q*****g
发帖数: 1568 | 1 【 以下文字转载自 USANews 讨论区 】
发信人: Jerry0803 (Jerry and Tom), 信区: USANews
标 题: 香港老太太：快点跟温总理说，别再借钱给美国了 信源：搜狐博客｜编辑：2
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Wed Apr 16 14:16:55 2008)
香港老太太：快点跟温总理说，别再借钱给美国了
我把钱买了汇丰的股票，汇丰把我的钱借给美国人买房子。美国人能从汇丰银行借到不
用还的钱买房……他们住的、吃的，连他们的烟都是我给买的！”
香港一个朋友的妈妈是我见到过最忠诚的股迷，老太太做了一辈子的护士，1989年退休
后成了专业股迷，只要开市，她就风雨不误地去银行大厅炒股机前上班。老太太炒股同
别人不同，她只炒一只股，那就是香港股市大哥大的汇丰银行。老太太的炒法也很特别
，隔一段时期她就为自己设一个底线，比如；1998年我问她炒股心得是什么，她说：“
我不管什么大市不大市，我也不看别的股票，只盯着“大笨象”（香港股民给汇丰银行
起的绰号），只要跌到100以下我就买，超过 120我就卖。”说来也怪，1997年香港金
融风暴，2000年科技股泡 | q*****g
发帖数: 1568 | 2 稍微换一个话题。
这次美国次贷危机，三个（准）总统候选人里头我看还是麦坎说得最在理，
没有任何理由让政府，其实也就是美国全体纳税人，为那些非理性消费赌输
了的购房者擦屁股。
怎样从制度的层面严格化以后银行借贷，防止类似事件再度出现是治本的
方法。
：2
【在 q*****g 的大作中提到】
: 【 以下文字转载自 USANews 讨论区 】
: 发信人: Jerry0803 (Jerry and Tom), 信区: USANews
: 标 题: 香港老太太：快点跟温总理说，别再借钱给美国了 信源：搜狐博客｜编辑：2
: 发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Wed Apr 16 14:16:55 2008)
: 香港老太太：快点跟温总理说，别再借钱给美国了
: 我把钱买了汇丰的股票，汇丰把我的钱借给美国人买房子。美国人能从汇丰银行借到不
: 用还的钱买房……他们住的、吃的，连他们的烟都是我给买的！”
: 香港一个朋友的妈妈是我见到过最忠诚的股迷，老太太做了一辈子的护士，1989年退休
: 后成了专业股迷，只要开市，她就风雨不误地去银行大厅炒股机前上班。老太太炒股同
: 别人不同，她只炒一只股，那就是香港股市大哥大的汇丰银行。老太太的炒法也很特别
| m******t
发帖数: 2416 | 3
I'm all with the republicans on this one. We don't hear people whining about
the government should bail out those who lost money in a stock market crash
, I don't see how the losses from investing in a house market should be any
different.
Now I don't know about that. A _private_ bank should be able to decide on
its own whom to lend its money to. It'll face the consequences when it makes
unwise decisions, but that's just how a free market works.
【在 q*****g 的大作中提到】
: 稍微换一个话题。
: 这次美国次贷危机，三个（准）总统候选人里头我看还是麦坎说得最在理，
: 没有任何理由让政府，其实也就是美国全体纳税人，为那些非理性消费赌输
: 了的购房者擦屁股。
: 怎样从制度的层面严格化以后银行借贷，防止类似事件再度出现是治本的
: 方法。
:
: ：2
| a*****i
发帖数: 4391 | 4 It is the failure of government(its regulation) if somehow a large number
of people were "trapped" in the housing market crash.
When they applied for mortgages, the lenders should not have let them have
their money, and that is government's job to keep an eye on the lenders.
There are a lot of stupid and irresponsible people in this world, but just
because they are stupid doesn't mean the government should let them hang
in the wind dry, they pay taxes too.
about
crash
any
makes
【在 m******t 的大作中提到】
:
: I'm all with the republicans on this one. We don't hear people whining about
: the government should bail out those who lost money in a stock market crash
: , I don't see how the losses from investing in a house market should be any
: different.
: Now I don't know about that. A _private_ bank should be able to decide on
: its own whom to lend its money to. It'll face the consequences when it makes
: unwise decisions, but that's just how a free market works.
| m******t
发帖数: 2416 | 5
I'd agree with you, but only if those people were deceited into borrowing
the money they can't afford to pay back. But were most of them deceited? I
don't think so -
They knew these facts when they signed to borrow the money:
1. how much they are borrowing,
2. what rate is,
3. the rate is opening for upward adjustments after 5 or 7 years, and
4. how much money they are making at the moment.
What they didn't know, but had the free will to assume:
1. what the rate is going to be in 5 or 7 years
【在 a*****i 的大作中提到】
: It is the failure of government(its regulation) if somehow a large number
: of people were "trapped" in the housing market crash.
: When they applied for mortgages, the lenders should not have let them have
: their money, and that is government's job to keep an eye on the lenders.
: There are a lot of stupid and irresponsible people in this world, but just
: because they are stupid doesn't mean the government should let them hang
: in the wind dry, they pay taxes too.
:
: about
: crash
| a*****i
发帖数: 4391 | 6 I am not in a mood of argueing the tiny details now, but
it should be government's job to regulate those important
industries. Like hedgefund. You put a lot of money into one
of those uber funds who used to make a lot of "risky" money.
You can say, heh, it is my own money, I can invest it however
risky I want. It is your opinion, but my opinion is that those
funds should also be regulated.
I
【在 m******t 的大作中提到】
:
: I'd agree with you, but only if those people were deceited into borrowing
: the money they can't afford to pay back. But were most of them deceited? I
: don't think so -
: They knew these facts when they signed to borrow the money:
: 1. how much they are borrowing,
: 2. what rate is,
: 3. the rate is opening for upward adjustments after 5 or 7 years, and
: 4. how much money they are making at the moment.
: What they didn't know, but had the free will to assume:
| m******t
发帖数: 2416 | 7
I think the mortgage industry is completely different from the hedgefunds,
not only in terms of their target customers, but also in terms of the level
of regulation.
And those are not conflicting opinions. Sure, they should be regulated so
that they cannot cheat money out of investors, but other than that, I don't
know what else you wish the government to regulate. Hedgefunds publicly
admit that they are not under as much regulation, and that they invest in an
extremely aggressive fasion. So fo
【在 a*****i 的大作中提到】
: I am not in a mood of argueing the tiny details now, but
: it should be government's job to regulate those important
: industries. Like hedgefund. You put a lot of money into one
: of those uber funds who used to make a lot of "risky" money.
: You can say, heh, it is my own money, I can invest it however
: risky I want. It is your opinion, but my opinion is that those
: funds should also be regulated.
:
: I
|
|
