Subprime mortgage crisis [modified]
-
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[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
What rights in the constitution were being violated?
What constitution ? I'm in Australia.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
There right to what exactly? Private property or personal liberty?
Their right to not be exploited. To be offered conditions of employment that don't require them to choose between a workplace where injury is common, and starvation. What happened to meat workers in the 1890s is not that far removed from how Walmart etc hire casual labour only, giving people no stable income and no benefits. The creation of an underclass of people who cannot rely on a stable income, denies them the most basic human rights and freedoms.
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:
Calling me mentally ill is a strawman.
Calling you mentally ill is the voice of experience. Please Get Help. It will make your life better. On the off chance it does not, it will at least make our lives better.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
I taught him what a 'strawman' argument was. Before I explained it, he thought it was a name, so he called me a strawman back !!! Now he's so proud that he kind of gets the idea, that he uses it all the time.
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.
-
I have just read this an have to say that this is an interesting argument. (minus the CSS rantings!) I dont believe its the governments fault we had this crisis, it was there fault that they allowed the banks to operate in the way they did. As Gordon brown admitted he should of regulated the UK banks sooner rather than post crisis.
Yes, that's kind of my point. It was a sin of omission on the part of the government.
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, at the core, motivated the banks to do what they did, to our detriment ?
What they did to our detriment was skim off what had previously been added by their same shenanigans. But you don't hear that from the pro-regulators, do you? All those trillions lost. They were all fake money to begin with, put there by the same people who were responsible for taking it away. In the end, how much did we really gain or lose? Take a look at net worth and GDP. Can't find net worth numbers, so GDP and DJIA. We got kicked all the way back to 2006 in GDP, and 2005 in GDP/capita - these are constant 2005 dollars[^] Dow Jones is back above 2005 levels, and that was after a huge freaking run from 1982. That is part of the problem. You had people in the financial industry for 20+ years who had never seen a real bad year. The world believed this would go on forever, and congress went right along with them. Growing the government faster than wealth was growing. Really responsible. They are who I want to regulate stuff. Since they know how to keep their own house in order, so well. So, after a Dow < 800 in 1982, it rose to 14,000 in 07/08 almost 20 times, and then we give back a piece of it. Look at this chart[^] of the DJIA since 189x, the log graph on the right. If you draw a line from the 1900 peak through the 1960 peak, we are still above that line. That is what partially fettered capitalism will get you. We have a couple bad years of government interference :laugh: and you want to throw it away. :rolleyes:
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
That is what partially fettered capitalism will get you.
Exactly. Government needs not to be in bed with lobbyists, and it needs to act entirely in the interests of the people.
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:
I wish he would get help.
Judgmentalism is placing others on a lower level to cover one's own inadequacies. "If you would get some counseling yourself, then I think that I could handle the situation." Again, you are the one that is mentally ill, as you said yourself, a majorly depressed maniac.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
He is getting treatment. That's exactly what we're wishing on you - treatment so you can overcome your illness. You, not him, is the one controlled by mental illness. He's the one with the guts to do something about it, and to be honest and up front about it.
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[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
They can't do anything at the cost of everyone else if there were a free market.
Rubbish. A free market means the rich are free to do whatever they like to stay rich, and the other 95% of people just have to live in the world they create.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
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.
Wrong. Regardless of the state of currency, there will always be people on top, and people on the bottom of societies ladder. Only government can legislate to force those on top to pay some respect to those beneath them.
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, you believe that before there was regulation, everyone was better off ? I
When we had less regulation in the United States. we were much better off. We produced more, taxes were low, we had sound money, stronger local communities, less crime, less corruption, and lots of opportunity.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]
This is a pipe dream. You produced more because of protectionism or perhaps because it was before the jobs existed in China. What does 'sound money' mean ? Do you have any idea what the standard of living was in the 1940s ? Your house, with your level of poverty, is probably a dream come true to the average middle class American of 60 years ago. Communities were stronger, perhaps, but there's no reason for them not to be today, how is that the fault of regulation ? And, FYI, crime rates in the US have been steadily dropping for a long time. It's your hyped up and biased news that has you worried about crime when it's never been lower. As for opportunity, I took 12 months to write a program which launched a company in the US, and 12 months later we sold it, and I paid off my houses. There's plenty of opportunity in America for people willing to work hard. Being unemployable and under the grip of mental illness is not something you can blame on the government.
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.
-
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:
letting banks do whatever they want was one of the causes
Well, I believe that banks were put under pressure to lend to people who had no collateral or stability money to buy their home. Somone on this forum has attetsed to that because he worked for a bank at the time. So this is an example of 'failed government regulation'. An exampl of failed NON regulation would be letting the ratings agencies lie about the value and risk of credit products. Giving everything a tripple A just to get the commision is actually fraudulent. Its a complex thing. Greed and altruism have played their parts in this. And of course altruism stems fomr the belief that we are all equal. Somehting clearly untrue.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Gonzoox wrote:
letting banks do whatever they want was one of the causes
Well, I believe that banks were put under pressure to lend to people who had no collateral or stability money to buy their home. Somone on this forum has attetsed to that because he worked for a bank at the time. So this is an example of 'failed government regulation'. An exampl of failed NON regulation would be letting the ratings agencies lie about the value and risk of credit products. Giving everything a tripple A just to get the commision is actually fraudulent. Its a complex thing. Greed and altruism have played their parts in this. And of course altruism stems fomr the belief that we are all equal. Somehting clearly untrue.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Its a complex thing. Greed and altruism have played their parts in this
Well, short sighted government policy combined with an overall approach of allowing trade to be free and unregulated seems to be the issue to me.
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.
-
He is getting treatment. That's exactly what we're wishing on you - treatment so you can overcome your illness. You, not him, is the one controlled by mental illness. He's the one with the guts to do something about it, and to be honest and up front about it.
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:
That is what partially fettered capitalism will get you.
Exactly. Government needs not to be in bed with lobbyists, and it needs to act entirely in the interests of the people.
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.
[scratching seborrheic dermatitis] This all happened during the period everyone complains about because there was so little government regulation, and that the government WAS in bed with the lobbyists. You know I would not have brought this up without thinking about it, don't you? Was this the period during which there was 'unfettered capitalism', or are you referring to the 'robber baron' period?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
I taught him what a 'strawman' argument was. Before I explained it, he thought it was a name, so he called me a strawman back !!! Now he's so proud that he kind of gets the idea, that he uses it all the time.
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.
-
I have just read this an have to say that this is an interesting argument. (minus the CSS rantings!) I dont believe its the governments fault we had this crisis, it was there fault that they allowed the banks to operate in the way they did. As Gordon brown admitted he should of regulated the UK banks sooner rather than post crisis.
As I pointed out to Christian, the proceeding 20 years of economic progress was made when everyone was complaining about the lack of regulation. The recent loss of GDP that only dropped us back to 2005, in constant $. On a log-linear plot of the Dow, we are still above the curve on DJIA growth that takes us from 1900 to 1960, because of this 'unregulated' period. When you preach intervention and regulation, you can always say there isn't enough.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
What rights in the constitution were being violated?
What constitution ? I'm in Australia.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
There right to what exactly? Private property or personal liberty?
Their right to not be exploited. To be offered conditions of employment that don't require them to choose between a workplace where injury is common, and starvation. What happened to meat workers in the 1890s is not that far removed from how Walmart etc hire casual labour only, giving people no stable income and no benefits. The creation of an underclass of people who cannot rely on a stable income, denies them the most basic human rights and freedoms.
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:
denies them the most basic human rights and freedoms.
On what do you base these rights and freedoms, if you have no constitution? Can they be whatever the government decides? This is question, not argument. I will argue later, when I know more. :-D
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
please tell me you are not being serious and trying to just cause an argument! I have respect for RichardM1 because he is honest about his condition and is taking action to keep it under control. One of my kids needs to take medication to control his condition of ADHD. so my answer to you is grow some balls and make a reasonable argument rather than belittling someone!
-
Gonzoox wrote:
letting banks do whatever they want was one of the causes
Well, I believe that banks were put under pressure to lend to people who had no collateral or stability money to buy their home. Somone on this forum has attetsed to that because he worked for a bank at the time. So this is an example of 'failed government regulation'. An exampl of failed NON regulation would be letting the ratings agencies lie about the value and risk of credit products. Giving everything a tripple A just to get the commision is actually fraudulent. Its a complex thing. Greed and altruism have played their parts in this. And of course altruism stems fomr the belief that we are all equal. Somehting clearly untrue.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
altruism stems fomr the belief that we are all equal
Often it does not. Carnegie, Gates, Getty and others did not give freely of their wealth because they think everyone is equal. If anything, believing others to be equal, yet unable to do what you do what you do, is a cause for contempt. I help people who I think need it, not because they are equally capable and failed, but because they are unequally capable, and need help. I don't help a strong man to carry his bar-bells, I help an old lady who needs her tire changed. He is capable, and needs no help. She needs it.
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
I want to thank everyone who participated and gave out their points of view, I want to apologize for CSS and his stupid arguments, he again failed to provide a reliable source of information. What I understand after reading again the article and your discussions, government "forced" the banks to give out this subprime loans, the government never actually gave out more money, what it did was to lower the rates, so money started flowing from other countries. I think this could have been avoided is some kind of regulation existed about the shadow banking, forcing this banks/companies to have more capital to support the loans, the big banks are already regulated, but this institutions that function like a bank don't have enough. The government needs regulations too, to force the central bank to act when a bubble that can end up in a crisis is being created, two bubbles are good example, the dot com and the suprime crisis. I'm not talking about removing freedom or rights to the people, I'm talking about playing with rules clear for everyone, I won't discuss if the people is treated fairly or not, this was not the point of this thread. To answer my own questions... an over regulated market is not good because it will create more problems, a non regulated market is not good also because for what it has created already, the problem is to figure out where the line between non regulated and over regulated is at...
I want to die like my grandfather- asleep, not like the passengers in his car, screaming!
-
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[^]
I supposed you have examples of current regulations that are causing more problems right? or you just are repeating something said by someone else who believed it, so please provide a current regulation that is causing more problems than benefits
I want to die like my grandfather- asleep, not like the passengers in his car, screaming!
-
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[^]
You're wrong, did you read the article? was not the federal reserve flooding the market with new money, was the government creating the conditions to make foreign money enter the country, you're stupid for still blaming the fed for something that didn't happen that way. Do you know what's the function of the federal reserve at all? do you?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
you have a complete backwards system that only a few mega corporations can benfits from
Isn't this what you want? capitalism!!!! you're always saying that if you can't afford it you should die, well, the mega corporations are playing their games in your capitalism, or now you're saying that is bad and they need to be regulated?? please explain
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
It is all about money and power.
In this country, you gotta make the money first. Then when you get the money, you get the power. Then when you get the power, then you get the women. - Tony Montana OK, weren't you the person talking saying when we had the discussion about healthcare if they can't afford it then they don't deserve to get treatment or something like that? it's all about money!!!
I want to die like my grandfather- asleep, not like the passengers in his car, screaming!
-
please tell me you are not being serious and trying to just cause an argument! I have respect for RichardM1 because he is honest about his condition and is taking action to keep it under control. One of my kids needs to take medication to control his condition of ADHD. so my answer to you is grow some balls and make a reasonable argument rather than belittling someone!
Simon_Whale wrote:
One of my kids needs to take medication to control his condition of ADHD.
You give your kids amphetamines because of some bullshit condition that is probably a condition of the shitty diet and lack of exercise? Get him away from the TV and out of the little building and out of the city. You really do have the intelligence of a jungle monkey.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album[^] The True Soapbox is the Truthbox[^]