?

Hey, that's what you get for posting such a convincing imitation of some of the typical right-wing trolls we see in here.

Instead of setting up a single-payer plan, insurance companies will cut costs be refusing to pay for more kinds of treatment. They'll also add language to their policies forbidding customers to discuss denied claims with third parties, so that anyone who complains can get sued to kingdom come.