Page 30 of 30 FirstFirst ...
20
28
29
30
  1. #581
    The Insane Daelak's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    15,964
    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    In the latest recession? These guys, of course.

    Fannie and Freddie were originally created because FDR decided everyone in America needed to have a house available to them and artificially inflated the secondary mortgage market.

    All this particular crisis was waiting for was the perfect storm of shit to hit the fan. All it took was a period of low interest rates to drive yield-seekers to demand securities with better yields than things like Treasurys. This drives demand up for things like... oh... CDOs which, in turn, drives down lending standards when you aren't the holder of the debt.

    The secondary mortgage market was never meant to be as big as it was. It was a bubble from the get-go.
    From Wikipedia:

    [Quote]
    During May 2010, Warren Buffett and Paul Volcker separately described questionable assumptions or judgments underlying the U.S. financial and economic system that contributed to the crisis. These assumptions included: 1) Housing prices would not fall dramatically;[52] 2) Free and open financial markets supported by sophisticated financial engineering would most effectively support market efficiency and stability, directing funds to the most profitable and productive uses; 3) Concepts embedded in mathematics and physics could be directly adapted to markets, in the form of various financial models used to evaluate credit risk; 4) Economic imbalances, such as large trade deficits and low savings rates indicative of over-consumption, were sustainable; and 5) Stronger regulation of the shadow banking system and derivatives markets was not needed.[53]
    The U.S. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported its findings in January 2011. It concluded that "the crisis was avoidable and was caused by: Widespread failures in financial regulation, including the Federal Reserve’s failure to stem the tide of toxic mortgages; Dramatic breakdowns in corporate governance including too many financial firms acting recklessly and taking on too much risk; An explosive mix of excessive borrowing and risk by households and Wall Street that put the financial system on a collision course with crisis; Key policy makers ill prepared for the crisis, lacking a full understanding of the financial system they oversaw; and systemic breaches in accountability and ethics at all levels.“[54]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis

    And another:

    The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported in January 2011 that "the CRA was not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis. Many subprime lenders were not subject to the CRA. Research indicates only 6% of high-cost loans – a proxy for subprime loans – had any connection to the law. Loans made by CRA-regulated lenders in the neighborhoods in which they were required to lend were half as likely to default as similar loans made in the same neighborhoods by independent mortgage originators not subject to the law."[67] Critics claim that the use of the high-interest-rate proxy distorts results because government programs generally promote low-interest rate loans – even when the loans are to borrowers who are clearly subprime.[152] Several economist maintain that Community Reinvestment Act loans outperformed other "subprime" mortgages, and GSE mortgages performed better than private label securitizations.[2][27]

    Good lord, I haven't read this wikipedia article before, but jesus christ, there were many causes, fannie mae and freddie mac, being the least responsible for the causes.
    Last edited by Daelak; 2013-05-21 at 07:08 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    There is a problem, but I know just banning guns will fix the problem.

  2. #582
    Quote Originally Posted by Daelak View Post
    From Wikipedia:

    During May 2010, Warren Buffett and Paul Volcker separately described questionable assumptions or judgments underlying the U.S. financial and economic system that contributed to the crisis. These assumptions included: 1) Housing prices would not fall dramatically;[52] 2) Free and open financial markets supported by sophisticated financial engineering would most effectively support market efficiency and stability, directing funds to the most profitable and productive uses; 3) Concepts embedded in mathematics and physics could be directly adapted to markets, in the form of various financial models used to evaluate credit risk; 4) Economic imbalances, such as large trade deficits and low savings rates indicative of over-consumption, were sustainable; and 5) Stronger regulation of the shadow banking system and derivatives markets was not needed.[53]
    The U.S. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported its findings in January 2011. It concluded that "the crisis was avoidable and was caused by: Widespread failures in financial regulation, including the Federal Reserve’s failure to stem the tide of toxic mortgages; Dramatic breakdowns in corporate governance including too many financial firms acting recklessly and taking on too much risk; An explosive mix of excessive borrowing and risk by households and Wall Street that put the financial system on a collision course with crisis; Key policy makers ill prepared for the crisis, lacking a full understanding of the financial system they oversaw; and systemic breaches in accountability and ethics at all levels.“[54]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis

    And another:
    Are you aware of what Fannie and Freddie do?

    None of this would have been possible if they hadn't been sponsored. NONE OF IT.

    Even though the Federal Reserve is, in fact, responsible for overseeing banks' behavior, I think it's rather silly to expect them to do so. That should be the domain of the FDIC.

    The end blame lies in the existence of Fannie and Freddie. They were sponsored to artificially inflate the secondary mortgage market and free up capital to be re-loaned to new prospective home buyers.

    It was an unsustainable system from the getgo.

  3. #583
    The Insane Daelak's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    15,964
    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    Are you aware of what Fannie and Freddie do?

    None of this would have been possible if they hadn't been sponsored. NONE OF IT.

    Even though the Federal Reserve is, in fact, responsible for overseeing banks' behavior, I think it's rather silly to expect them to do so. That should be the domain of the FDIC.

    The end blame lies in the existence of Fannie and Freddie. They were sponsored to artificially inflate the secondary mortgage market and free up capital to be re-loaned to new prospective home buyers.

    It was an unsustainable system from the getgo.
    Read the section in Wikipedia about Fannie and Freddie:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpri...nd_Freddie_Mac
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    There is a problem, but I know just banning guns will fix the problem.

  4. #584
    Quote Originally Posted by Daelak View Post
    Read the section in Wikipedia about Fannie and Freddie:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpri...nd_Freddie_Mac
    I know exactly what Fannie and Freddie's roles were.

    In addition to political pressure to expand purchases of higher-risk affordable housing mortgage types, the GSE were also under significant competitive pressure from large investment banks and mortgage lenders. For example, some analysts estimate that Fannie's market share of subprime mortgage-backed securities issued dropped from a peak of 44% in 2003 to 22% in 2005, before rising to 33% in 2007.
    It's a load of utter bullshit that the GSE mortgages "largely maintained their value" when 33% of all outstanding subprimes belonged to them.

    Half the commission (or 4/10 I should say) agrees with me. You can SAY the GSEs weren't the main cause, but NO ONE facilitated the subprime mortgages like them. Their entire reason for existing is facilitating mortgage lending. Were it not for them, the Subprimes may still have still gone out but been severely limited in scope.

    Whatever the banks did in the mortgage market was amplified 10-fold because of the GSEs. They may not have been the lit-fuse for that bomb, but they were certainly the barrel of gunpowder at the end of it.

  5. #585
    The Insane Daelak's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    15,964
    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    I know exactly what Fannie and Freddie's roles were.



    It's a load of utter bullshit that the GSE mortgages "largely maintained their value" when 33% of all outstanding subprimes belonged to them.

    Half the commission (or 4/10 I should say) agrees with me. You can SAY the GSEs weren't the main cause, but NO ONE facilitated the subprime mortgages like them. Their entire reason for existing is facilitating mortgage lending. Were it not for them, the Subprimes may still have still gone out but been severely limited in scope.

    Whatever the banks did in the mortgage market was amplified 10-fold because of the GSEs.
    But what about the sub-prime origination estimates that state:

    By some estimates, more than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages came from private lending institutions in 2006 and the share of subprime loans insured by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac decreased as the bubble got bigger (from a high of insuring 48 percent to insuring 24 percent of all subprime loans in 2006).[167] Conservative media critics of government policy argued that government lending programs were the main cause of the crisis.[168][169][170][171][172][173][174] The government-appointed Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission concluded otherwise:[175]
    So the majority of F&F mortgages were not sub-prime, and it shows their proportional damage they did.
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    There is a problem, but I know just banning guns will fix the problem.

  6. #586
    Quote Originally Posted by drwelfare View Post
    It supports poor eating and shopping habits, there is more fraud than they admit, how many drug addicts and alcoholics does it enable
    Not a lot of ways to get around that, one could give out pre planed weekly "food bags" I guess with food for breakfast, evening meal and 7 different dinners purchased en masse and packed together in a bag and then handed out. But I'm sure some people would be willing to trade such a bag for money anyways though so then we are back to square one.

    It's sad really, there is always a drug dealer or random asshole who don't mind trading booze/drugs/money for foodstamps as long as they make a profit from it. This is a problem in most countries with some sort of social welfare I think. I've seen drunks trying to trade their foodstamps for money many times and there is always someone who will do it.
    The nerve is called the "nerve of awareness". You cant dissect it. Its a current that runs up the center of your spine. I dont know if any of you have sat down, crossed your legs, smoked DMT, and watch what happens... but what happens to me is this big thing goes RRRRRRRRRAAAAAWWW! up my spine and flashes in my brain... well apparently thats whats going to happen if I do this stuff...

  7. #587
    Quote Originally Posted by Daelak View Post
    But what about the sub-prime origination estimates that state:



    So the majority of F&F mortgages were not sub-prime, and it shows their proportional damage they did.
    It seems you don't understand F&F's business model. At least not fully.

    Their job is securitization and guaranteeing of mortgages. As far as I know they don't actually underwrite.

    As you know, a bank can only lend out 90% of its on-hand capital. So a bank with $100 bn can lend out $90 bn before it's done.

    Well FDR decided that wasn't enough. He commissioned F&F in a rather brilliant (if woefully short sighted) plan to create entities that would purchase mortgages from these banks.

    The banks would lend and create a mortgage. Fannie and Freddie would purchase that mortgage and BAM! The banks had more capital to lend out and repeat the cycle.

    Fannie and Freddie would then securitize these mortgages into securities that investors would purchase. When investors did this, BAM! F&F had more money to purchase more mortgages from the banks.

    This positive feedback loop is the reason home prices are like a billion times higher (adjusted for inflation) than they were in the 50s. Suddenly the banks had incentives to loan at lower rates and demand for houses skyrocketed.

    It also meant that the securities themselves were vulnerable to outsized demand from investors. When yields on Treasurys and other investments fall, the big market players go "yield seeking" meaning they become more willing to take on risk in exchange for higher yield when the safe investments (CDs, treasurys, etc) bottom out as happened in the early 2000s.

    Well now we have these mortgage backed CDs which are rated highly by S&P and Moody's. We have trillions of dollars of investment capital looking for a home and we have Fannie and Freddie scrambling to put together enough CDOs to satisfy demand. In order to do that, they tell the banks they're in the market for more mortgages so then the banks, too, are scrambling to shovel as many mortgages out the door as possible.

    Now given all this its OBVIOIS there were many links in the chain that caused the recession. There ALWAYS are. But Fannie and Freddie are the reasons it was so bad.

    Without them, the banks would have only been able to make a FRACTION of the bad mortgages as they did and the recession would have been far more limited.

    This is not conjecture. This is a fact. Their entire business model (which was not economical without government intervention) hinges on allowing banks to make more loans than should be possible. Were it not for them the recession might have been 1/3 as bad as it was.

  8. #588
    Blademaster john-scar's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Houstin, Texas
    Posts
    43
    increase them and put the whole country on food stamps

  9. #589
    Quote Originally Posted by Rendia View Post
    http://prospect.org/article/food-stamps-get-licked-cuts

    Why is it always welfare programs and schooling that get cut first by politicians and not the over-bloated DoD?

    Major reform is needed within the budget, this is true, however not at the expense of our people. Cut funding from the DoD as well as from all the salaries of the politicians.

    I strongly suggest you look at DoD spending as a percent of Federal Outlays over the last say 40 years.....

  10. #590
    Quote Originally Posted by Hek View Post
    I strongly suggest you look at DoD spending as a percent of Federal Outlays over the last say 40 years.....
    DoD's annual outlays are actually about 5-10% lower than Medicare and like 35% lower than Social Security.

    What people are actually complaining about when they THINK they mean "DoD" is the government's "discretionary spending" which for the last 12 years has been spent firing freedom straight at the Middle East.

  11. #591
    The Insane Daelak's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    15,964

    No, I know what they do, and by most estimates they FOLLOWED the trend of securitiz-ing the mortgages, like it says, among the host of other actors in the recession.

    The SEC itself said they were victims of the overall trend of the market, following larger companies and their practices, to guess what, maximize shareholder value.

    They were not the only company securitizing, actually they were not even the majority, stand alone private firms were doing the majority of CDOs, so if anything, before the crash at least, they weren't pushing it ENOUGH.
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    There is a problem, but I know just banning guns will fix the problem.

  12. #592
    Quote Originally Posted by Daelak View Post
    No, I know what they do, and by most estimates they FOLLOWED the trend of securitiz-ing the mortgages, like it says, among the host of other actors in the recession.

    The SEC itself said they were victims of the overall trend of the market, following larger companies and their practices, to guess what, maximize shareholder value.

    They were not the only company securitizing, actually they were not even the majority, stand alone private firms were doing the majority of CDOs, so if anything, before the crash at least, they weren't pushing it ENOUGH.
    You're not understanding. It doesn't matter that they were followers. My point is that they were the entire reason the crash was so bad. They were commissioned with the express purpose of allowing banks to "break" the rules of lending as set by the Federal Reserve by selling mortgages and receiving new capital to lend back out.

    The government is ALSO at fault for the private-label versions of these MBSs too! The Federal Government declared any MBS that S&P and Moody's (among others) rated AA to be equivalent in safety to government debt.

    In other words, while they might not have been the ones to light the fuse, they were the ones who caused the bomb to be so big. So don't try and tell me the government wasn't the main reason the crash was so bad.
    Last edited by Laize; 2013-05-22 at 02:40 PM.

  13. #593
    The Insane Daelak's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    15,964
    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    You're not understanding. It doesn't matter that they were followers. My point is that they were the entire reason the crash was so bad. They were commissioned with the express purpose of allowing banks to "break" the rules of lending as set by the Federal Reserve by selling mortgages and receiving new capital to lend back out.

    The government is ALSO at fault for the private-label versions of these MBSs too!

    In other words, while they might not have been the ones to light the fuse, they were the ones who caused the bomb to be so big.
    Then why did the financial inquiry commission and the SEC say they were not completely at fault? How can they be at fault if they weren't the sole provider of CDO's and other MBS's?
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    There is a problem, but I know just banning guns will fix the problem.

  14. #594
    Quote Originally Posted by Daelak View Post
    Then why did the financial inquiry commission and the SEC say they were not completely at fault? How can they be at fault if they weren't the sole provider of CDO's and other MBS's?
    They weren't completely at fault.

    I've said over and over that they weren't the ones that CAUSED the recession (Which was what the commission set out to find). They were the reason it was so bad.

    Put it this way. Fannie and Freddie, combined, had a hand in over HALF of the US' $12 trillion mortgage market either through owning the mortgages outright or guaranteeing them. Yes, $6 trillion in these 2 companies alone. Whether the mortgages they held were subprime or not is completely irrelevant.

    They were the ones providing banks with new funds to regurgitate back to borrowers.

    Were it not for Fannie and Freddie, the banks would simply have not had enough money to ruin the economy the way they did. And the government is FURTHER complicit in the matter by extending a governmental guarantee to any MBS rated AA or better by the Big Three.

  15. #595
    The Insane Daelak's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    15,964
    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    They weren't completely at fault.

    I've said over and over that they weren't the ones that CAUSED the recession (Which was what the commission set out to find). They were the reason it was so bad.

    Put it this way. Fannie and Freddie, combined, had a hand in over HALF of the US' $12 trillion mortgage market either through owning the mortgages outright or guaranteeing them. Yes, $6 trillion in these 2 companies alone. Whether the mortgages they held were subprime or not is completely irrelevant.

    They were the ones providing banks with new funds to regurgitate back to borrowers.

    Were it not for Fannie and Freddie, the banks would simply have not had enough money to ruin the economy the way they did. And the government is FURTHER complicit in the matter by extending a governmental guarantee to any MBS rated AA or better by the Big Three.
    But the commission report said it had minimized it's CDO's to 33% of the TOTAL in 2007 one year before the recession:

    In addition to political pressure to expand purchases of higher-risk affordable housing mortgage types, the GSE were also under significant competitive pressure from large investment banks and mortgage lenders. For example, some analysts estimate that Fannie's market share of subprime mortgage-backed securities issued dropped from a peak of 44% in 2003 to 22% in 2005, before rising to 33% in 2007.[166]
    By some estimates, more than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages came from private lending institutions in 2006 and the share of subprime loans insured by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac decreased as the bubble got bigger (from a high of insuring 48 percent to insuring 24 percent of all subprime loans in 2006).[167] Conservative media critics of government policy argued that government lending programs were the main cause of the crisis.[168][169][170][171][172][173][174] The government-appointed Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission concluded otherwise:[175]
    How are they complicit when the GSE's used the same rating agencies the rest of market used?

    Here is some excerpts from David Frum's article in the National Post, in January of 2011:

    Quote Originally Posted by David Frum
    From 1999 to 2008, the financial sector expended $2.7 billion in reported federal lobbying expenses; individuals and political action committees in the sector made more than $1 billion in campaign contributions.

    The corruption was expressed in retail fraud. Thus on page xxii:

    One study places the losses resulting from fraud on mortgage loans made between 2005 and 2007 at $112 billion.

    Yet for my money, the ground zero of fraud occurred not at the retail mortgage level, but at the rating agencies. Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s and Fitch were assigned monopoly powers by federal regulations. Their ratings determined which bonds could be bought by fiduciary institutions. They engaged in behavior that it’s very hard to distinguish from auctioning off their ratings to eager bidders. Of all the things about the crisis I do not understand, the thing I understand least is why nobody from those agencies has faced any kind of legal sanction.
    Quote Originally Posted by David Frum
    From 2000 to 2007, Moody’s rated nearly 45,000 mortgage-related securities as triple-A. This compares with six private-sector companies in the United States that carried this coveted rating in early 2010. In 2006 alone, Moody’s put its triple-A stamp of approval on 30 mortgage-related securities every working day. The results were disastrous: 83% of the mortgage securities rated triple-A that year ultimately were downgraded.

    You will also read about the forces at work behind the breakdowns at Moody’s, including the flawed computer models, the pressure from financial firms that paid for the ratings, the relentless drive for market share, the lack of resources to do the job despite record profits, and the absence of meaningful public oversight. And you will see that without the active participation of the rating agencies, the market for mortgage-related securities could not have been what it became.

    Listen to talk radio or watch Fox News, and you’ll most often hear the financial crisis blamed either on the Community Reinvestment Act (encouraging mortgage lending to poor and minority borrowers) or on the two government-sponsored mortgage lenders, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

    It’s important to note that 9 out of 10 commissioners, including 3 out of 4 of the Republicans, rejected both explanations.
    Quote Originally Posted by Commission Conclusion
    [W]e examined the role of the GSEs, with Fannie Mae serving as the Commission’s case study in this area. These government-sponsored enterprises had a deeply flawed business model as publicly traded corporations with the implicit backing of and subsidies from the federal government and with a public mission. Their $5 trillion mortgage exposure and market position were significant. In 2005 and 2006, they decided to ramp up their purchase and guarantee of risky mortgages, just as the housing market was peaking. They used their political power for decades to ward off effective regulation and oversight—spending $164 million on lobbying from 1999 to 2008. They suffered from many of the same failures of corporate governance and risk management as the Commission discovered in other financial firms. Through the third quarter of 2010, the Treasury Department had provided $151 billion in financial support to keep them afloat.

    We conclude that these two entities contributed to the crisis, but were not a primary cause. Importantly, GSE mortgage securities essentially maintained their value throughout the crisis and did not contribute to the significant financial firm losses that were central to the financial crisis.
    And another:

    Quote Originally Posted by David Frum
    The GSEs participated in the expansion of subprime and other risky mortgages, but they followed rather than led Wall Street and other lenders in the rush for fool’s gold. They purchased the highest rated non-GSE mortgage-backed securities and their participation in this market added helium to the housing balloon, but their purchases never represented a majority of the market.

    And here is the key section of the dissenting report signed by 3 of 4 Republicans:

    There is vigorous debate about how big a role these two firms played in securitization relative to “private label” securitizers. There is also vigorous debate about why these two firms got involved in this problem. We think both questions are less important than the multiple points of contact Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had with the financial system.

    These two firms were guarantors and securitizers, financial institutions holding enormous portfolios of housing-related assets, and the issuers of debt that was treated like government debt by the financial system. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did not by themselves cause the crisis, but they contributed significantly in a number of ways.

    There seems more agreement here than disagreement. The GSEs were a bad idea, badly and (often) abusively run. But they did not make the crisis.
    Source:
    http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...ancial-crisis/
    Quote Originally Posted by zenkai View Post
    There is a problem, but I know just banning guns will fix the problem.

  16. #596
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,334
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3100912.html

    As many as 30% of foreclosure, were the result of error on the end of the bank.
    Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi

  17. #597
    Quote Originally Posted by Daelak View Post
    But the commission report said it had minimized it's CDO's to 33% of the TOTAL in 2007 one year before the recession:





    How are they complicit when the GSE's used the same rating agencies the rest of market used?

    Here is some excerpts from David Frum's article in the National Post, in January of 2011:







    And another:



    Source:
    http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...ancial-crisis/
    And this all goes back to my original point that the government was complicit in the whole thing. In 1984 the US government passed a law enabling state-chartered financial institutions (Such as pension funds, insurance companies, savings banks... all the institutions that were supposed to be prevented from "gambling" with federally insured money) to purchase mortgage-backed-securities by private-label corporations.

    In other words, not only did the Federal government create the secondary-mortgage GSEs, but also declared that any mortgage backed security that was rated AA or higher by the Big Three were legal investments for any federally chartered/regulated financial institution. Not only did they artificially inflate the secondary mortgage market to begin with, but they went out of their way to spark demand for those securities too.

    They did this practically OBLIVIOUS to the fact that the Moody's and the other credit agencies were built on business models that meant their job was to rate the products of their clients.

    For instance, if Blizzard makes a game, IGN will review it and we pay them (either in cash or by allowing advertisements on our screen) to read those reviews. Moody's works differently. When Fannie Mae creates a security, they pay Moody's to rate it, and Moody's will make that rating publicly available. This means that time is a factor for them (which precludes due diligence on the volume of securities they were receiving) as well as the fact that their clients get one-on-one time with them to make their own case for why their product deserves a AAA rating.
    Last edited by Laize; 2013-05-23 at 03:07 AM.

  18. #598
    Merely a Setback Adam Jensen's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Sarif Industries, Detroit
    Posts
    29,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Orlong View Post
    Personally witnessed events are not anecdotes, they are eye witness testimony. Its why they are allowed to be used in court. Anecdotes are stories you heard from another person (hearsay)
    They're also the least useful and least reliable form of evidence . . .

    I advice you to read the book Why We Make Mistakes. Humans look, but they do not see.
    Putin khuliyo

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •