Subprime mortgage crisis [modified]
-
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.
-
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[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The regulators regulate in favor of the top 1% at the expense of 99% of the public. This is why only free markets work
This is so stupid. I can't believe you're so ignorant. So, if markets are free, the top 1% won't do whatever they want ( given there's no regulation ) to further their interests, at the cost of the other 99% ?
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[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
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.
So, you believe that before there was regulation, everyone was better off ? I think you'll find the rich were better off, and the poor were starving to death.
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.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The regulators regulate in favor of the top 1% at the expense of 99% of the public. This is why only free markets work
This is so stupid. I can't believe you're so ignorant. So, if markets are free, the top 1% won't do whatever they want ( given there's no regulation ) to further their interests, at the cost of the other 99% ?
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:
So, if markets are free, the top 1% won't do whatever they want ( given there's no regulation ) to further their interests, at the cost of the other 99% ?
They can't do anything at the cost of everyone else if there were a free market. You ignore the fact that a central bank wouldn't exist in a free market and governments wouldn't be making laws enabling the top 1% to rob the public. Without the manipulations of currency and markets things would even out.
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:
workers were treated when the government did not defend their rights at all.
There right to what exactly? Private property or personal liberty? What rights in the constitution were being violated?
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]