I agree completely with your assumption about the US markets being the pinnacle of the world. What i'm stating is that over time, economic theory and evolution of the markets have led us to a system increasingly based on venture capital, versus what was predominantly a debt based system. In Keynesian economics increased debt by corporations and individuals is a huge net loss to society and that is even what Greenspan stated about the negative effects of borrowing levels, interest and the loss of spending it creates in society. Capital pricing and economic flexibility are not issues when discussing a system based on interest. Money and capital will always have an opportunity cost, and there will be more sources to maintain an even higher flexibility. I am not arguing with the ability to change, I am just arguing for the viability of an increased capital markets system. I think that the flexibility will be there as long as your reasoning is valid you can get capital from different sources, you just have to justify it to others. Imagine the loss to society when banks loan money for ideas simply based on the ability to pay the money back irregardless to the validity of the idea. Those are assets used improperly. If banks partnered with individuals for business loans for startups, is it not a guarantee that bankruptsy's and/or failure's will decline?
What I find particularly difficult is this: most of the so-called "Christian world" have secular governments and are ruled more by modernity (especially the US) than religion. That is not true of the Islamic world, particularly the Arab world. But the consistent responses show that anything 'bad' attached to Islam is dismissed as 'culture' not religion (FGM), or as 'only extremists' (Osama). Anything good is attributed to the religion (women leaders in Pakistan and Malaysia) instead of the culture.
What additional sources of capital are present in an Islamic financial system that are not present in the U.S. system? To me the major sources are: 1) Internal cash flow of a business 2) Equity issuance/investment 3) Debt issuance 4) Asset Sales The ability to pay back a loan dictates the quality of investment a bank is making, and helps to arrive at the terms of the investment. To ignore ability to pay for the "validity of the idea" is type of philosophy used in the late 90's bubble economy. It didn't work out so well. Now I'm not saying that startups shouldn't get investment -- far from it. Banks are smart enough to realize (the late 90's notwithstanding) that early stage firms will take time before becoming cash flow positive. If banks are too risk averse to invest in that area, you have a ton of venture capital firms that are willing to do it -- but for more expensive terms to compensate them justly for their risk. How is that using assets improperly?
Thats what happened during the dotcom boom...venture capitalists were handing out million dollar checks to anyone starting up an internet business
agreed..the problem that many of us have a hard time understanding is how inseperable the religion and the culture really are in those countries...islam is a culture as well as a religion in those theocracies in almost the exact same way the european christian theocracies of the middle ages existed. divine right and so forth....
It was wrong to pick you out, and it's wrong to single out Middle Easterners. I'll post a list of people who might have gotten away with terrorist acts if EVERYBODY wasn't searched. The Shoebomber, was from England with one black parent, and one white parent. There was a white woman who had explosives placed in her backback by a Palestinian boyfriend. Jose Padilla was hispanic, and he was caught to. That kind of profiling has proven to be ineffective in the drug war and the same thing would happen here. The drug smugglers got around profiling all the time. They'd plant the drugs in someone else's baggage, set up decoys with small amounts of drugs while someone else got in with large amounts of drugs, hire people who didn't fit the profile to get the drugs in etc. Profiling people who are from the mideast is not only bigoted, it's unsafe, and an ineffective way to fight the war on terrorism.
Padilla was on a watch list. The Shoebomber was NOT searched..thats why the plane was in the air when the idiot tried to light his friggin shoe. Any other analogies? Koresh perhaps
Sure there was also the Jewish Terrorist in Florida who explosives and was going to blow up an Islamic education center, and had plans to blow up many other Islam locales. The Shoebomber was not searched, and he should have been. That only helps to prove my point. It's good that Padilla was on a watch list. It only goes to show that the action of not profiling middle-easterners is effective. Any more rolleyeyes?
that makes no sense...so we should worry only about people on a watch list? Actually, it contradicts your point...if the screeners used what you call "racial profiling" and what I call "being alert" and searched this guy, he wouldn't have made it past the gate Oh so let me guess...the media is covering it up and letting it slide because the guy was an American white Jew and not a middle eastern looking male? Right.
Quote: Misconception about Islam: Women have no rights You know sometimes your humour can be ****ing stupid.
What I'm saying is that it's good that not only middle-easterners are on the list. That would be profiling and others might get away. Actually the shoe bomber was was not from the mid-east. Searching him would have been an example of not searching by racial profiling, and it might have caught him. I didn't say anything about the media covering it up. Just that he was a terrorist, who was white and jewish. Racial profiling would not have been effective in catching this suspect. It's another reason not to endorse racial profiling. It's because it's ineffective and terrorists could slip through the cracks while everyone is busy profiling people. Profiling doesn't Work. I think 'BEING ALERT is a good idea, but people should be alert for anything, not just people from the middle east. Your brand of 'being careful' based on peoples heritage is dangerous and ineffective in stopping terrorism. The scenario has already been tried in the war on drugs and it doesn't work
Let me try this slowly...the profiling we are talking about isnt done because of where you are FROM...its where you LOOK like you are from....therefore, if they searched him based on his looks, they would have caught him before he boarded the plane. Well, apparently the government...the UNITED STATES government disagrees with you...otherwise they wouldnt be asking the general public to report suspicious looking people/things. Do you think that the government really thinks that they will be flooded with calls about 4 white or black guys living above a video store? Of course not..they want people to be aware of suspicious looking people knowing full well that we will be looking for suspicious looking middle easterners for the most part whether you like it or not. Hell, NY just set up a Terror Hotline for people to report such things.
NJRocket is right. People are afraid to admit what he is saying because they might not be P.C. NJRocket -- thank you for entering the NO SPIN ZONE!!! How can you reject the idea that people of Middle Eastern/Islamic backgrounds should be an area of suspicion? Not the only area, but a very prominent area, and not all Middle Eastern/Islamic people, just the ones that fit the profile. 1) They have a long history of committing terrorism 2) They openly admit to hating the U.S. 3) They celebrate when the U.S. was struck on 9/11 4) ALL the 9/11 hijackers were Middle Eastern or Muslim We are not talking about a stereotype based on an isolated incident. We are talking about a laundry list of examples, and a proven track record of guilt. Step out of your ivory tower and start using some common sense.
T Jorge...I'll probably be labeled a racist by a select few on this bbs but I dont think Im doing anything other than pointing out the obvious...that being said...i was wondering when someone else was going to jump in and realize what I was saying isnt so crazy or racist for that matter...thanks.
Thats kind of funny. I was watching some Indian news and "they" (all Middle Easterners that you have ever so thoughtfully lumped together ) were actually marching with US flags in Iran. There were numerous marches throughout Middle East proclaiming how horrible the event of 9/11 were.
NJRocket and TraderJorge, Posted By TraderJorge "What additional sources of capital are present in an Islamic financial system that are not present in the U.S. system? To me the major sources are: 1) Internal cash flow of a business 2) Equity issuance/investment 3) Debt issuance 4) Asset Sales " The same sources are present except for debt issuance. Retained earnings and asset sales create cash flow, and equity can be issued at a cost of ownership. The only limitation to non-debt issuance is that you must convince venture capitalists or shareholders the viability of your ideas in the course of outside funding or decide between the opportunity cost of an existing asset versus a potential future one. And I don't think you understand my banking example to be comparing it to the internet "bubble" of the 90's. My point was that any individual that puts his house up as collateral for a loan for a bad idea will get it cleared because of the asset. The bankers in that example are more inclined to give him the loan based on the collateral rather than the feasability of his idea. If he defaults on his loan and declares bankruptcy or loses his home, that is a net loss to society. Now under a non-interest system, he would go to venture capitalists who must understand the idea and decide the financial feasibility. This will reduce inefficient ideas and less loss of resources to society. Now what that has to do with the internet bubble? I don't know. The technology companies used huge amounts of equity and ignorants continued to give them financing while they proved nothing in regards to the cash flow ability of a project. But in the same token of the bubble, debt financing also reared its ugly head. Worldcom borrowed the money to create its high speed networks and enter new domains only to be overburdened by debt, then forcing the firm to lie about earnings and then collapse. Enron's debt was what crushed it with its bond rating's tied to its financial feasibility. The 90's bubble had to do with unrealistic expectations and ignorance of company fundamentals, not their form of financing. The ONLY Point I am arguing is that Common perceptions of Islam as a religion are WRONG. There are cultures that manipulate Islam, and to construe that as the religion is ignorance. BKagy, Do you know how the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad, met his first wife? He worked for her, she was a businesswoman who was widowed and he worked for her. She later became one of his most trusted advisors and he did not marry another until she passed away. I'm sure the Taliban, who don't allow women to work, drive or be educated, are not examples of proper muslim behavior. Hayes street's thread about female genital mutilation is an examples not of how Islam is adjacent and against the west, but how social, economic and educational problems effect a culture and how they manipulate a religion to their changed ideals. What I want is for America to use its intellectual nature to understand the religion and not judge extremism in cultures as a pinnacle of the religion.
Yes, people should look for suspicious behavior, and report it in order to help stop terrorism. However, being of mid-eastern heritage, doesn't automatically equal susicious. If seeing someone from the mideast makes them suspicious to you, then you are a racist. I don't think that a suspicious middle-easterner should be ignored. It's fine to report suspicious behavior concerning anyone from the middle east or anywhere else. By including anyone else in the mix, you aren't profiling racially and you are being more effective in the process. The American govt, many people, and definitely law enforcement doesn't believe in racial profiling. That's how they caught the white woman with explosives in her backpack, caught the Jewish terrorist in Florida, Jose Padilla and others. Thankfully not everyone believes in racial profiling and these people were caught before anything horrible happened in these cases. If you want to adopt racial profiling you risk gaining the help of Muslims and people from the middle east are helping us. Notice that Pakistan just caught someone from Al Qaeda. Six Al Qaeda guys in NY were caught thanks to the cooperation of the muslim community there. While the FBI wouldn't say where they information came from they did say that the Muslim community(many of which are of Middle-eastern decent) was an enormous help. I think it's a good idea not to alienate people who could help you smoke out actual terrorists. Yes they did, and if you actually saw the press conference about it, you might have noticed they specifically said that it shouldn't be targeted at the Muslim community or people from the Mid-east. The hotline is for people to support suspicious behavior or situations, that may include middle-easterners, but because someone is from the middle east that doesn't automatically make them suspicious, and the gov. of NY said as much at the news conference. The reason is that it's not an effective way to fight the war on terrorism, in addition to the fact that it's racist.
I actually hate PC. However I also hate racism, especially when it gets in the way of effectively fighting the war on terrorism. It's funny how someone basically says that any middle-easterner is automatically suspicious and is then called on it, despite the fact that examples of non mid-easterners attempting to commit terrorist acts are also given, then it's labelled as being 'P.C' If by no Spin Zone you mean racism, I don't know why anyone would be thanked for entering it.
I ask what *additional* sources exist in an Islamic financial system and you name 3 out of the 4 that exist in the US system? Sounds to me like *fewer* sources exist in the Islamic system, which is why is can not be as efficient. I know. The answer is because you are collateralizing with something that has an intangible value. How do you put a value on a house (your example)? I've seen you argue in the past that the only way to value an asset (or a stock) is based on cash flow. Now you're singing a different tune? What happens if the value of your collateral falls? Hmmm....something similar what happening in 2000 when the value of equities fell.....you lose your ability to raise money, and your business fails due to lack of liquidity. Now, if you make a loan based on ability to pay (which should be based on cash flows of the project), then you don't have to worry about valuation. You've got hard cash coming in the door. That is easy to value.
