Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: The financial meltdown and the future

  1. #1
    God/dess Paris's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    6,345
    Thanks
    168
    Thanked 801 Times in 419 Posts

    Default The financial meltdown and the future

    I was just wondering what you think of the future of our system? I know that we (tax payers, that is) support traditional banking via government sponsored insurances such as FDIC and NCUA to protect deposits, and it has been this way since the great depression.

    But in the modern era, people aren't satisfied with placing their savings in such low paying financial vehicles that traditional savings accounts or CDs offer. My guess is that most Americans have money in some kind of stock or bond market investment these days due to the ease in which investing can be done by Joe Average via the internet and low cost securities businesses like Charles Schwab or Share Builder.

    I read somewhere that the UK charges .25% on trades as a tax. This is interesting for several reasons:

    *It is likely that when things are going badly, people won't panic sell as they have another 1/4 percent tacked on to a stock that is already losing ground.

    *The taxes would give investors pause before making frequent trades, and take some of the volatility out of the market.

    *(I don't know this, just guessing), but the taxes collected could go towards any future bail-outs that may be necessary.

    I don't trade. I buy and hold. The few times I've tried trading, I pretty much broke even, but I didn't find it to be a fun or satisfying way to spend my time, so I'm invested in several mutual funds instead (I have a few favorite stocks that I'm keeping. I just like the companies and what they are doing for the environment).

    Is there a securities insurance backed by the federal government in our future? It is probably high time we did something like this. Leaving money in a CD or even a traditional savings account is nearly the same as stuffing a mattress with your savings. I just checked Bank of America's website for my state and their passbook savings is paying 0.20% APY. Yep, less than 1% interest. I'd be better off buying a bunch of Pokemon cards or something.

    Is it time to regulate at least Mutual Funds? And have the fed back investments with insurance for investors?

    I think that would give Joe and Jane Average more faith in our banking system and encourage more investing and prevent volatility in markets as well as making more capitol available for lending. All while regulating the mutual funds and reducing risks taken by fund managers.

    I'm sure another riskier fund sub-set would emerge, that would be uninsured. These funds would need to carry a kind of disclaimer more strongly worded than current mutual funds have. Something along the line of "If you invest in this fund you may never see your money again!" That way people who enjoy the risks can still invest in these funds.


    Promote yourself and earn more money! This is a business that is owned by strippers for strippers. Let's make that money!


  2. #2
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: The financial meltdown and the future

    actually, in 'normal' circumstances, the FDIC and NCUA are funded by insurance premiums charged to the member banks and credit unions ... which in turn are 'passed on' to customers in the form of lower interest payments on savings accounts and higher interest rates on loans. So far the FDIC and NCUA have not resorted to seeking additional funds from the US Treasury ... although they could quickly be forced to do so given a couple of high profile bank failures.

    Where investments are concerned, there is a somewhat analogous gov't insurer i.e. the SIPC. However, as securities / investments instead of deposits / savings, there is no guarantee against outright loss of principal value. SIPC insurance coverage relates to incidences of fraud or other securities losses caused by illegalities.

    As to your other proposals, the highly interconnected and globally connected financial system we presently live with can be easily thrown out of balance. See the thread re NY Posts' insider details. Essentially, you can't have your cake i.e. high returns during 'good' times without having to eat losses during bad times. High rewards involve high risk, pure and simple. IMHO the true problem is that various gov't policies have severed the link between taking risk and taking losses for a select few, by transferring that risk elsewhere. Your proposals would simply attempt to expand this already problematic concept.

    Arguably, the FED's bailout package for 'subprime' mortgage borrowers essentially involves a 'one way' transfer of US taxpayer money into the 'hands' of the 'subprime' mortgage borrower ... as well as a directive which forces banks (and their investors) to eat losses on renegotiated mortgages.

    Arguably, the FED's other bailout packages for Bear Stearns, Fannie, Freddie, AIG et al theoretically do not involve any cost to the US taxpayer - although in the real world this is unlikely to be the case. In these other bailouts of financial institutions (as opposed to 'subprime' mortgage borrowers) the FED has served as a 'lender of last resort' by essentially agreeing to make LOANS of US taxpayer money in exchange for the FED receiving various types of financial paper assets from the financial institutions. Whether those 'loans' ever get paid back remains to be seen. Also these other bailout packages forced investors (specifically preferred and common stock holders) to eat major losses. It was only the bondholders whose investments were 'protected'.

    The FED's most recent bailout package for Money Market Funds essentially involves the same sort of transaction i.e. the Treasury agreeing to use America's Foreign Exchange stabilization fund's assets in order to purchase the Money Market Fund's underlying financial paper assets at face value if withdrawls from the Money Market Funds by retail investors force a huge amount of these financial paper assets to all be all sold at once thus driving down the price. Unlike the other bailout packages, this FED move DID protect investors against losses (i.e. retail investors with money market accounts) at the potential future expense of US taxpayers in the same way that the FED's original move DID protect 'subprime' mortgage holders at the potential future expense of US taxpayers.


    I suspect that the root of your post's issues actually involves the 'financial ignorance' of most Americans in regard to the risks they are taking versus the rewards they are expecting ... from the 'subprime' mortgage borrowers to high yield money market fund investors to investors in other types of financial instruments i.e. mutual funds, stocks and bonds. Some of this can be blamed on the financial institutions, but a great deal of this can also be blamed on the US educational system and the 'selective deafness' of many individual Americans - who only heard the 'high interest' part when buying into money market investment funds and neglected to hear the 'risk of loss' part, apparently thinking that these were exactly the same as your example 2% interest FDIC insured money market account at an FDIC insured bank or NCUA insured credit union. Actually, the 2% interest rate is likely to drop in the future as the FDIC and NCUA have already announced that they will be increasing the cost of future insurance coverage.

    A good measure can also be blamed on US politicians whose 'well intentioned' efforts to make home ownership a possibility for Americans who truly couldn't afford to own a home via quasi-governmental competition in the mortgage lending and bond markets which arguably began the severing of financial risktaking from financial reward on a massive scale.

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 09-21-2008 at 10:46 AM.

  3. #3
    God/dess Deogol's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 50 Times in 35 Posts

    Default Re: The financial meltdown and the future

    The taxes won't work because as the american stock markets went into the crapper so did the european markets. Historical evidence it doesn't matter if there is a tax on there - pretty soon it is simply "a cost of doing business" and passed on to the consumer.

  4. #4
    God/dess Deogol's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 50 Times in 35 Posts

    Default Re: The financial meltdown and the future

    The ridiculously low savings interest rate is because these banks have been getting their money from someplace else other than their customer's savings. (Think CDOs.)

    When that blew up they went to the next place to for the cheapest source of money - the fed.

    Now it looks like they are hands out to the government.

    See, if you can only charge 8% on a loan and then have to pay depositors 4% or 5% for their money, you can't get that G5 gulf airplane to ride around in by skimming on the profits.

    But if you charge 8% (or hell, lets throw out credit card rates - 20%) and borrow at 2% - oh yea - Big Money! Big Money!

    So you see, actually paying depositors for their money is like - crazy talk!

  5. #5
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: The financial meltdown and the future

    ^^^ which points out another aspect of the REAL problem ... that America HAS no capital of its own since American individuals and businesses alike do not save money. Therefore the capital needed to (continue to) make loans comes from offshore sources in large measure. Thus when US government policies (i.e. the 'subprime' bailout package) screws foreign capital investors by forcing them to eat losses, many decide to cash in and take their capital elsewhere. But like the recent 'run' on mutual funds, when lots of (foreign) capital investors attempt to sell off their ( US financial institution) investments at the same time, the price of those investments begins to drop like a stone which can quickly cause the whole system to 'seize up' with liquidity problems, capital ratio problems, counterparty problems etc.

    IMHO the more the US gov't gets involved in financial markets, the WORSE the ultimate end result will be. This is because every 'well intentioned' gov't action unavoidably causes an unintended REaction, which in turn spurs calls for yet more gov't action, which also causes (larger) unintended REaction ...

    Ultimately, there is no such thing as a 'free lunch' ... and I suspect that in the end either the US taxpayer will ultimately wind up paying the bill or the US will default on its gov't bond obligations to foreign Treasury bond owners a la Argentina.


    But if you charge 8% (or hell, lets throw out credit card rates - 20%) and borrow at 2% - oh yea - Big Money! Big Money
    yes but this only works if there are foreign sources of capital who are willing to lend at ridiculously low interest rates (like Japan), and only if the US dollar remains stable versus whatever currency those foreign sources of capital call 'home' currency (like the Yen). If these foreign sources get skittish about continuing to make future loans at ridiculously low interest rates, the US gov't and US financial institutions will have to pay higher and higher interest rates in order to continue to attract needed capital. If the US dollar drops versus the lender's 'home' currency, the US gov't and US financial institutions will also have to pay higher and higher interest rates in order to overcome the potential exchange rate losses. Either way, the amount of future capital available for making new loans is going to be less than it is today, and either way the interest rates charged on those loans is going to be higher than it is today.

    This situation will only change when a combination of US taxation of interest income plus the interest rate paid on US savings is again able to attract US money into US bank savings accounts thus ending reliance on foreigners as the source of US capital ! Unfortunately, there isn't one glimmer of hope in this direction at this moment ! In fact there are quite a few proposals being floated re future gov't policies which would tend to provide incentive for more capital to move OUT of the US, which in turn would make the current situation even worse !
    Last edited by Melonie; 09-21-2008 at 11:09 AM.

  6. #6
    Veteran Member person's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    633
    Thanks
    33
    Thanked 34 Times in 23 Posts

    Default Re: The financial meltdown and the future

    Don't you guys already pay capital gains tax when you trade? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax)
    Once again, the conservative, sandwich-heavy portfolio pays off for the hungry investor
    - Dr John Zoidberg

  7. #7
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: The financial meltdown and the future

    ^^^ actually, capital gains taxes have to be included in quarterly estimated tax payments. Unless specifically instructed to do so, brokers do NOT withhold money for capital gains taxes on their client's behalf.

  8. #8
    God/dess threlayer's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    5,921
    Thanks
    369
    Thanked 419 Times in 290 Posts
    My Mood
    Fine

    Default Re: The financial meltdown and the future

    I have comments on 3 of your comments....
    IMHO the true problem is that various gov't policies have severed the link between taking risk and taking losses for a select few, by transferring that risk elsewhere. Your proposals would simply attempt to expand this already problematic concept.
    A good measure can also be blamed on US politicians whose 'well intentioned' efforts to make home ownership a possibility for Americans who truly couldn't afford to own a home via quasi-governmental competition in the mortgage lending and bond markets which arguably began the severing of financial risktaking from financial reward on a massive scale.
    IMHO the more the US gov't gets involved in financial markets, the WORSE the ultimate end result will be. This is because every 'well intentioned' gov't action unavoidably causes an unintended REaction, which in turn spurs calls for yet more gov't action, which also causes (larger) unintended Reaction
    Seems to me that you believe adequate government control is impossible, as evidenced by current and past situations, and that businesses rather than government should control themselves. Well, that situation will never work and is guaranteed to fail. Whereas, IMO, the governmental regulation solution just has not worked well yet, but at leaast has a chance of doing so if we re-examine what control is....

    Any kind of control system not only has an action on what is to be controlled, but it also needs continuous feedback so that control signals can be adjusted to whatever new influences are affecting the intended output. However, if you design the control system with a substantial delay between the actual and the error control signal, then you are not controlling what is happening now, but what already happened. Further if you don't design the control system correctly to respond to all the overall influences, you are also doomed to instability because you cannot respond to what has just occurred.

    Applying this system to the very complex financial system and worldwide influences is a very difficult task. Theoretically the government has the capability of doing this. It has the control signals--financial data, and the ability to control--regulations, plus the ability to understand what kind of controls are needed--world-class experts and tremendous technology. But it also has several very important deficits: its ability to control is severely delayed by beauracracies and its ability to design a control system is severely impeded by politicians who are influenced by industry lobbyists, and probably lots of self-interest and even corruption. All of these people work against a proper method of regulation because of their own self-interest, while a complex financial system can only work if the goal is much more universal. Strong leadership is sorely needed. We have it someplace in our society.

    It seems to me that you consistently are in favor of throwing in the towel because regulation has not worked well yet or at least consistency. But I guarantee you that letting business regulate itself will draw out every smooth-talking shyster in the world and pit the populace against these thieves. Thieves who regulate themselves because it's in their own self-interest to do so. It would be like decommissioning the police and letting us, along with criminals, regulate society.
    I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.

    Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.

    NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.

  9. #9
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: The financial meltdown and the future

    Thieves who regulate themselves because it's in their own self-interest to do so
    I see you've read the recent discussions re the Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac debacle ! Yes, in 1993 congress set themselves up as the de-facto regulator of Fannie and Freddie, and then proceeded to use it for their own political and financial objectives !


    It would be like decommissioning the police and letting us, along with criminals, regulate society.
    Actually, that's quite an effective approach ... providing that the state allows 'us' to be as well armed as the criminals are ! However, in states that do not allow citizens to arm themselves, indeed people are dependent on the police to counterbalance the criminals. As with congress and Fannie Mae, the same sort of problem can then arise when the criminals and police start working with each other.

    There is also the flip side possibility, i.e. threats of selective law enforcement forcing that certain actions be taken ... i.e. Clinton's Attorney General Janet Reno telling banks that if they didn't write X percent of mortgage loans for minority / low income homeowners that they would be 'vigorously prosecuted' for violation of the Community Redevelopment act ... instead of allowing banks to continue to 'police' their own mortgage lending policies.

  10. #10
    God/dess threlayer's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    5,921
    Thanks
    369
    Thanked 419 Times in 290 Posts
    My Mood
    Fine

    Default Re: The financial meltdown and the future

    ^^ Well, in an imperfect society, people always put their own personal self-interest first. Funny that we all band together when the vandals are at our gates, and then when we think they are gone, we go back to our own selfish interests. I'd guess that we cannot think about the vandals always being ready to crash in and slaughter us. But, you know, they are. It is for that reason that if we civvies became our own police force, we would slowly kill each other off, in spite of the resultant lynch mobs. All that hate and prejudice would come boiling to the surface, and the only the Lord of the Flies would survive. In short I think that self-policing idea is slightly insane. As much as I've posted here about corrupt and stupid police, corrupt and stupid civilians is much, much worse.
    I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.

    Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.

    NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.

  11. #11
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: The financial meltdown and the future

    I did a little checking ( no pun intended ) on the FDIC and its Director has reported to Congress that there is only $45 billion in the Reserve Account and that
    $7 billion has been paid out so far this year.

    There is a myth that the FDIC has 10, 20 or even 99 years to pay on valid claims.
    The FDIC charter says they must pay "as soon as possible" and usually that is within about 3 business days. BUT, that assumes that claims NEVER exceed the amount of the Reserve Account. If they ever do, then claimants would have to wait until the Treasury pumps in enough money to enable all claims to be paid.
    And that MIGHT require waiting until Congress raised the Debt Ceiling. so it could easily take a few months in a "doomsday" scenario.

  12. #12
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: The financial meltdown and the future

    ^^^ actually, there is no legal obligation for the US Treasury to pump additional money into the FDIC or NCUA. Under its own authority, if the $45 billion on the FDIC's insurance fund was depleted, unpaid insured depositors would have to wait to get paid until ...

    - the FDIC raises insurance premiums on Banks (which they are doing October 1)

    - the money from the higher premiums replenishes the FDIC's insurance fund

    Now I grant you that if 5 million US registered voters start screaming that the FDIC can't afford to pay out insurance money on accounts they have 'lost' due to bank failures, meaning that they in turn can't pay for groceries / heating bills / rent etc. it's a pretty sure bet that congress would pass legislation to loan or give the FDIC money from the US Treasury.

    I would also point out that these significantly higher FDIC insurance premiums will show up in a stealth fashion rather quickly ... in the form of lower interest rates being paid by banks on savings / checking / CD's, and by slightly higher interest rates being charged by banks on loans of all types.

  13. #13
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: The financial meltdown and the future

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    ^^^ actually, there is no legal obligation for the US Treasury to pump additional money into the FDIC or NCUA. Under its own authority, if the $45 billion on the FDIC's insurance fund was depleted, unpaid insured depositors would have to wait to get paid until ...

    - the FDIC raises insurance premiums on Banks (which they are doing October 1)

    - the money from the higher premiums replenishes the FDIC's insurance fund

    Now I grant you that if 5 million US registered voters start screaming that the FDIC can't afford to pay out insurance money on accounts they have 'lost' due to bank failures, meaning that they in turn can't pay for groceries / heating bills / rent etc. it's a pretty sure bet that congress would pass legislation to loan or give the FDIC money from the US Treasury.

    I would also point out that these significantly higher FDIC insurance premiums will show up in a stealth fashion rather quickly ... in the form of lower interest rates being paid by banks on savings / checking / CD's, and by slightly higher interest rates being charged by banks on loans of all types.
    As usual, you are correct. While there is no direct or explicit Treasury obligation, there is an ASSUMPTION that for political reasons, if it ever became necessary, the Treasury and/or Fed would bail out the FDIC.

  14. #14
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: The financial meltdown and the future

    ^^^ and by 'sheer coincidence', the FDIC just put the word out that they have less than $50 billion remaining in their insurance fund, and anticipate a need to cover $200 billion worth of insurance claims re accounts in banks that are likely to fail next year. Thus they are essentially asking for a 'taxpayer handout' of $150 billion to cover the shortfall. Obviously, this is a totally separate matter from the $700 billion dollar bailout which is also on the table.

  15. #15
    God/dess Deogol's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,493
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 50 Times in 35 Posts

    Default Re: The financial meltdown and the future

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    ^^^ and by 'sheer coincidence', the FDIC just put the word out that they have less than $50 billion remaining in their insurance fund, and anticipate a need to cover $200 billion worth of insurance claims re accounts in banks that are likely to fail next year. Thus they are essentially asking for a 'taxpayer handout' of $150 billion to cover the shortfall. Obviously, this is a totally separate matter from the $700 billion dollar bailout which is also on the table.
    And the 25 billion for the auto companies. Seems like we have been there before.

  16. #16
    Yekhefah
    Guest

    Default Re: The financial meltdown and the future

    Privatizing profits and socializing loss.

  17. #17
    God/dess threlayer's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    5,921
    Thanks
    369
    Thanked 419 Times in 290 Posts
    My Mood
    Fine

    Default Re: The financial meltdown and the future

    Quote Originally Posted by Yekhefah View Post
    Privatizing profits and socializing loss.
    Yeah, that was the charter of Fannie Mac and Freddie Mae or whomever....
    I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.

    Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.

    NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.

  18. #18
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: The financial meltdown and the future

    Actually, the original purpose of Fannie, Freddie etc. was to utilize the credit rating of the US gov't to (slightly) reduce available interest rates on mortgage loans for 'qualified' applicants versus the interest rates they could obtain from 'free market' lenders. Under the original setup, profits earned by Fannie and Freddie were supposed to be used to subsidize the interest rate spread.

    Obviously, the major change under Clinton was for HUD to redefine Fannie and Freddie's definition of 'qualified' applicants !!! This also resulted in a change re profits earned by Fannie and Freddie, where those profits from loans to truly 'qualified' borrowers who made regular loan + interest payments were used to subsidize 'unqualified' borrowers who were NOT able to make regular payments.

    It was only when the shortfall resulting from the irregular payments / delinquency of 'unqualified' borrowers overwhelmed the regular payments or 'qualified' borrowers that Fannie and Freddie developed a real problem i.e. negative earnings. Of course, Fannie and Freddie management then proceeded to cook the books for the next 5 years or so in order to obscure the extent of this problem. They also employed a favorite technique from the 'dot-com' age, i.e. throwing positive cash flow from rapid 'growth' (of their loan portfolio) into the mix ... and counting on the fact that new loans would take many months or years before having to be booked as delinquent.

  19. #19
    God/dess threlayer's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    5,921
    Thanks
    369
    Thanked 419 Times in 290 Posts
    My Mood
    Fine

    Default Re: The financial meltdown and the future

    Actually that was a quote from I don't recall what official on the PBS News Hour I think. I heard it too.

    Socializing loss means to accept risk and pass the consequences onto the public via government. Privitizing profits means to allow profits from facilitated loans to pass onto the banks and mortgagees.

    BTW the Clinton did not let the SEC to allow self-policing. That was Bush. I just put in a snippet about the SEC Commissioner's admission of this. http://www.stripperweb.com/forum/sho...=125777&page=2 That's where the blame lies; Clinton was 8-16 years ago, and that was plenty of time to correct what you charge them with. This is like a broken record with you Clinton-haters. I got it memorized already.
    Last edited by threlayer; 09-27-2008 at 10:07 PM.
    I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.

    Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.

    NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 87
    Last Post: 01-19-2016, 05:55 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-18-2011, 12:00 PM
  3. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 07-09-2008, 10:14 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-02-2007, 05:18 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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