Savage naming fanny and freddy sharholders

T

theMAJORITY

MAJORITYrules-sorry
Guess what--they are lobyists and politicans.

Who would have guessed. Dech--you mentioned that they had shar holders, so it all must be on the up and up?

Who was right again Desh man?

ME!!!
 
The largest amounts of stock are held by mutual funds and financial institutions.

Compared to those two groups, the individuals hold only a minor amount of stocks in Fannie & Freddie.

the two largest individual holders are officers in the companies. And that is not unusual.

As a matter of fact, I just did a little math. The top 5 individual stock holders have 2,108,985 shares combined. The top 5 institutional holders have 293,982,074 shares combined. And the top 5 mutual fund holders have 260,960,731 shares combined.


So the politicians and lobbyists hold a minute amount of stock. The overwhelming majority of the stocks are held by financial groups and mutual funds. Which means they are held by ordinary citizens with retirement accounts and investment accounts.




Want to rethink that "Who was right again Desh man?" question? Because obviously you have some bad info, or some limited info. Mine came straight from financial pages.
 
Solitary said:
The largest amounts of stock are held by mutual funds and financial institutions.

Compared to those two groups, the individuals hold only a minor amount of stocks in Fannie & Freddie.

the two largest individual holders are officers in the companies. And that is not unusual.

As a matter of fact, I just did a little math. The top 5 individual stock holders have 2,108,985 shares combined. The top 5 institutional holders have 293,982,074 shares combined. And the top 5 mutual fund holders have 260,960,731 shares combined.


So the politicians and lobbyists hold a minute amount of stock. The overwhelming majority of the stocks are held by financial groups and mutual funds. Which means they are held by ordinary citizens with retirement accounts and investment accounts.




Want to rethink that "Who was right again Desh man?" question? Because obviously you have some bad info, or some limited info. Mine came straight from financial pages.
Click to expand...

401k investments should also not be backed by the immorality of fascism. Getting more people to be fascists doesn't it make it not fascist. "everybody does it". It's the argument of a five year old.
 
AssHatZombie said:
401k investments should also not be backed by the immorality of fascism. Getting more people to be fascists doesn't it make it not fascist. "everybody does it". It's the argument of a five year old.
Click to expand...

Maybe you would prefer the 401k investments not be backed at all?

And since you consider the federal government to be fascist, who would you prefer provide backing for 401k accounts? To prevent people's lifetime investments from disappearing if some business people make bad decisions.
 
Solitary said:
Maybe you would prefer the 401k investments not be backed at all?
Click to expand...
Yes. I would prefer that. Any stock market investment can go down the drain. isn't that in fine print somewhere? Guaranteed investments are an illusion.
And since you consider the federal government to be fascist, who would you prefer provide backing for 401k accounts? To prevent people's lifetime investments from disappearing if some business people make bad decisions.
Click to expand...

I think the whole stock system concentrates control in too few hands, encouraging people to be passive people complicit in whatever immorality the fascists decide upon. They should invest in themselves and their own ideas.
 
Solitary said:
The largest amounts of stock are held by mutual funds and financial institutions.

Compared to those two groups, the individuals hold only a minor amount of stocks in Fannie & Freddie.

the two largest individual holders are officers in the companies. And that is not unusual.

As a matter of fact, I just did a little math. The top 5 individual stock holders have 2,108,985 shares combined. The top 5 institutional holders have 293,982,074 shares combined. And the top 5 mutual fund holders have 260,960,731 shares combined.


So the politicians and lobbyists hold a minute amount of stock. The overwhelming majority of the stocks are held by financial groups and mutual funds. Which means they are held by ordinary citizens with retirement accounts and investment accounts.




Want to rethink that "Who was right again Desh man?" question? Because obviously you have some bad info, or some limited info. Mine came straight from financial pages.
Click to expand...



Thanks for the info.

The two officers in the company--the largest individual share holders. What are their names, and what did they do before they held thos positions?

Now--the individual shareholders, who are pretty much all corrupt wall street crooks or lobbyists, or politicians--did they make the decisions? I don't know.

I do see though, backed heavily by past government experience in running anything---this is how health care would work.
 
Last edited:
AssHatZombie said:
Yes. I would prefer that. Any stock market investment can go down the drain. isn't that in fine print somewhere? Guaranteed investments are an illusion.


I think the whole stock system concentrates control in too few hands, encouraging people to be passive people complicit in whatever immorality the fascists decide upon. They should invest in themselves and their own ideas.
Click to expand...

Investing in themselves and their own ideas sounds all peachy. But it doesn't create a retirement account. All it does is create a generation of people who will have to work till they die or live in abject poverty in their "golden years".

Yes, there are always risks in investments. But in some investments there is a risk of minimal return, not necessarily of losing your life's savings.
 
Solitary said:
Investing in themselves and their own ideas sounds all peachy. But it doesn't create a retirement account. All it does is create a generation of people who will have to work till they die or live in abject poverty in their "golden years".
Click to expand...
So people are used to the false security and social toll of fascism. The concept of risk free investments is contrary to the whole notion of free markets. IT"S FACISM.
Yes, there are always risks in investments. But in some investments there is a risk of minimal return, not necessarily of losing your life's savings.
Click to expand...

Obviously wrong.
 
AssHatZombie said:
So people are used to the false security and social toll of fascism. The concept of risk free investments is contrary to the whole notion of free markets. IT"S FACISM.


Obviously wrong.
Click to expand...

Obviously not wrong. Since the fed is bailing out the companies.

And we do not have a free market. We have a heavily regulated market. Once you start the regulations on the market, you can't expect it to perform as if it were a free market.



But you tell me, asshat, what you would you have people do with their retirement savings? How would you have them use their money so they can have enough to retire? You like to badmouth the current system, but you offer no answers.
 
Solitary said:
Obviously not wrong. Since the fed is bailing out the companies.
Click to expand...
But in reality, or non fascism, it is possible to lose one's life savings.
And we do not have a free market. We have a heavily regulated market. Once you start the regulations on the market, you can't expect it to perform as if it were a free market.
Click to expand...
You still don't have to implement full fledged fascism. How about a minimum wage increase using your same logic. Too populist? Thought so.
But you tell me, asshat, what you would you have people do with their retirement savings? How would you have them use their money so they can have enough to retire? You like to badmouth the current system, but you offer no answers.
Click to expand...

I would encourage people to work hard, innovate, live below their means, have a victory garden, and reject fascism.
 
AssHatZombie said:
But in reality, or non fascism, it is possible to lose one's life savings.

You still don't have to implement full fledged fascism. How about a minimum wage increase using your same logic. Too populist? Thought so.


I would encourage people to work hard, innovate, live below their means, have a victory garden, and reject fascism.
Click to expand...

A victory garden? Thats your answer?

People start working at about 18, and work till they are 65. If they live till they are 80, they will need to have enough money to live for 15 years without an income.

Without any inflation, that means saving one-third of their income. Add inflation and it means more like half their income.

Even being a serious tightwad and having a victory garden (which is tough if you live in the city), to save half your income over your entire working life is ridiculous.

Go online and see if you can't gain an education and then come back and talk. You love to bitch about fascist bullshit, but your own answers are ridiculous.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Yes. I would prefer that. Any stock market investment can go down the drain. isn't that in fine print somewhere? Guaranteed investments are an illusion.


I think the whole stock system concentrates control in too few hands, encouraging people to be passive people complicit in whatever immorality the fascists decide upon. They should invest in themselves and their own ideas.
Click to expand...


Sorry guys, he is right IMO. I see the best accoutability--is loosing your azz if you mess up.

This means, with no accoutability in the government, they will bail out everything they mess up (and is their nature in any business--they simply are not good business men/women--they are politicians following orders of special interests) at our expense. That is not acceptable if you want any meaning in your life. I am not a socialist--I am not a slave.
 
theMAJORITY said:
Sorry guys, he is right IMO. I see the best accoutability--is loosing your azz if you mess up.

This means, with no accoutability in the government, they will bail out everything they mess up (and is their nature in any business--they simply are not good business men/women--they are politicians following orders of special interests) at our expense. That is not acceptable if you want any meaning in your life. I am not a socialist--I am not a slave.
Click to expand...

The problem with asshat's idea is that he has no clue. Fannie & freddie have billions in home loans out. If they go under, do you think the people get to keep those homes? Even the ones who have been paying their mortgages will lose.

And if all those homes are suddenly thrust onto the market, which is at its worst in decades, what do you think will happen to the housing market and our economy then??

Just so we can "teach them a lesson"? Or so we can "let them sink or swim on their own"?



No, the bailout is the best answer for the people of this country.
 
Solitary said:
A victory garden? Thats your answer?

People start working at about 18, and work till they are 65. If they live till they are 80, they will need to have enough money to live for 15 years without an income.

Without any inflation, that means saving one-third of their income. Add inflation and it means more like half their income.

Even being a serious tightwad and having a victory garden (which is tough if you live in the city), to save half your income over your entire working life is ridiculous.

Go online and see if you can't gain an education and then come back and talk. You love to bitch about fascist bullshit, but your own answers are ridiculous.
Click to expand...

What's your point? This list of meaningless stuff doesn't justify fascism. A market backed by fascist totalitarianism is not a "market" anyomore.

Bailouts and other bullshit like this are precisely the irresponsible actions that cause a person's lifetime of work to devalue over time due to the massive inflation caused.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top