|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Zero Talent
Pages: 1 ... 83 84 85 86 87 [88] 89 90 91 92 93 94
2176
« on: September 02, 2015, 13:25 »
From my Getty exclusivity experience, I know that I make more by spreading my eggs on different baskets.
This could be applicable to you, or not.
You put the worse versions of your images on Getty RF and the better versions on Shutterstock, it's no wonder your experience is that Shutterstock makes more. I could have told you what would happen with that strategy. Uploading your better versions as RM and not putting sisters onto microstock is probably a more sensible strategy.
Is it possible he meant to say Istock exclusivity rather than Getty exclusivity? Two very different things. I have many exclusive images with Getty as a House Contributor and I am also exclusive to Istock.
I really meant Getty exclusivity as an example of a bad exclusive deal. I don't know how you feel "on the other side" as an IS exclusive. My experience with exclusivity was convincing enough to abandon it. But this is just me and my experience.
I am happy with your belief in exclusivity and with Thickstock's attempts to find alternative explanations to justify this belief
I wouldn't exactly call Getty Moment RF images exclusive especially when you have almost identical images on SS.
This is "just your opinion" and I'm happy it justifies your belief. I know for a fact, that the rest of my port (the one Getty was not interested in) brought me, as non-exclusive, 30% better revenue per image per year, than what Getty has curated from me.
2177
« on: September 02, 2015, 12:56 »
From my Getty exclusivity experience, I know that I make more by spreading my eggs on different baskets.
This could be applicable to you, or not.
You put the worse versions of your images on Getty RF and the better versions on Shutterstock, it's no wonder your experience is that Shutterstock makes more. I could have told you what would happen with that strategy. Uploading your better versions as RM and not putting sisters onto microstock is probably a more sensible strategy.
Is it possible he meant to say Istock exclusivity rather than Getty exclusivity? Two very different things. I have many exclusive images with Getty as a House Contributor and I am also exclusive to Istock.
I really meant Getty exclusivity as an example of a bad exclusive deal. I don't know how you feel "on the other side" as an IS exclusive. My experience with exclusivity was convincing enough to abandon it. But this is just me and my experience. I am happy with your belief in exclusivity and with Tickstock's attempts to find alternative explanations to justify this belief
2178
« on: September 02, 2015, 12:24 »
From my Getty exclusivity experience, I know that I make more by spreading my eggs on different baskets.
This could be applicable to you, or not.
You put the worse versions of your images on Getty RF and the better versions on Shutterstock, it's no wonder your experience is that Shutterstock makes more. I could have told you what would happen with that strategy. Uploading your better versions as RM and not putting sisters onto microstock is probably a more sensible strategy.
No, Getty has selected those images from my port, at that time. I had no say in what they preferred. Moreover their lack of flexibility makes this strategy very difficult. You cannot withdraw individual images from Getty. You can only delete the whole port and walk away. Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
2179
« on: September 02, 2015, 12:13 »
In my opinion (and this time it is only an opinion, indeed  ) the exclusive stats are misleading for a simple reason: it is fair to assume that those IS exclusives have, in average, much larger ports than the regular non-exclusives.
The average revenue of a few exclusive "pro" ports will be obviously inflated when compared with the average revenue of similar non-exclusive "pro" ports, but mixed with a much larger number of small newbies ports.
That's not the point here.
I agree that the poll in general doesn't give any useful information - apart from comparing a trend, and as we have no idea who is polling each month, even that isn't possible.
We're talking about the exclusives' average increasing by such a huge amount over the year.
Of course, I know that many exclusives and indies are making more than me.
I see no evidence anywhere that anyone apart from some newbies, happy to be picking up some sub sales, are achieving vast increases in their income from iStock, including info from several long standing BDs.
However, if a lot of middling and lower ranking contributors* have gone indie, that could falsely increase the exclusive total, without actually meaning that income there is going up. Just another indication that the poll doesn't really mean anything.
* But I know that at least some higher ranking contributors have also gone indie. I don't know if it's enough to balance out the results.
Have you ever noticed that there are a lot of very unhappy people on this forum that constantly complain about Istock? And for months and months and months to no end. It's the herd mentality.
Then their are very few people that even remotely suggest life is good on the other side and the result it very abusive and negative on this forum. So in effect it silences people. Even mention you are doing well on Istock and you get kicked in the nuts, not by one, but by many.
I work hard at shooting stock photos, I am exclusive, and I make a great living doing it. I submit images and they sell.
Naysayers will always be unhappy and blame anything, everyone, and everything on their own failures. Naysayers often band together to live the dreary existence of being negative almost to cult status.
It's a pattern I see on this forum far too frequently to the point of being utterly boring and repetitive.
Actually I am not unhappy at all! As I mentioned a few posts ago, August was my best month ever. This is not a reason to be unhappy. I'm also happy to see the importance of IS diminishing, since this is the worst agency around for non exclusives. I can only wish they continue to lose customers to agencies with more respect for us. I'm also happy with you and the other IS exclusives staying as long as possible with IS instead of competing "on the other side". However there is a scenario in which you and the other exclusive die-hards would change their mind. This could accelerate the migration of IS customers towards other agencies. And this can become an wake-up call for IS and an incentive for them to improve their lousy commissions. From my Getty exclusivity experience, I know that I make more by spreading my eggs on different baskets. This could be applicable to you, or not. Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
2180
« on: September 01, 2015, 20:05 »
In my opinion (and this time it is only an opinion, indeed ) the exclusive stats are misleading for a simple reason: it is fair to assume that those IS exclusives have, in average, much larger ports than the regular non-exclusives.
The average revenue of a few exclusive "pro" ports will be obviously inflated when compared with the average revenue of similar non-exclusive "pro" ports, but mixed with a much larger number of small newbies ports.
These stats compare apples with oranges. If we are to believe that the iStock exclusive numbers are correct, then that might indicate that over the last year, those exclusives with smaller ports have become independent in droves, heavily shifting the balance towards those with larger ports. That explanation makes sense (though it might be completely wrong ). Thanks.
Good point. The ones that stay exclusive are doiing good. The ones that left, aren't axclusive. Seems that the exclusive make around 5X more then indies which makes the number bigger. Exclusive also get more Getty and higher subs pay. I don't see that as wrong, just that if you look at a small sample of people who stayed, of course they will have the high numbers.
Same for DP, DT and FT. The numbers look better because people who left aren't represented. Only the people who are happy who stayed. It all adds up to, telling us that the numbers are not comparing the same, but are apples to oranges.
SS numbers are for almost everybody except people who can't get past the review. They are more representative of micro in general for that one agency. What that tells me is SS is much better then the poll shows compared to the other. More belong more stay more make money.
I believe it is fair to assume that a large majority have their ports with the major 3: SS, FT and IS. Maybe even with the top 5, if we add DT and 123 to the list. Comparing average revenues for the same pool of people makes sense. This is why the hierarchies, established by this site, for non-exclusive revenues are probably close to reality. On the other hand, even comparing IS exclusives with IS non-exclusives is, probably, a mistake. IS non-exclusives are a mix of all the above: small ports + big ports. The majority of IS exclusives is probably made of large ports. This is why I don't even trust the 5x difference between IS exclusive revenues and IS non-exclusive revenues We compare the average fruit size in basket of oranges with the average fruit size in a basket of oranges+blueberries, when, in both cases, the orange size is the same.
2181
« on: September 01, 2015, 18:23 »
In my opinion (and this time it is only an opinion, indeed ) the exclusive stats are misleading for a simple reason: it is fair to assume that those IS exclusives have, in average, much larger ports than the regular non-exclusives. The average revenue of a few exclusive "pro" ports will be obviously inflated when compared with the average revenue of similar non-exclusive "pro" ports, but mixed with a much larger number of small newbies ports. These stats compare apples with oranges. Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
2182
« on: September 01, 2015, 13:28 »
My trend is similar to the poll results on the right. Upload to one site, get more than all the sites combined (that have an earnings rating) and do a 10th of the work.
That's another assumption you have no proof for, but I'm glad you think like this. Not even the "less work" part is entirely true. Less work, yes, but not 1/10th.
2183
« on: September 01, 2015, 13:13 »
Any one contributor's individual performance is such a statistically insignificant part of the microstock industry that it would be difficult to tell anything from it. I expect this industry to be just like most others that are maturing. In 3 years the topology of the market will be unrecognizable from what it is today. Leaders in 2015, may not even be in business in 2018. Remember the 100mb zip disk? What about 8 track tapes? Unless you make steel beams or clay pots for a living, expect change, evolution and Darwinian like natural selection. It's normal.
I fully agree. One example doesn't make a rule. But one example is more than an opinion based only on assumptions and no facts to validate it. Only if more users would put together examples, trends could be better identified and assumptions validated, or not. What I can say with certainty, is that (for the time being) my SS revenue and RPD have not been impaired by AS (quite the opposite), while, for me, IS lost steam, both on RPD and revenue. The good news is that, overall, I had the best month ever.
2184
« on: September 01, 2015, 09:24 »
How do you use this info?
The same way you use it: you have an opinion about how AS will destroy SS and cannibalize FT. My facts show something different, at least for the time-being. Given their abysmal RPD, the more customers will migrate away from IS, the better.
2185
« on: September 01, 2015, 08:44 »
My IS RPD continues its downward trend, while SS and FT keep it up.
2186
« on: August 29, 2015, 11:26 »
Why would he do that? He could just take the money and enjoy the rest of his life without having to bother about microstock ever again.
Indeed! It makes you wonder where is that famous "greed", very dear to some on this forum  Well said VB inc. I completely agree, however I also think greed played a large part in the equation.
This move only highlights how many risks an entrepreneur takes to keep his business afloat and how some spectators take those risks for granted.
2187
« on: August 28, 2015, 11:05 »
If you don't want to license your work at SS, that's fine with me. Less competition. But for the rest of us, SS pays way more than any other microstock site. I earn more on SS than the average U.S. annual full time salary, drawing pictures in my dining room extremely part time...about 2 hours a day. I spend my summers lounging by the pool instead of sitting in rush hour traffic and being trapped in an office all day. It's very relaxing. But yeah, don't upload there. It svcks, totally.
LOL! So true! If you don't upload to SS, you should not even give it any consideration. If you do upload there, you should stop immediately so I can get more sales. 
Yes, everyone please stop uploading there. It's really a terrible place; you make no money and prostitute your art, as my life drawing professor put it when I was in college. Also, let me know what categories you usually work in, so I can start to cover those. Thanks!
Ha, ha, this is great! However, be careful what you wish for. There is probably a break-even point. Long/medium term, if a lot of good contributors leave, the overall database quality will decrease and some customers will eventually leave as well => your income can drop. If you are competitive, selling alongside other great contributors can help your sales, too! But then, the agency will probably have to increase commissions to attract the defectors back! So, I vote for this!
2188
« on: August 28, 2015, 09:56 »
does anyone know anything else other than photography, that has fallen in "perceptive" value
i am googling to see, but as far as i know, even postage has increased. the only place where the penny is usable is in microstock.
Books, music and movies (digital downloads).
Used to be a record store and video rental in every shopping center. It would cost $5 to rent a video for one day ($15 in today's money), and then they'd really jack you up if you took it back late. If you lost the movie, it would cost you $80.
If you wanted that new song, you'd have to spend $15 on a whole album, which had maybe three good songs and 8 bad ones. Now you can just buy the song you want for a buck or stream it via a Spotify sub.
which all comes down to that today, anybody can make movies, write books, take photos...
whereas before, not everyone can make a record without an audition or get a movie part without going for a test shoot, or even write a book without finding a publisher.
you would think it's because there's more of it around the supply and demand that decides whether we get paid less ... but then again, there's just as many suppliers to coffee and nicotine and alcohol
even illegal drugs are supposed to be easier to get, (ie you can smell stench of marijuana and cigarettes and beer ..everywhere you go these days, so of course i assume it's easier to get)...
... but those things are much more expensive today.
so the problem has to be the marketer / pusher / seller /...
our agencies are the ones who f****d it up.
No, you have to dig deeper to find the explanation. The products you have mentioned are forbidden by law or heavily regulated and taxed. Leaving the inflation aside, this is why prices are not dropping: competition weakened by too many regulations. Let the free market operate on drugs, alcohol, cigarettes and you will be amazed how fast the prices will drop, across the board, followed by a plethora of counter-intuitive positive side effects (less drug related crimes, less drunk teenagers, etc). This has been proven over and over again. On the other hand, fortunately, there are no regulations specific to microstock (e.g. we don't need a government license to be micro-stockers, etc) The reasons you mentioned in your intro apply very well to our industry: technology advancements made photography accessible to masses and, while the market is let to operate freely in this domain, the prices will continue to drop to the customer's benefit. (Unfortunately for them) Old contributors must face the competition of an ever growing number of talented newcomers (good for them). Some of the unsatisfied contributors will probably have to quit. But again, this is the market giving them a signal to re-direct their skills and resources in areas where they can be more efficient.
2189
« on: August 25, 2015, 13:17 »
The current inflation rate in the US is 0.2% so not exactly a big problem. In fact, over the past 100 years in the US there have only been a few years when inflation was really high (e.g., over 10%). In other countries it has been a major problem and still is in some right now, e.g., Brazil where it is close to 10%. However, I don't think inflation has been a factor in the price of stock images either way.
Actually, the US inflation was 1.6% in 2014. This means that, if you had $100k after taxes, you paid an additional $1,600 tax through inflation. This is roughly 5% extra taxes on top of what you already paid for 2014. That's a very nice lens you don't have. Moreover, if you had $100k 10 years ago after taxes, you would only be left with $77,856 by today's standards. 23% of your stash is wiped away! But again, as you said, for most people inflation is "not exactly a big problem" and accept it as a given, when they shouldn't. Rest assured, the income from stock images will never be indexed with the inflation, because that's not how inflation is designed to work.
2190
« on: August 24, 2015, 16:18 »
What's been changed by microstock is the perceived value of the work.
Yes, exactly. Unfortunately, once the price has been lowered then that becomes what something is worth and nobody will want to pay more. That is the biggest problem with the subscription model - individual images no longer have value, their value is only as part of some larger package like phone minutes.
I like to cut my morning orange juice with diet soda as a way to reduce calories. For years the price was officially around $1.99 for a 2-liter bottle of brand-name diet soda but there are always sales or discounts making them usually $1.25 or less. The other day I went to the store and there were no discounts, but there is no way I was going to pay $1.99 a bottle when for me the real value is much less. I looked at alternative brands and finally found one that is cheaper. It still was more than I wanted so I only bought one bottle and will check for a lower price next time. The price really makes no difference to me economically, I am just resistant to paying more now that my notion of the value has been reduced. It is the same with microstock. How you raise the price after that I don't know if somebody always sells the product cheaper.
both very right +10 each.
take cigarettes for example. when i was addicted to nico, trying to be like eric claption with my cigarette dangling from my mouth while playing blues guitar 
a carton of peter styv was like what??? something like $22 ... yes , a carton of luxury size.
that was when i quit smoking. it was too expensive i said.
last year or was it the year before, i asked a kid how much he paid for a packet of cheap smoke,
i almost died when he told me how much. i said, how much??? i mean for a packet, not a carton.
he said, "what century are you living in, dude???"
yes, once you drop the price, you can never recapture that. even the arabic man or the jewish tailorshop owner say the same thing, "you want cheap, we got no cheap here!!! go..go to the other side of town, you get cheap, very cheap!!!" and they laugh , they don't cry because you complain they cost too much. they know, the real cost of their products.
same thing for haircuts. i see a wide margin of haircuts everywhere i go...
from $8 to $22. same haircut, no golden scissors for the $22 haircut,
but the lady tells you, "take it or leave it".
It looks to me that you discover what inflation means and how it errodes your standard of life: a hidden taxation most of people happily vote for. Inflation is what happens when you allow the government to intervene in the economy through "money printing", as the only way to "pay for" unjustifiable expenses. When you vote for such economical policies, don't be surprised to see your orange juice and cigarettes prices going up, under your nose. Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
2191
« on: August 21, 2015, 18:47 »
Yes spam is great nowadays, just compare the quality between "New" vs "Popular".
New search is a disaster, you can go through pages and pages with the same (poor) content.
Therefore our new images have very limited exposure.
I agree: when your new images are weak, they have limited exposure. However, when you shoot quality stuff, you get sales almost immediately from the new tab. This guarantees you a place up on the popular tab. Then, if your stuff is really good, it becomes "relevant". I also agree that shooting 1000 times the same subject, from 1000 angles, doesn't bring you anything but the frustration of having a huge port with poor sales and a stream of BMW posts on MS.
2192
« on: August 19, 2015, 10:14 »
because there are no unity among the crowdsourced contributors.
I was thinking about it but how do we do that?
We have discussed it before and it proves that whereas Europeans, Asians and South Americans are not so afraid of unions, and can use left wing means and fight for their rights, even when having losses, Americans are paralyzed by fear and stick to individually providing for their family and all that lonely old song.
"El pueblo unido jamais sera vencido". As we said when I was young 30 years ago. We believed it, saw the good results, and built things up. Now its lost knowledge in the post modern hedeonistic society.
You are wrong. There are a lot of unions in US. Their problem is that they are as much in bed with the big government as big corporations are. Both seek favours and preferential treatment. In a lot of areas, jobs are impossible to get unless you become a union member. Unions pressurize politicians to regulate as many jobs as possible, to prevent newcomers to compete with union members, on the job market. Unions pressurize politicians to impose minimum wage laws, thus preventing inexperienced young people to gain the skills necessary to be promoted to better jobs. Moreover restrictions imposed by unions make black market and illegal hiring attractive. Nothing wrong with people getting together to negociate better deals, but not when politicians interfere with the process, with the free market and other liberties, only to get these union votes. Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
2193
« on: August 17, 2015, 12:30 »
Please feel free to send me an email directly: [email protected]
I'll be happy to submit your request.
Cheers!
-Mat
Mat, why don't you guys add a "global price edit" option? Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
2194
« on: August 14, 2015, 14:12 »
Not sure how politics got into this thread... I have zero idea how that happened.
Funny how big government is always blamed by the right wing. It seems to me that government (at least in the US) is closely tied with big corporate interest as it is usually a revolving door between them. You leave office and you get a corporate job you just passed a bill to give yourself a raise because it is in your self interest and not greed...
Funny you say that! I blame the "big" government, indeed, but I'm definitely not "right wing". As I said before, in the absence of a 3rd way, I would rather vote democrat. I believe that, these days, the biggest threat to liberty comes from the neo-cons. And you are straight to the point. A government bureaucrat is never that do-gooder you think you voted for. He is and he will always protect his self-interest, before anything else. This is why the solution can only be to restrict the government interference in the economy, in order to make illegal such corrupt favors, given to special interest groups, all of them based on your money. I'm no anarchist, either. The government must have an important role, but not in economical matters.
2195
« on: August 14, 2015, 10:06 »
..these people that try to migrate to capitalist countries - like Syrians today - are forced by pure capitalism, war is one of the main tools of capitalism, everything is much more linked than it looks on the surface...
...we will have revolutions for sure - what kind and what will be the next "solution" - I don t know...
That is nonsense - capitalism has nothing to do with wars. Certainly some capitalists have benefitted greatly from wars but most would say that war is bad for business and therefore against their self interest (getting back to the theme Zero Talent likes to bring up).
In Syria the problems are caused by the dictator Assad and ISIS. Do you think ISIS is setting up a capitalist society? Certainly not!
Religion is the biggest cause of wars, not capitalism. If we could get rid of religion then we could reduce differences between societies and the cause for many wars would go away immediately. Unfortunately I don't see that happening any time soon.
Wars are always triggered by authoritarian states. By "big" governments stimulating and exacerbating patriotic feelings, by promoting a nationalistic/religious supremacy, by inventing external threats, by blaming "others" for their own failures. They use this excuse to reduce civil liberties, to justify the creation of a police state and to strengthen their grip on society. It is the government protecting its self-interest at its best (while preventing its "subjects" to do it)! And this has nothing to do with the true free market capitalism, free trade and liberty. A lot of people, even in this forum, associate the true free market capitalism with US. They are wrong: US is an authoritarian state. Ferdinand you are unhappy and I understand you. You want revolution. Fine. But you have no idea what to put in place if you succeed. You might only replace your leaders without changing the system (you can even become one of them), or worse: you can easily drive the society in the wrong direction (towards communism, hence even more authoritarianism). PixelBytes jokes about guillotines on Wall Street, suggesting that Wall Street bears the blame. Wrong! The root cause is Washington DC and their on-going policy to subsidize Wall Street with our money, by not allowing banks to fail, by "printing" money to keep the stock market artificially up and create an illusion of prosperity. Wall Street is only reacting to these perverse risk-free incentives, the same way anyone would react to a "free lunch". The problem is elsewhere.
2196
« on: August 13, 2015, 19:55 »
Why would anyone be in a hurry to install Win 10 in a Win 7 PC now?
I can see a concern if you need to buy a new PC and don't know if Win 10 will work with CC, or if you want to get past the horror that is Win 8, but otherwise why not wait until other people have suffered the bugs and MS has finally gotten around to fixing them?
I installed, two weeks ago, W10 straight from W7 and I can feel it is snappier. This can be a reason to upgrade. I'm running PS and LR CC with no issues. The migration is simple with virtually no learning curve.
2197
« on: August 13, 2015, 10:18 »
... there is a big difference between self interest and greed - greed is a sickness, and self interest is a normal thing - when the whole world becomes your self interest, and nothing else - then you become greedy, it is not enough to have 10.000.000 $ you have to have 10000000000000000000000000000...$ - not because you need it - but because you are ... sick...
..today's capitalist world is a world without a shred of humanity - we will have in the future a lot of violence... and revolutions...
"Greed" is not a sickness, but one of the "7 deadly sins". Religion is the source of the negative connotation. And as the Bible says: "let him who is without sin cast the first stone". I dare you to cast that stone! Instead, you better acknowledge reality, and try to work out the best system possible, in a world which will always be full of imperfections. You can continue to call it "greed" if you want, but I dare you to draw the line between the "normal thing" and "greed", as you see it. What is "normal thing" for you will definitely be labeled as "greed", by millions of people in this world! Or by those who lived 100 years ago. Even by some medieval kings. I also dare you to describe the alternative system which will only yield the beautiful results you are dreaming of. Would it be communism again, where bureaucrats attempt to control everything, while claiming that they know better than you, what is good for you? Would it be a system where an "illuminated" dictator knows better than you, what is good for you? Would it be a system where an "intellectual elite" knows better than you, what's good for you? I can only warn you that all the do-gooders mentioned above will definitely pursue their self interest, not yours. Please describe your "Brave New World"! About revolutions, you know what? You might be right, but if you are, it will be for totally different reasons that the ones you think of. Revolutions start when governments take freedom away from people, and subsequent failed governmental policies lead to poverty and generalized corruption. I know you will not agree with me, but free trade, free market and the freedom to pursue the self-interest, of an individual, family or community is exactly what brings you, as close as possible, to the "heaven" "Imagine-d" by John Lennon (I'm sure you would agree with). But pay attention: without ever creating heaven on earth. Free trade, free market and freedom to pursue self interest, "magically" brings together people from different countries, different religions, different races, different cultures, who might easily hate each other, under a different social system. An "invisible hand" drives those people to work in harmony (even without knowing it) in a free trade, free market society, and achieve a better life for each one of them. Nobody tells it better than this economist in this simple "Lesson of the Pencil". I would strongly encourage you to watch this 10 minutes clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ERbC7JyCfU
2198
« on: August 12, 2015, 12:56 »
Zero Talent = Trump voter?
Lol, that clown? Not in a million years! Belive it or not, I would rather vote Democrat, in abscence of a 3rd way Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
2199
« on: August 11, 2015, 17:01 »
No, it is not. You can be caught and thrown in jail. It is in your interest not to be thrown in jail. It is in your interest to live in a safe community. It is in your interest to pay taxes and support a police force in the community.
...
Sorry but I can't agree with that . In an ideal world may be, but in the real world there is a variable named "corruption". Corruption is every where. Economy, finance and politics are intertwined and can do exactly what they want when they want. In jail , you will find mostly those who are not part of this system.
Sometimes a "fuse" is given to the media when the people need it and life goes on...
You are right. If you dig deep enough, you will find that the common denominator between these corrupt intertwined politics and economics is a "big" government. You can't be "corrupted" to sell what's yours, below the market price. But you can do it when you sell what's not yours. Government bureaucrats have the power to distribute other people's money, and reward special interest groups with customized laws. This is exactly why corruption happens (not to mention economical disasters) But as I said before, disasters often happen as a consequence of what initially appeared to be a good and noble intention promoted by idealists or, more frequently, by populist politicians with no interest in long term econmical effects (because of the short election cycles) Restrict the government involvement in the economy, allow people the freedom to pursue their own interest in a free market society and corruption will dissappear. Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
2200
« on: August 11, 2015, 13:39 »
...
On the other hand, that 2007-08 collapse happened because of too much government intervention in the free market.
Yet another good and noble intention (affordable housing) which ended up with disastrous consequences.
The government intervention made mortgage lending virtually risk free, messing up the free market. The banks reacted to that incentive, the same way normal people reacted to abnormally cheap mortgages.
Let the market decide the lending and borrowing risks, and you will never end up in such messy situations. The supply and demand tend to miraculously agree with each other.
A friend of mine was one of the managers at Freddy May a year or two the collapse and he got promoted to manager because he was really good at selling loans. This guy was a gangster i knew from my old hood with very thuggish mentality. He would tell me he would yell at his minions to close sales no matter what... He said it is sooo F***kn easy to close these things to grandmas and and the non speaking english as they were clueless to what they were getting themselves into. I remember thinking to myself... holy... this is some gangster stuff going on right here. Sounded like they were conning these people. One year later that whole thing collapsed.
That's exactly what I was talking about: The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), known as Freddie Mac, is a public government-sponsored enterprise] (GSE) The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA), commonly known as Fannie Mae, was founded in 1938 during the Great Depression as part of the New Deal. It is a government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) The government made mortgage lending a risk free joke. These 2 politically driven monster institutions incentivised banks to lend left and right (protected by a governmental insurance) and borrowers to get unsustainable mortgages.
Pages: 1 ... 83 84 85 86 87 [88] 89 90 91 92 93 94
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
