Subprime mortgage crisis [modified]
-
Once again here we have a problem created by the government, and guess who is the savior of the problem, the government. If it weren't for the federal reserve flooding the market with new money at low interest rates for the bankers to play with, and the government commanding markets to provide subprime loans we wouldn't have this mess. When you have something like the federal reserve, you need endless amounts of government control over markets to try to keep things in check, but the problem is that those regulations create even more problems so they have to create more regulations, in the end you have a complete backwards system that only a few mega corporations can benfits from, and those mega corporations are in bed with the government and vise-versa. It is all about money and power. Once someone has the power to create money out of thin air and command markets, everyone loses except for the top 1%
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
Were you actually going to answer his question? Because you didn't... At all... Here, I'll even quote his original question for you:
Gonzoox wrote:
So, can someone explain to me, why having a NO REGULATED market is better than a regulated one? the dot com crisis was because the same reasons, not regulating the companies, the mortage crisis was for not regulating, how can we trust in self-regulated companies? have they given any signs to be trustworthy so far?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
According to the book I am reading, they were never thought of as bad debts. They would lend far more than the house was worth, including the money needed to pay exhorbitant fees. In some cases, they handed the person lending the money 30k out of the excess loan money. So, they made a ton of money up front, and then expected that as the housing prices were rising, they could also count on repossessing the homes and making a further profit. They said that one person managed to sell homes to many of the inmates of a local prison on the low doc scheme.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
According to the book I am reading, they were never thought of as bad debts.
By who? The title 'Sub Prime' means 'less than the best', not 'lower than the prime lending rate'. Their very name says they are bad risks. Yes, there are aholes who made a lot of money off the government's mistake of pushing easy credit terms. They were just taking advantage of something the government pushed on to the market. They even did it legally, as opposed to a welfare or medicaid scam. (Not trying to badmouth welfare or insurance scams by associating them with these aholes, but I hope you understand what I mean.) The gov pushed it. People saw how to make money off it and did. So you blame the people who were doing what the gov wanted them to do, but not putting any blame on the gov for having them do it? :rolleyes: Banks would not have made these loans if the gov had not opened the gates at fannie and freddie to show them it was OK. They already were not making them, prior to the gov pressure.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
I don't know how I ended up reading this article in wikipedia, I remember I was reading an article related to encryption, but many clicks later I was reading this one, very interesting. Wikipedia is a more trusted source of information, compared to CSS's beloved infowars, it has references to articles, suggests further reading and external links, that in the case of this article is good enough to say the information it has can be trusted. Subprime mortgage crisis I'm not an economist, but my understanding about the crisis before reading the article was good enough and now I can say I had the facts right, and I want to point out a few pieces that I'd love to know what others think about, its a long article if you're interested in reading it
Both government failed regulation and deregulation contributed to the crisis. In testimony before Congress both the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) and Alan Greenspan conceded failure in allowing the self-regulation of investment banks.Look at this, letting banks do whatever they want was one of the causes, interesting indeed, its the government's fault in one part for not regulating them, so the government trusted them thinking they will behave, act fairly, etc, look what happened. So, can someone explain to me, why having a NO REGULATED market is better than a regulated one? the dot com crisis was because the same reasons, not regulating the companies, the mortage crisis was for not regulating, how can we trust in self-regulated companies? have they given any signs to be trustworthy so far? Maybe CSS in his infinite wisdom can explain it, any name calling, not giving links to trusted sources (infowars is not one of them) or avoid answering will just demonstrate what many have said about him, I provided one link that has references to over 200 sources of information, 14 books to understand better the problem and 9 external links... If he provides enough trusted information that contradicts this article I'll be the first one to apologize for not believing what he said, otherwise I'll just keep demonstrating him how much FAIL in his life he has.
I want to die like my grandfather- asleep, not like the passengers in his car, screaming!
modified on Wednesday, April 14, 2010 4:35 PM
Gonzoox wrote:
So, can someone explain to me, why having a NO REGULATED market is better than a regulated one?
In this case (the subprime crisis), the root of the problem is making loans to people who were not qualified to have them. Banks are not in the business of lending money to people who can't pay them back, so why did they do it? They did it because the government thought it was best if lower income people were given the chance to own a home. The way the gov did this was to lower the credit & income requirements at fannie and freddie. This let lower incomes qualify for loans on houses they couldn't afford, and backed them. This drove up the demand for houses, which upped the price, which made risky loans look less risky. People saw what a good investment real estate was, so they wanted into the market. People saw the chance to make money off the mortgage instruments, which looked risky, but had fannie & freddie backing them. That made them look less risky, but they still had those high 'subprime' rates. Too good an opportunity to pass up. Normal feedback cycle ensues. See how that works? The government pushes its social agenda onto the market and disrupts it. But how many people had the foresight to see this, and know it's causes, 8 years ago? There were some, but people did not listen to them. The reason people did not listen is because there are always naysayers. Given 1500 naysayers, you'll have 58,095 reasons that things will go to hell. Some of them are bound to be close to right. :rolleyes: Almost all things are obvious in hind sight. When you know the outcome, you can find the thread that lead there. But how do you know what to regulate, for the next problem? Taking lessons from the past is good. Getting mired in the past leads to the killing fields of WWI. Massed troops attacking was a good idea. Before MGs. If you tell me now what the worlds financial problems will be in 10, or even 8 years, and do it for 3 years (2018 - 2021), than in 2021, I will think about you instituting regulations. Otherwise, you are just requiring troops to run across open fields against machine guns.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
According to the book I am reading, they were never thought of as bad debts.
By who? The title 'Sub Prime' means 'less than the best', not 'lower than the prime lending rate'. Their very name says they are bad risks. Yes, there are aholes who made a lot of money off the government's mistake of pushing easy credit terms. They were just taking advantage of something the government pushed on to the market. They even did it legally, as opposed to a welfare or medicaid scam. (Not trying to badmouth welfare or insurance scams by associating them with these aholes, but I hope you understand what I mean.) The gov pushed it. People saw how to make money off it and did. So you blame the people who were doing what the gov wanted them to do, but not putting any blame on the gov for having them do it? :rolleyes: Banks would not have made these loans if the gov had not opened the gates at fannie and freddie to show them it was OK. They already were not making them, prior to the gov pressure.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
By who? The title 'Sub Prime' means 'less than the best', not 'lower than the prime lending rate'. Their very name says they are bad risks.
Yes, the risk was bad, but the loans were structured with a plan to make them profitable for the lender, not with the idea that they would actually be paid off in the normal sense.
RichardM1 wrote:
So you blame the people who were doing what the gov wanted them to do, but not putting any blame on the gov for having them do it?
Ultimately I blame the lack of regulation that would have stopped them doing it. Wanting to open credit to people who have had a bad history is one thing, I am sure the government did not intend for it to pan out as it did. At the end of the day, the lenders did what anyone does, they tried to make a buck. Was it unethical ? Of course. But capitalism has no ethics. The blame is with the government for a lack of regulation.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
By who? The title 'Sub Prime' means 'less than the best', not 'lower than the prime lending rate'. Their very name says they are bad risks.
Yes, the risk was bad, but the loans were structured with a plan to make them profitable for the lender, not with the idea that they would actually be paid off in the normal sense.
RichardM1 wrote:
So you blame the people who were doing what the gov wanted them to do, but not putting any blame on the gov for having them do it?
Ultimately I blame the lack of regulation that would have stopped them doing it. Wanting to open credit to people who have had a bad history is one thing, I am sure the government did not intend for it to pan out as it did. At the end of the day, the lenders did what anyone does, they tried to make a buck. Was it unethical ? Of course. But capitalism has no ethics. The blame is with the government for a lack of regulation.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
The blame is with the government for a lack of regulation.
You see what you want to see.
Christian Graus wrote:
I am sure the government did not intend for it to pan out as it did.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: I'm sure the lenders did not intend for it to pan out the way it did, either. So why do you give the government a pass when it forced the issue to begin with?
Christian Graus wrote:
Was it unethical ? Of course.
That's crap, Christian. It's unethical NOW, since we know it turned out badly. Back then, it was the banks letting the little guy have a chance at a house. And why would the banks do it, if it didn't hold a profit for them? Should they just be noble, and give away their stock holders' money? Then more people would be poor, so the bank could help them, too. :rolleyes:
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
The blame is with the government for a lack of regulation.
You see what you want to see.
Christian Graus wrote:
I am sure the government did not intend for it to pan out as it did.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: I'm sure the lenders did not intend for it to pan out the way it did, either. So why do you give the government a pass when it forced the issue to begin with?
Christian Graus wrote:
Was it unethical ? Of course.
That's crap, Christian. It's unethical NOW, since we know it turned out badly. Back then, it was the banks letting the little guy have a chance at a house. And why would the banks do it, if it didn't hold a profit for them? Should they just be noble, and give away their stock holders' money? Then more people would be poor, so the bank could help them, too. :rolleyes:
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
You see what you want to see.
Am I not saying the same thing you were, that government is to blame ?
RichardM1 wrote:
So why do you give the government a pass when it forced the issue to begin with?
You're the one who sees what they want to. I just said that government is entirely to blame for lack of regulation. Where did I give them a pass ?
RichardM1 wrote:
That's crap, Christian. It's unethical NOW, since we know it turned out badly.
Lending to someone who plainly cannot afford to borrow, is unethical. It's not giving anyone a house. Lending more than the house value to cover large fees, and giving the client a kickback to do it, is unethical.
RichardM1 wrote:
Back then, it was the banks letting the little guy have a chance at a house.
No, it wasn't. It was giving him a brief chance to see what it would be like if he COULD buy a house.
RichardM1 wrote:
And why would the banks do it, if it didn't hold a profit for them? Should they just be noble, and give away their stock holders' money? Then more people would be poor, so the bank could help them, too.
This is BS. Of course I don't think that. They should simply not lend to people who cannot afford to pay it back.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
You see what you want to see.
Am I not saying the same thing you were, that government is to blame ?
RichardM1 wrote:
So why do you give the government a pass when it forced the issue to begin with?
You're the one who sees what they want to. I just said that government is entirely to blame for lack of regulation. Where did I give them a pass ?
RichardM1 wrote:
That's crap, Christian. It's unethical NOW, since we know it turned out badly.
Lending to someone who plainly cannot afford to borrow, is unethical. It's not giving anyone a house. Lending more than the house value to cover large fees, and giving the client a kickback to do it, is unethical.
RichardM1 wrote:
Back then, it was the banks letting the little guy have a chance at a house.
No, it wasn't. It was giving him a brief chance to see what it would be like if he COULD buy a house.
RichardM1 wrote:
And why would the banks do it, if it didn't hold a profit for them? Should they just be noble, and give away their stock holders' money? Then more people would be poor, so the bank could help them, too.
This is BS. Of course I don't think that. They should simply not lend to people who cannot afford to pay it back.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Am I not saying the same thing you were, that government is to blame ?
LOL! And we both think food is Manuel Uribe Garza's problem. I want to give him less, you want to give him more.
Christian Graus wrote:
I just said that government is entirely to blame for lack of regulation. Where did I give them a pass ?
You gave them a pass on interfering and making it happen, then say they should interfere more. It's like someone shot me in the head, and you complain they didn't put a band aid on the wound. :rolleyes:
Christian Graus wrote:
Lending to someone who plainly cannot afford to borrow, is unethical.
The government told them to do it. Why won't you condemn THAT as unethical? How come that intrusion isn't wrong?
Christian Graus wrote:
Lending more than the house value to cover large fees, and giving the client a kickback to do it, is unethical.
See what happens when the government gets involved?
Christian Graus wrote:
No, it wasn't. It was giving him a brief chance to see what it would be like if he COULD buy a house.
And a long chance to see what bankruptcy is like. :sigh: I'm talking about the propaganda at the time. It is clear to me that the government intervention trying to make things better, in fact, made things worse. I'm not saying the aholes were ethical, I'm saying the government was the original cause, and you won't admit it.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Am I not saying the same thing you were, that government is to blame ?
LOL! And we both think food is Manuel Uribe Garza's problem. I want to give him less, you want to give him more.
Christian Graus wrote:
I just said that government is entirely to blame for lack of regulation. Where did I give them a pass ?
You gave them a pass on interfering and making it happen, then say they should interfere more. It's like someone shot me in the head, and you complain they didn't put a band aid on the wound. :rolleyes:
Christian Graus wrote:
Lending to someone who plainly cannot afford to borrow, is unethical.
The government told them to do it. Why won't you condemn THAT as unethical? How come that intrusion isn't wrong?
Christian Graus wrote:
Lending more than the house value to cover large fees, and giving the client a kickback to do it, is unethical.
See what happens when the government gets involved?
Christian Graus wrote:
No, it wasn't. It was giving him a brief chance to see what it would be like if he COULD buy a house.
And a long chance to see what bankruptcy is like. :sigh: I'm talking about the propaganda at the time. It is clear to me that the government intervention trying to make things better, in fact, made things worse. I'm not saying the aholes were ethical, I'm saying the government was the original cause, and you won't admit it.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
LOL! And we both think food is Manuel Uribe Garza's problem. I want to give him less, you want to give him more.
I had to look that up. I'm not sure of your point ?
RichardM1 wrote:
You gave them a pass on interfering and making it happen, then say they should interfere more.
They allowed it, and they didn't regulate it. Your analogy makes no sense. The point is, it's clear that without regulation, the banks do not work in our interests, or the interests of society.
RichardM1 wrote:
The government told them to do it. Why won't you condemn THAT as unethical? How come that intrusion isn't wrong?
I don't believe for a second that this is 100% true.
RichardM1 wrote:
See what happens when the government gets involved?
This is your mantra, and you see the world through those glasses. Show me where the government said to lend people who could not afford it, more than the value of thier house, and give them a kickback as incentive ? Not an infowars link, but the actual legislation.
RichardM1 wrote:
It is clear to me that the government intervention trying to make things better, in fact, made things worse.
Mostly because it was poorly thought out and done in the environment where it was assumed that there should be no or little regulation of financial markets.
RichardM1 wrote:
I'm not saying the aholes were ethical, I'm saying the government was the original cause, and you won't admit it.
As I said to CSS, the issue is that it's complex enough for anyone wanting to simplify it, to find a way that supports their views. Did the government encourage some form of loan to disadvantaged people ? I be they did. Did they mandate that people be lent to with the intention that they could not pay it back ? I doubt it. Does this change that lack of regulation is what took a well intentioned idea and turned it into a worldwide disaster ? No.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
LOL! And we both think food is Manuel Uribe Garza's problem. I want to give him less, you want to give him more.
I had to look that up. I'm not sure of your point ?
RichardM1 wrote:
You gave them a pass on interfering and making it happen, then say they should interfere more.
They allowed it, and they didn't regulate it. Your analogy makes no sense. The point is, it's clear that without regulation, the banks do not work in our interests, or the interests of society.
RichardM1 wrote:
The government told them to do it. Why won't you condemn THAT as unethical? How come that intrusion isn't wrong?
I don't believe for a second that this is 100% true.
RichardM1 wrote:
See what happens when the government gets involved?
This is your mantra, and you see the world through those glasses. Show me where the government said to lend people who could not afford it, more than the value of thier house, and give them a kickback as incentive ? Not an infowars link, but the actual legislation.
RichardM1 wrote:
It is clear to me that the government intervention trying to make things better, in fact, made things worse.
Mostly because it was poorly thought out and done in the environment where it was assumed that there should be no or little regulation of financial markets.
RichardM1 wrote:
I'm not saying the aholes were ethical, I'm saying the government was the original cause, and you won't admit it.
As I said to CSS, the issue is that it's complex enough for anyone wanting to simplify it, to find a way that supports their views. Did the government encourage some form of loan to disadvantaged people ? I be they did. Did they mandate that people be lent to with the intention that they could not pay it back ? I doubt it. Does this change that lack of regulation is what took a well intentioned idea and turned it into a worldwide disaster ? No.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
I had to look that up. I'm not sure of your point ?
[shaking head] We both think the government messed up. You think that means we need more government. I think that means we need less government.
Christian Graus wrote:
I don't believe for a second that this is 100% true.
Christian Graus wrote:
Did the government encourage some form of loan to disadvantaged people ? I be they did
You don't believe it is 100% true, but you are willing to bet they did it? "100% true" is a canard. Are you saying I'm 100% wrong, that the governments actions in pushing loans to the disadvantaged had nothing to do with the results? What do YOU think disadvantaged means, in this context? The gov knew that encouraging loans to disadvantaged people meant loaning more to people who did not qualify, who were bad risks. They were buying votes, no more ethical than the banks trying to make money off the government buying votes.
Christian Graus wrote:
This is your mantra, and you see the world through those glasses.
That is the thing, Christian. I don't. Your answer is always more regulation, just flat out more, and you can't see that maybe it should be less, or even just different. My argument with you is always trying to show you how what we have already can screw things up. And the CSS and Infowars comments were just uncalled for. I don't need other peoples conspiracy theories, I make up my own stuff whole cloth! ;P When I do cite a site, if I'm arguing with a liberal, I use liberal sources, and with a conservative, I use conservative sources. [edit]When I can. Sometimes you have to go with the information available. That is often a clue it is time to rethink my position.[/edit]
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
LOL! And we both think food is Manuel Uribe Garza's problem. I want to give him less, you want to give him more.
I had to look that up. I'm not sure of your point ?
RichardM1 wrote:
You gave them a pass on interfering and making it happen, then say they should interfere more.
They allowed it, and they didn't regulate it. Your analogy makes no sense. The point is, it's clear that without regulation, the banks do not work in our interests, or the interests of society.
RichardM1 wrote:
The government told them to do it. Why won't you condemn THAT as unethical? How come that intrusion isn't wrong?
I don't believe for a second that this is 100% true.
RichardM1 wrote:
See what happens when the government gets involved?
This is your mantra, and you see the world through those glasses. Show me where the government said to lend people who could not afford it, more than the value of thier house, and give them a kickback as incentive ? Not an infowars link, but the actual legislation.
RichardM1 wrote:
It is clear to me that the government intervention trying to make things better, in fact, made things worse.
Mostly because it was poorly thought out and done in the environment where it was assumed that there should be no or little regulation of financial markets.
RichardM1 wrote:
I'm not saying the aholes were ethical, I'm saying the government was the original cause, and you won't admit it.
As I said to CSS, the issue is that it's complex enough for anyone wanting to simplify it, to find a way that supports their views. Did the government encourage some form of loan to disadvantaged people ? I be they did. Did they mandate that people be lent to with the intention that they could not pay it back ? I doubt it. Does this change that lack of regulation is what took a well intentioned idea and turned it into a worldwide disaster ? No.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Show me where the government said to lend people who could not afford it, more than the value of thier house, and give them a kickback as incentive ? Not an infowars link, but the actual legislation.
Right, like the government is that transparent. Section 109[^] This says if they do not meet a set of criteria, they will not be allowed to open interstate branches, and can have existing branches shut. That is a little bit like a gun to their heads. So, what are the criteria? Here are the Fed's rules on it. There are other regulation for other branches. I just took the fed at random. If I had thought about it, I would have chosen someone else, so you wouldn't think I fed bashing. But I'm not going to wade back through this crap for another agency! :(( Appendix A to that other stuff[^] "(2) A bank's performance need not fit each aspect of a particular rating profile in order to receive that rating, and exceptionally strong performance with respect to some aspects may compensate for weak performance in others. The bank's overall performance, however, must be consistent with safe and sound banking practices and generally with the appropriate rating profile as follows." The congress is covered by 'safe' and 'sound', but the intent is shown by 'exceptionally strong performance with respect to some aspects may compensate for weak performance in others', 'overall performance'. "Extensive use of innovative or flexible lending practices in a safe and sound manner to address the credit needs of low- or moderate-income individuals or geographies;" The gov says that if a bank makes a lot of loans to disadvantaged/low income, the gov will offset the risk they are assuming by letting them go interstate, and won't hold it against them when it's time to rate them. If they were innovative and flexible, it would give them a star. Congress covered their own asses, but they were telling banks t
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I had to look that up. I'm not sure of your point ?
[shaking head] We both think the government messed up. You think that means we need more government. I think that means we need less government.
Christian Graus wrote:
I don't believe for a second that this is 100% true.
Christian Graus wrote:
Did the government encourage some form of loan to disadvantaged people ? I be they did
You don't believe it is 100% true, but you are willing to bet they did it? "100% true" is a canard. Are you saying I'm 100% wrong, that the governments actions in pushing loans to the disadvantaged had nothing to do with the results? What do YOU think disadvantaged means, in this context? The gov knew that encouraging loans to disadvantaged people meant loaning more to people who did not qualify, who were bad risks. They were buying votes, no more ethical than the banks trying to make money off the government buying votes.
Christian Graus wrote:
This is your mantra, and you see the world through those glasses.
That is the thing, Christian. I don't. Your answer is always more regulation, just flat out more, and you can't see that maybe it should be less, or even just different. My argument with you is always trying to show you how what we have already can screw things up. And the CSS and Infowars comments were just uncalled for. I don't need other peoples conspiracy theories, I make up my own stuff whole cloth! ;P When I do cite a site, if I'm arguing with a liberal, I use liberal sources, and with a conservative, I use conservative sources. [edit]When I can. Sometimes you have to go with the information available. That is often a clue it is time to rethink my position.[/edit]
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
I think that means we need less government.
Despite all the evidence that it was unfettered capitalism that, at the core, motivated the banks to do what they did, to our detriment ?
RichardM1 wrote:
You don't believe it is 100% true, but you are willing to bet they did it?
Encouraging availability of loans to people with a bad past is not the same as going out looking for people who can't pay their loans, and signing them up for short term gain. The difference ? Regulation.
RichardM1 wrote:
That is the thing, Christian. I don't.
It's true, I do wear glasses.
RichardM1 wrote:
Your answer is always more regulation, just flat out more, and you can't see that maybe it should be less, or even just different.
We've had unfettered capitalism before. It didn't work. Why would it now ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Show me where the government said to lend people who could not afford it, more than the value of thier house, and give them a kickback as incentive ? Not an infowars link, but the actual legislation.
Right, like the government is that transparent. Section 109[^] This says if they do not meet a set of criteria, they will not be allowed to open interstate branches, and can have existing branches shut. That is a little bit like a gun to their heads. So, what are the criteria? Here are the Fed's rules on it. There are other regulation for other branches. I just took the fed at random. If I had thought about it, I would have chosen someone else, so you wouldn't think I fed bashing. But I'm not going to wade back through this crap for another agency! :(( Appendix A to that other stuff[^] "(2) A bank's performance need not fit each aspect of a particular rating profile in order to receive that rating, and exceptionally strong performance with respect to some aspects may compensate for weak performance in others. The bank's overall performance, however, must be consistent with safe and sound banking practices and generally with the appropriate rating profile as follows." The congress is covered by 'safe' and 'sound', but the intent is shown by 'exceptionally strong performance with respect to some aspects may compensate for weak performance in others', 'overall performance'. "Extensive use of innovative or flexible lending practices in a safe and sound manner to address the credit needs of low- or moderate-income individuals or geographies;" The gov says that if a bank makes a lot of loans to disadvantaged/low income, the gov will offset the risk they are assuming by letting them go interstate, and won't hold it against them when it's time to rate them. If they were innovative and flexible, it would give them a star. Congress covered their own asses, but they were telling banks t
Telling banks they need to lend to disadvantaged people is obviously a bad idea. Telling them that, and NOT controlling how they do it, is obviously worse.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Telling banks they need to lend to disadvantaged people is obviously a bad idea. Telling them that, and NOT controlling how they do it, is obviously worse.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Telling banks they need to lend to disadvantaged people is obviously a bad idea.
Yes, it was the regulations (including the regulation of the money supply and who gets the new money) that causes the GFC. What you are proposing would add even more regulations, causing even more problems.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
-
RichardM1 wrote:
I think that means we need less government.
Despite all the evidence that it was unfettered capitalism that, at the core, motivated the banks to do what they did, to our detriment ?
RichardM1 wrote:
You don't believe it is 100% true, but you are willing to bet they did it?
Encouraging availability of loans to people with a bad past is not the same as going out looking for people who can't pay their loans, and signing them up for short term gain. The difference ? Regulation.
RichardM1 wrote:
That is the thing, Christian. I don't.
It's true, I do wear glasses.
RichardM1 wrote:
Your answer is always more regulation, just flat out more, and you can't see that maybe it should be less, or even just different.
We've had unfettered capitalism before. It didn't work. Why would it now ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Despite all the evidence that it was unfettered capitalism that
There is no evidence that it was unfettered capitalism. It was the federal reserve flooding the market with new money at low interest rates for the bankers to play with, and the government commanding markets to provide subprime loans.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
-
RichardM1 wrote:
LOL! And we both think food is Manuel Uribe Garza's problem. I want to give him less, you want to give him more.
I had to look that up. I'm not sure of your point ?
RichardM1 wrote:
You gave them a pass on interfering and making it happen, then say they should interfere more.
They allowed it, and they didn't regulate it. Your analogy makes no sense. The point is, it's clear that without regulation, the banks do not work in our interests, or the interests of society.
RichardM1 wrote:
The government told them to do it. Why won't you condemn THAT as unethical? How come that intrusion isn't wrong?
I don't believe for a second that this is 100% true.
RichardM1 wrote:
See what happens when the government gets involved?
This is your mantra, and you see the world through those glasses. Show me where the government said to lend people who could not afford it, more than the value of thier house, and give them a kickback as incentive ? Not an infowars link, but the actual legislation.
RichardM1 wrote:
It is clear to me that the government intervention trying to make things better, in fact, made things worse.
Mostly because it was poorly thought out and done in the environment where it was assumed that there should be no or little regulation of financial markets.
RichardM1 wrote:
I'm not saying the aholes were ethical, I'm saying the government was the original cause, and you won't admit it.
As I said to CSS, the issue is that it's complex enough for anyone wanting to simplify it, to find a way that supports their views. Did the government encourage some form of loan to disadvantaged people ? I be they did. Did they mandate that people be lent to with the intention that they could not pay it back ? I doubt it. Does this change that lack of regulation is what took a well intentioned idea and turned it into a worldwide disaster ? No.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
where it was assumed that there should be no or little regulation of financial markets
There was regulation of financial markets, those regulations are what caused the GFC.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
-
RichardM1 wrote:
You see what you want to see.
Am I not saying the same thing you were, that government is to blame ?
RichardM1 wrote:
So why do you give the government a pass when it forced the issue to begin with?
You're the one who sees what they want to. I just said that government is entirely to blame for lack of regulation. Where did I give them a pass ?
RichardM1 wrote:
That's crap, Christian. It's unethical NOW, since we know it turned out badly.
Lending to someone who plainly cannot afford to borrow, is unethical. It's not giving anyone a house. Lending more than the house value to cover large fees, and giving the client a kickback to do it, is unethical.
RichardM1 wrote:
Back then, it was the banks letting the little guy have a chance at a house.
No, it wasn't. It was giving him a brief chance to see what it would be like if he COULD buy a house.
RichardM1 wrote:
And why would the banks do it, if it didn't hold a profit for them? Should they just be noble, and give away their stock holders' money? Then more people would be poor, so the bank could help them, too.
This is BS. Of course I don't think that. They should simply not lend to people who cannot afford to pay it back.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
I just said that government is entirely to blame for lack of regulation.
There was no lack of regulation. It was the regulations that caused the GFC. The regulators regulate in favor of the top 1% at the expense of 99% of the public. This is why only free markets work, because once you give anyone power to create money out of thin air and command markets only a small handful of people will benefit.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
-
RichardM1 wrote:
By who? The title 'Sub Prime' means 'less than the best', not 'lower than the prime lending rate'. Their very name says they are bad risks.
Yes, the risk was bad, but the loans were structured with a plan to make them profitable for the lender, not with the idea that they would actually be paid off in the normal sense.
RichardM1 wrote:
So you blame the people who were doing what the gov wanted them to do, but not putting any blame on the gov for having them do it?
Ultimately I blame the lack of regulation that would have stopped them doing it. Wanting to open credit to people who have had a bad history is one thing, I am sure the government did not intend for it to pan out as it did. At the end of the day, the lenders did what anyone does, they tried to make a buck. Was it unethical ? Of course. But capitalism has no ethics. The blame is with the government for a lack of regulation.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
Ultimately I blame the lack of regulation that would have stopped them doing it.
It was the regulations that enabled the bankers to loot the public. They knew what they were doing, and if they did not then why do we give power to regulators if they can cause so much damage? We need to stick to limited government, let people make their own decisions instead of creating an environment where regulators can manipulate the markets so their banker buddies can loot the public. The federal reserve gave them our own money so that they could create a bubble to pop. This type of thing would be next to impossible if it were not for these manipulations of the market.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Despite all the evidence that it was unfettered capitalism that
There is no evidence that it was unfettered capitalism. It was the federal reserve flooding the market with new money at low interest rates for the bankers to play with, and the government commanding markets to provide subprime loans.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
Yes, we know, you only have one thing to say, so you'll keep saying it. I was referring to the way things were in the late 1800s, I refer you again to the book 'The Jungle' as a reflection of how workers were treated when the government did not defend their rights at all.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Telling banks they need to lend to disadvantaged people is obviously a bad idea.
Yes, it was the regulations (including the regulation of the money supply and who gets the new money) that causes the GFC. What you are proposing would add even more regulations, causing even more problems.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
The adults are talking. Go away. Read a book or something.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
where it was assumed that there should be no or little regulation of financial markets
There was regulation of financial markets, those regulations are what caused the GFC.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
You can say it as often as you want, it won't turn your ignorance into facts.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.