Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 September 20

= September 20 =

Political Surrogates
What exactly is the role/background of the term "surrogate" that I've heard used fairly often this election. Have I just missed it in previous elections or is it a new term? Is it worthy of a wikipedia article?

I-710 Long Beach Frwy extension
Will the I-710 in Los Angeles ever been extend? What does Pasadena have a big fight over extending the I-710? Is this because of houses or what makes it so arguemental to extend?Besdies neighborhood or what? is the I-710 extension further away from being successful than the SR 241 in Orange County?-- 57 Free  ways  00:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

So what's wrong with just putting the I-710 in. Elimination of many homes won't kill people. Do they have other excuse than just losing homes. pasadena just have strong opposition over the I-710 extension.-- 57 Free  ways  00:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The obvious difficulty is that 'just losing homes' isn't really a small thing. If tomorrow you were told that you have 6 months to get out of your house because the land was being reclaimed for public-highways it might not be a big deal to you. If you've lived in the home for 20 years, or you feel a big sense of community around the local area then being made to leave the area to make way for a road-extension could be a big deal. Ultimately the government doesn't want to upset too many residents, doesn't want to get too much bad press, but will want to improve the road-networks. The counter-argument could just as easily be 'it's just a highway extension, other roads exist to get people where they need to go. Why do they need this road, not having it won't kill anyone'. There is no wrong and right, there is a need to compromise between both groups so that each can achieve something that is manageable and forward-thinking. ny156uk (talk) 10:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That extension would make my life much, much easier, but its not likely to happen. First of all the government would have to invoke eminent domain and evict alot of people from their property. This would mean kicking alot of very rich people with a whole lot of lawyers out of their homes. That means even getting the project started would cost millions in legal fees and a whole lot of bad publicity even before they pay for the property. Just because its not killing anyone isn't enough reason to do it, you're taking innocent people's property by force, you have to prove its justified. This means alot of expensive civil engineering studies to prove the benefits. It's a very long uphill battle before it gets done. -- Mad031683  (talk) 21:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Larry King
When you call Larry King, what are you asked? 66.53.220.172 (talk) 02:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Presumable to succinctly present your question/statement to the call-screener. If you want more detail I know a cheap way to find out.  Plasticup  T / C  04:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

City name
name of city or town that means dry grass and a cave. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.151.79 (talk) 05:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Created new section for question. --antilivedT 06:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * ?? Hayden, Alabama.  Hayden, Arizona.  Hayden, Colorado. Hayden, Idaho.86.4.187.55 (talk) 08:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Destructive power of securitization?
Can someone explain to me this section of our subprime article?

"Securitization is a structured finance process in which assets, receivables or financial instruments are acquired, classified into pools, and offered as collateral for third-party investment.[53] There are many parties involved. Due to securitization, investor appetite for mortgage-backed securities (MBS), and the tendency of rating agencies to assign investment-grade ratings to MBS, loans with a high risk of default could be originated, packaged and the risk readily transferred to others. Asset securitization began with the structured financing of mortgage pools in the 1970s.[54] The securitized share of subprime mortgages (i.e., those passed to third-party investors) increased from 54% in 2001, to 75% in 2006.[46] Alan Greenspan stated that the securitization of home loans for people with poor credit — not the loans themselves — was to blame for the current global credit crisis.[55]"

So let's say 2-3 million loans default and banks take the hit. Why would that effect be so much less dire than a securitized package failing?

Lotsofissues (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That loss would all be taken by someone that had consciously decided to take a high risk investment (in exchange for higher return), those that wanted a low risk investment wouldn't lose anything. It all goes wrong when far more people default that expected and the so-called "low risk" investments start losing money because all the high risk investments are used up. --Tango (talk) 12:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Also note that large losses in the securitisation entity means that the low-risk tranches suffer mark to market losses even though they experienced no direct losses (all the tranches are revalued by the market after a certain "trigger event" occurs) and remember that the rating agencies gave these assets AAA ratings. These losses were very large over the last year or so becasue no one wanted to buy any tranches. And I think Greenspan was saying that the availability of securitisation enabled lenders to free up capital to underwrite more subprime loans. Much more than they would have if they had to keep all the original loans. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Securitization is awesome and is not the problem here. The problem is that people bought these CDOs without understanding what they were, and now the market for them has seized up. It is hard to mark to market when the market is totally illiquid! Some of the the underlying securities are solid, but no one can/wants to buy them. That is why the government bailout is such a great idea. The Government can buy tons of these securities, which gives the banks the cash they need now (saving the financial system), and the Government can hold the securities to maturity a probably reap a small profit. Hooray!  Plasticup  T / C  15:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately it is not at all clear that these securities are worth what the government is paying for them and it is also not at all certain that if the banks just get some liquidity they will be healthy again. Comrade Paulson is taking a big risk. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It is infinitely better than the alternative.  Plasticup  T / C  04:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)