Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[Andylusion]

Actually, the prior poster asked where the trial that resulted in an $8.7 billion settlement against Bank of America was held, did you notice?

"Bank of America Corp.’s $8.5 billion settlement with mortgage-securities investors can go through after all, a New York state judge said Wednesday. But dissenting investors like American International Group Inc. plan to keep protesting.

Judge rules against AIG in Bank of America's $8.5 billion settlement - The Tell - MarketWatch

Learn to read.

No, I get that he asked a question, and you answer the question.

I'm talking about the entire focus of the discussion. We've come full circle back to BoA, and Countrywide.

Did you miss the fact that government pushed BoA to buy Countrywide?

If Countrywide had gone through normal bankruptcy proceedings, all of this crap you are complaining about, would have been taken care of in court. But leftards, like you, push for a buyout paid for by government, and now you are b!tching about it?

And what does this have to do with sub-prime loans? Nothing. What does this have to do with the cause of the price bubble? Nothing. What does this have to do with capitalism or inequality? Nothing.

What does this have to do with anything?

And worse, we've been over this already. You don't even remember, this is like that 3rd time we've covered this topic in this thread. You are like a broken record of bad arguments, repeated over and over, never realizing your own failure.

You want to talk about this, fine.

EVERY SINGLE TIME THAT GOVERNMENT GIVES OUT BUSINESS OR MONEY, PEOPLE WILL TRY TO INFLUENCE WHERE THAT MONEY GOES.

This is true in any social economic system. When government announces it plans to increase 'green-energy spending', thousands of companies start spending money to influence where that money goes, so they can get some.

The Freedom Car, is a perfect example. Dozens of company vying for a handout.

And you have failed to mention the most obvious examples, Fannie and Freddie both spent MILLIONS to influence government on their behalf.

The same is true in Pre-78 china and Soviet Russia. Government corporations spent money all the time to get influence for preferable treatment by the Kremlin and the Central Politburo of China.

So here you have Countrywide, who had deep ties with Fannie Mae, got special treatment, and you are shocked and surprised that Countrywide greased the hands that fed them?

Really? This is a surprise to whom? Leftards too dumb to know how socialism works?

The rest of us on the right, know this is how socialism always works. Government hands out goodies through Fannie and Freddie, and people will reciprocate. It's normal. Happens everywhere in the world.

You want to stop that, no amount of fines or trials, or legislation is going to do anything. The only way to stop it, is to eliminate government involvement in mortgages. Cut Fannie and Freddie off. Break them up, and never bailout them, or anyone else, again.

When companies realize there is no money to be had from government, they'll stop wasting their money on lobbying. End socialism. That's the solution.

When you say "eliminate government involvement in mortgages" are you including the Federal Reserve? Why or why not?

The Federal Reserve is unfortunately unavoidable. I'd much rather have a commodity backed currency, but that is simply not going to happen.

As long as we have a fiat currency, and there is no other practical option in today's economy, then we must have a Federal Reserve, or some other system.

Historically, the most free banking systems, are often the most stable. But government, and socialists, like controlling the banks, and this is one form of control. Spain is a perfect example, of government, and in this case literally socialists, love their control over banks for their own benefit, even to the destruction of their people and country.

That said, when I mean government out of mortgages, I means, exactly that. Before 1932, if someone wanted to buy a home, they either saved up the money to buy the home, or they had to go to a private bank, to make a private loan, and the bank held that loan, or didn't make it.

People didn't borrow to buy homes. Consequently homes were more reasonably priced, and people didn't get foreclosed on, or bankrupted.

Of course the politicians couldn't claim they were "sticking up for the little guy" like Fannie and Freddie allow them to today. And of course, Fannie and Freddie didn't cause a country wide catastrophe, like they did in 2008, because they didn't exist before 1932.

Encouraging people to go into debt itself, is stupidity. Debt is slavery. It might be slavery by voluntary contract, but once you sign, you are now a servant to the banks.

I'm not inherently against banks, because banks are offering what people want. I'm against people wanting something stupid. Debt, is stupid. We should not be encouraging our citizens to be slaves to banks. Fannie and Freddie should be completely eliminated. The mortgage tax deduction, should be eliminated (along with all deductions). We should encourage our citizens to act with fiscal responsibility, and bailout no one ever. We should eliminate bankruptcy laws, that allow people out of their contractual debts, so that they don't get into contractual debts.

 

[dnsmith35]

.......

What the government needs to do, is step back and stop delaying recession recoveries with their Keynesian failures. The reason Keynesian economics delays recovery is very simple; all of the money the government throws at the economy, even if they throw it the right direction for the conditions of the moment, the money ALWAYS COMES FROM THE ECONOMY either from Taxes or Borrowing. If there was no overhead in the process it may turn out to be neutral, but the fact is, THERE ARE ALWAYS OVERHEAD EXPENSES IN ACQUIRING MONEY to throw at the economy, minus the overhead.

Zombie: The government is not a business.

Of course its not. What gave you that silly thought?

The government is incapable, by definition, of making a profit.

Correct! But it can spend money and all of the wealth it PUTS IN THE ECONOMY in an attempt to stimulate it COMES OUT OF THE ECONOMY AND THERE IS OVERHEAD IN THE PROCESS.

The government can only affect the money supply, instead of the concept of "making a profit".

Yes, it two primary ways, fiscal and monetary policy. IE printing money which tends to cause inflation and lower interest rates artificially which also tends to cause inflation. That is exactly what happened in the Housing Balloon and subsequent crash.

If the government increases taxes such that it can create a new service which employs some otherwise unemployed people, your argument is that this is a net loss because some money collected by the government disappears into "overhead".

Yep!

Where you suppose this "overhead" money goes, if not back into the national economy?[/QUOTE]Wow! You don't realize that the government spends money off shore? Gives away money off shore in foreign aid? Where do you think that money comes from? Under the mattress? It comes out of our economy and is never replaced.

Going back to JFK's attempt at supply side economic theory of giving money to investors and corporations in the form of a 21% reduction to the marginal rate of the highest bracket while giving the lower bracket only 6% rate cuts, and on top of that he cut corporate income taxes hoping to help an economic recovery, which would have ended without his meddling. I was all for it at the time, but have since gotten a lot of economics education through a Masters degree. What could he have done to help more? Spent money directly on infrastructure programs starting immediately. As it was the rich got richer.

Keynesian economics sounds great, especially to the masses who may actually believe its going to help them But instead of giving money to people to spend, it stimulates job growth directly much more if you contract for big infrastructure jobs. TVA and Boulder/Hoover Dam come to mind.

As a liberal, I want the people to get the most benefit from our tax and borrowed dollars they possibly can get.

 

[dnsmith35]

Actually, the prior poster asked where the trial that resulted in an $8.7 billion settlement against Bank of America was held, did you notice?


Learn to read.

No, I get that he asked a question, and you answer the question.

Again, Androw, you posted something that didn't answer anything the prior poster said. Didn't have anything to do with the topic. Doesn't prove any of the claims you made.

You simply don't know, that what you said, didn't make a point. You are simply too ignorant of a person to conduct a rational debate with.​

ROTFLMAO! Do you read the ignorant crap you post?

The only people who think you have a point, are those who are also too ignorant to debate with.

Speaking of being too ignorant to debate, go look in the mirror and do some formatting.

You prove Thomas Sowell right, with every idiotic incoherent post you make.

Yep, Zombie, you sure do. The point was simple. I asked George a question. He didn't answer it, and chose to go off on a tangent. Then he chided Androw for not accepting his tangent, and you fell right into the dumbass pit right after George.

 

[Chris]

From 1941 to the 1960's we had high taxes on the rich and high wages. The taxes were invested in education and infrastructure and the high wages created consumer demand. Now we have low taxes for the rich and low wages, so 23% of total income goes to the top 1%.

70% of our economy is consumer demand. Too much money in too few hands starves the economy of demand.

Raise the minimum wage and tax capital gains as income.

 

[dnsmith35]

Actually, the prior poster asked where the trial that resulted in an $8.7 billion settlement against Bank of America was held, did you notice?

I have noticeD you have not produced a criminal trial. :LOL:

"Bank of America Corp.’s $8.5 billion settlement with mortgage-securities investors can go through after all, a New York state judge said Wednesday. But dissenting investors like American International Group Inc. plan to keep protesting.

Judge rules against AIG in Bank of America's $8.5 billion settlement - The Tell - MarketWatch

Learn to read.

Still no tie in to my comments. There was no criminal trial, conviction and sentence.

Why don't you ever address the issues instead of going off on unrelated tangents.

There's nothing unrelated about my response to your question of "where was the trial?" Here's where the trial was held:

"NEW YORK, Oct 23 (Reuters) - Bank of America Corp was found liable for fraud on Wednesday over defective mortgages sold by its Countrywide unit, a major win for the U.S. government in one of the few trials stemming from the financial crisis.

"After a four-week trial, a federal jury in New York found the bank liable on one civil fraud charge. Countrywide originated shoddy home loans in a process called 'Hustle' and sold them to government mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government said.

With government blessing!

"The four men and six women on the jury also found former Countrywide executive Rebecca Mairone liable on the one fraud charge she faced.

Wowee! One lady! She was absolutely responsible for the housing crash Wake up and smell the coffee, Freddie and Fannie competed hard to buy those loans, they lost, and now they want someone else to pay.

"The U.S. Justice Department has said it would seek up to $848.2 million, the gross loss it said Fannie and Freddie suffered on the loans. But it will be up to U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff to decide on the penalty. Arguments on how the judge will assess penalties are set for Dec. 5.

"Any penalty would add to the more than $40 billion Bank of America has spent on disputes stemming from the 2008 financial crisis."

Bank Of America Liable For Fraud In Countrywide Mortgage Case: Jury

I wonder if you'll bitch about civil as opposed criminal conviction
Sure you will.
Bitch.

If you are not guilty in a criminal trial, IT IS NOT CRIMINAL FRAUD. One banking system chose to settle out of court and another banking system chose to object for what ever their reasons were and sued. Civil arguments are not crimes, and obviously you are not smart enough to figure that out. In fact you aren't smart enough to figure most everything out.

When are you going to address the Wachter and Levitin bull crap you threw out the other day?

 

[Andylusion]

Still no tie in to my comments. There was no criminal trial, conviction and sentence.

Why don't you ever address the issues instead of going off on unrelated tangents.With government blessing!Wowee! One lady! She was absolutely responsible for the housing crash Wake up and smell the coffee, Freddie and Fannie competed hard to buy those loans, they lost, and now they want someone else to pay.If you are not guilty in a criminal trial, IT IS NOT CRIMINAL FRAUD. One banking system chose to settle out of court and another banking system chose to object for what ever their reasons were and sued. Civil arguments are not crimes, and obviously you are not smart enough to figure that out. In fact you aren't smart enough to figure most everything out.

When are you going to address the Wachter and Levitin bull crap you threw out the other day?

Like arguing with a brick wall isn't it. Oh wait, bricks give more intelligent responses. Close though.... ever so close...

 

[dnsmith35]

From 1941 to the 1960's we had high taxes on the rich and high wages. The taxes were invested in education and infrastructure and the high wages created consumer demand. Now we have low taxes for the rich and low wages, so 23% of total income goes to the top 1%.

70% of our economy is consumer demand. Too much money in too few hands starves the economy of demand.

Raise the minimum wage and tax capital gains as income.

Yet most of the left wingers on these forums blame Reagan, but IT WAS JFK that did the first big tax decrease on the highest marginal bracket, by 21% and he reduced corporate taxes as well while only reducing taxes on the lowest bracket by 6%.

When you say there is too much money in the hands of a few, do you think if that money was redistributed to the 2 or 3 lower quintiles they would invest that money to create jobs? You are totally economics challenged.

 

[Chris]

From 1941 to the 1960's we had high taxes on the rich and high wages. The taxes were invested in education and infrastructure and the high wages created consumer demand. Now we have low taxes for the rich and low wages, so 23% of total income goes to the top 1%.

70% of our economy is consumer demand. Too much money in too few hands starves the economy of demand.

Raise the minimum wage and tax capital gains as income.

Yet most of the left wingers on these forums blame Reagan, but IT WAS JFK that did the first big tax decrease on the highest marginal bracket, by 21% and he reduced corporate taxes as well while only reducing taxes on the lowest bracket by 6%.

When you say there is too much money in the hands of a few, do you think if that money was redistributed to the 2 or 3 lower quintiles they would invest that money to create jobs? You are totally economics challenged.

A nice argument for slavery.

Good job.

 

[Andylusion]

From 1941 to the 1960's we had high taxes on the rich and high wages. The taxes were invested in education and infrastructure and the high wages created consumer demand. Now we have low taxes for the rich and low wages, so 23% of total income goes to the top 1%.

70% of our economy is consumer demand. Too much money in too few hands starves the economy of demand.

Raise the minimum wage and tax capital gains as income.

Yet most of the left wingers on these forums blame Reagan, but IT WAS JFK that did the first big tax decrease on the highest marginal bracket, by 21% and he reduced corporate taxes as well while only reducing taxes on the lowest bracket by 6%.

When you say there is too much money in the hands of a few, do you think if that money was redistributed to the 2 or 3 lower quintiles they would invest that money to create jobs? You are totally economics challenged.

A nice argument for slavery.

Good job.

Nice, non-argument. Good job.

The moment some idiot brings up slavery, he's lost the argument.

 

[Chris]

Yet most of the left wingers on these forums blame Reagan, but IT WAS JFK that did the first big tax decrease on the highest marginal bracket, by 21% and he reduced corporate taxes as well while only reducing taxes on the lowest bracket by 6%.

When you say there is too much money in the hands of a few, do you think if that money was redistributed to the 2 or 3 lower quintiles they would invest that money to create jobs? You are totally economics challenged.

A nice argument for slavery.

Good job.

Nice, non-argument. Good job.

The moment some idiot brings up slavery, he's lost the argument.

You are arguing that paying people at the bottom does nothing to create jobs.

Apology accepted, Captain Needa.

 

[Chris]

The business journal Bloomberg Businessweek points out that the country of Denmark has a minimum pay rate of the equivalent of about $20 an hour, but its business climate is sufficiently healthy for the World Bank to ranked it as the easiest place in Europe to do business in 2011, 2012, and 2013. Denmark is also "among the leading countries in income equality and national happiness." Denmark also had a lower unemployment rate (6.8%) and higher labor participation rate (64.4%) than the United States (7.4%, 63.6% as of September 2013) where the minimum wage is far lower ($7.25).

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

The government can only affect the money supply, instead of the concept of "making a profit".

Yes, it two primary ways, fiscal and monetary policy. IE printing money which tends to cause inflation and lower interest rates artificially which also tends to cause inflation. That is exactly what happened in the Housing Balloon and subsequent crash.

Increasing the money supply will most likely increase prices, that's basic monetary theory, equation of exchange
MV=PQ

If the government increases taxes such that it can create a new service which employs some otherwise unemployed people, your argument is that this is a net loss because some money collected by the government disappears into "overhead".

Yep!

Agreed as to what your claim is.

Where you suppose this "overhead" money goes, if not back into the national economy?

Wow! You don't realize that the government spends money off shore? Gives away money off shore in foreign aid? Where do you think that money comes from? Under the mattress? It comes out of our economy and is never replaced.

That's not "overhead", that's foreign aid. Overhead is a government clerk pegging away at a calculator and filing forms, as opposed to the paychecks received by the hypothetical workers who were the intended beneficiaries of the hypothetical government program. Overhead is what I need to tack on to billing in order to account for my electric bill, licenses, keeping my lawyer on retainer, etc.

Is it your contention that Keynes was wrong because of foreign aid?
If you want to give me a lecture on stagflation that's one thing; but let's leave the starving kids in poor countries out of this.

Going back to JFK's attempt at supply side economic theory of giving money to investors and corporations in the form of a 21% reduction to the marginal rate of the highest bracket while giving the lower bracket only 6% rate cuts, and on top of that he cut corporate income taxes hoping to help an economic recovery, which would have ended without his meddling. I was all for it at the time, but have since gotten a lot of economics education through a Masters degree. What could he have done to help more? Spent money directly on infrastructure programs starting immediately. As it was the rich got richer.
Keynesian economics sounds great, especially to the masses who may actually believe its going to help them But instead of giving money to people to spend, it stimulates job growth directly much more if you contract for big infrastructure jobs. TVA and Boulder/Hoover Dam come to mind.

You're talking about Kennedy's Tax Cuts. You would prefer infrastructure programs.
Okay... How is that not Keynesian economics?
Was it not Keynes who said:

It is also obvious from the above that the employment of a given number of men on public works will (on the assumptions made) have a much larger effect on aggregate employment at a time when there is severe unemployment, than it will have later on when full employment is approached. In the above example, if, at a time when employment has fallen to 5,200,000, an additional 100,000 men are employed on public works, total employment will rise to 6,400,000. But if employment is already 9,000,000 when the additional 100,000 men are taken on for public works, total employment will only rise to 9,200,000. Thus public works even of doubtful utility may pay for themselves over and over again at a time of severe unemployment, if only from the diminished cost of relief expenditure, provided that we can assume that a smaller proportion of income is saved when unemployment is greater; but they may become a more doubtful proposition as a state of full employment is approached.
​

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

Again, you posted something that didn't answer anything the prior poster said. Didn't have anything to do with the topic. Doesn't prove any of the claims you made.

You simply don't know, that what you said, didn't make a point. You are simply too ignorant of a person to conduct a rational debate with. The only people who think you have a point, are those who are also too ignorant to debate with.

You prove Thomas Sowell right, with every idiotic incoherent post you make.

Learn to read.

No, I get that he asked a question, and you answer the question.

No, I get that he asked a question, and you answer the question.

Again, Androw, you posted something that didn't answer anything the prior poster said. Didn't have anything to do with the topic. Doesn't prove any of the claims you made.

You simply don't know, that what you said, didn't make a point. You are simply too ignorant of a person to conduct a rational debate with. The only people who think you have a point, are those who are also too ignorant to debate with.

You prove Thomas Sowell right, with every idiotic incoherent post you make.​

rotflmao! Do you read the ignorant crap you post?
speaking of being too ignorant to debate, go look in the mirror and do some formatting.
yep, zombie, you sure do. The point was simple. I asked george a question. He didn't answer it, and chose to go off on a tangent. Then he chided androw for not accepting his tangent, and you fell right into the dumbass pit right after george.

Those were Androw's exact words, hence in italics, fed back to him for saying something stupid. You obviously missed that, and then went on to crow over something stupid.

Good Job! When does your puppet show commence?

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

Yet most of the left wingers on these forums blame Reagan, but IT WAS JFK that did the first big tax decrease on the highest marginal bracket, by 21% and he reduced corporate taxes as well while only reducing taxes on the lowest bracket by 6%.

When you say there is too much money in the hands of a few, do you think if that money was redistributed to the 2 or 3 lower quintiles they would invest that money to create jobs? You are totally economics challenged.

A nice argument for slavery.

Good job.

Nice, non-argument. Good job.

The moment some idiot brings up slavery, he's lost the argument.

The moment some idiot claims the other guy lost the argument on the grounds of rules he just made up, he admits he didn't know what the argument was in the first place.

 

[Chris]

I realize gov't social engineering often fails but in this case we, as a nation, tried to include our least capable in the American dream. It was a noble idea that, other than a few exceptions, failed miserably.

Wall Street ran a derivatives based Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy.
It wasn't the housing market.

Your harping on an incorrect cause of the recession proves your ignorance of the entire subject.

How did 4% of American homes being in foreclosure bring down the economy of Iceland?

 

[Andylusion]

The business journal Bloomberg Businessweek points out that the country of Denmark has a minimum pay rate of the equivalent of about $20 an hour, but its business climate is sufficiently healthy for the World Bank to ranked it as the easiest place in Europe to do business in 2011, 2012, and 2013. Denmark is also "among the leading countries in income equality and national happiness." Denmark also had a lower unemployment rate (6.8%) and higher labor participation rate (64.4%) than the United States (7.4%, 63.6% as of September 2013) where the minimum wage is far lower ($7.25).

Um.... fail? Bloomberg is wrong. Go look it up. Denmark has no minimum wage at all.

Denmark does have unions. The average wage for Unions is $20/hr. That's not too far off from the US actually.

Those that are not members of the union, have no minimum wage.

And even those that are in the Unions, $20/hr is the AVERAGE. Not the minimum. That's the average. Meaning some are higher, for jobs that have a higher value, and others are lower, for jobs with lower value.

So, no, sorry. Wrong.

 

[Andylusion]

Wall Street ran a derivatives based Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy.
It wasn't the housing market.

Your harping on an incorrect cause of the recession proves your ignorance of the entire subject.

How did 4% of American homes being in foreclosure bring down the economy of Iceland?

It didn't.

 

[georgephillip]

The business journal Bloomberg Businessweek points out that the country of Denmark has a minimum pay rate of the equivalent of about $20 an hour, but its business climate is sufficiently healthy for the World Bank to ranked it as the easiest place in Europe to do business in 2011, 2012, and 2013. Denmark is also "among the leading countries in income equality and national happiness." Denmark also had a lower unemployment rate (6.8%) and higher labor participation rate (64.4%) than the United States (7.4%, 63.6% as of September 2013) where the minimum wage is far lower ($7.25).

Um.... fail? Bloomberg is wrong. Go look it up. Denmark has no minimum wage at all.

Denmark does have unions. The average wage for Unions is $20/hr. That's not too far off from the US actually.

Those that are not members of the union, have no minimum wage.

And even those that are in the Unions, $20/hr is the AVERAGE. Not the minimum. That's the average. Meaning some are higher, for jobs that have a higher value, and others are lower, for jobs with lower value.

So, no, sorry. Wrong.

As usual, a simplistic assessment of reality. The Danish minimum wage is effective in the sense it is negotiated with unions and is approximately equal to $20/hour in the US.

How does that effective minimum wage affect workers and consumers at McDonalds in Denmark?

"The average full-time equivalent McDonald’s employee in Denmark makes about $45,000 a year in total compensation.

"Forty-five thousand dollars!

"Even after high Danish taxes, that average worker will take home some $28,000 a year, roughly double what a full-time American McDonald’s worker will.

"To add insult to injury, the Dane gets at least five weeks of paid vacation while the American is lucky to get off (unpaid, of course) when her daughter is home sick with the flu.

"And so at the Aalborg McDonald’s, for instance, a Big Mac extra value meal costs 58 kroner, or $10.25, while the Dollar Menu is the 10 kroner menu, which means it’s the dollar-seventy-seven menu here.

"In Denmark, taxes are included in list prices, unlike in the US, so backing out the 25 percent VAT gives us $8.20 for a Big Mac meal and $1.41 for the 'dollar' menu.

"That compares to $6 and $1 in Seattle.

"According to Bloomberg View’s Caroline Baum, such a high minimum wage should mean that scads of Danes can’t find work because it 'violates the most basic principle of economics': the law of supply and demand.

"Of course, Baum is empirically wrong.

"Denmark’s unemployment rate is 6.8 percent, despite its close ties to the depressed eurozone. That’s well below the 7.4 percent rate in the US, where the minimum wage is $7.25.

The minimum wage and the Danish Big Mac : Columbia Journalism Review

 

[georgephillip]

No, I get that he asked a question, and you answer the question.

I'm talking about the entire focus of the discussion. We've come full circle back to BoA, and Countrywide.

Did you miss the fact that government pushed BoA to buy Countrywide?

If Countrywide had gone through normal bankruptcy proceedings, all of this crap you are complaining about, would have been taken care of in court. But leftards, like you, push for a buyout paid for by government, and now you are b!tching about it?

And what does this have to do with sub-prime loans? Nothing. What does this have to do with the cause of the price bubble? Nothing. What does this have to do with capitalism or inequality? Nothing.

What does this have to do with anything?

And worse, we've been over this already. You don't even remember, this is like that 3rd time we've covered this topic in this thread. You are like a broken record of bad arguments, repeated over and over, never realizing your own failure.

You want to talk about this, fine.

EVERY SINGLE TIME THAT GOVERNMENT GIVES OUT BUSINESS OR MONEY, PEOPLE WILL TRY TO INFLUENCE WHERE THAT MONEY GOES.

This is true in any social economic system. When government announces it plans to increase 'green-energy spending', thousands of companies start spending money to influence where that money goes, so they can get some.

The Freedom Car, is a perfect example. Dozens of company vying for a handout.

And you have failed to mention the most obvious examples, Fannie and Freddie both spent MILLIONS to influence government on their behalf.

The same is true in Pre-78 china and Soviet Russia. Government corporations spent money all the time to get influence for preferable treatment by the Kremlin and the Central Politburo of China.

So here you have Countrywide, who had deep ties with Fannie Mae, got special treatment, and you are shocked and surprised that Countrywide greased the hands that fed them?

Really? This is a surprise to whom? Leftards too dumb to know how socialism works?

The rest of us on the right, know this is how socialism always works. Government hands out goodies through Fannie and Freddie, and people will reciprocate. It's normal. Happens everywhere in the world.

You want to stop that, no amount of fines or trials, or legislation is going to do anything. The only way to stop it, is to eliminate government involvement in mortgages. Cut Fannie and Freddie off. Break them up, and never bailout them, or anyone else, again.

When companies realize there is no money to be had from government, they'll stop wasting their money on lobbying. End socialism. That's the solution.

When you say "eliminate government involvement in mortgages" are you including the Federal Reserve? Why or why not?

The Federal Reserve is unfortunately unavoidable. I'd much rather have a commodity backed currency, but that is simply not going to happen.

As long as we have a fiat currency, and there is no other practical option in today's economy, then we must have a Federal Reserve, or some other system.

Historically, the most free banking systems, are often the most stable. But government, and socialists, like controlling the banks, and this is one form of control. Spain is a perfect example, of government, and in this case literally socialists, love their control over banks for their own benefit, even to the destruction of their people and country.

That said, when I mean government out of mortgages, I means, exactly that. Before 1932, if someone wanted to buy a home, they either saved up the money to buy the home, or they had to go to a private bank, to make a private loan, and the bank held that loan, or didn't make it.

People didn't borrow to buy homes. Consequently homes were more reasonably priced, and people didn't get foreclosed on, or bankrupted.

Of course the politicians couldn't claim they were "sticking up for the little guy" like Fannie and Freddie allow them to today. And of course, Fannie and Freddie didn't cause a country wide catastrophe, like they did in 2008, because they didn't exist before 1932.

Encouraging people to go into debt itself, is stupidity. Debt is slavery. It might be slavery by voluntary contract, but once you sign, you are now a servant to the banks.

I'm not inherently against banks, because banks are offering what people want. I'm against people wanting something stupid. Debt, is stupid. We should not be encouraging our citizens to be slaves to banks. Fannie and Freddie should be completely eliminated. The mortgage tax deduction, should be eliminated (along with all deductions). We should encourage our citizens to act with fiscal responsibility, and bailout no one ever. We should eliminate bankruptcy laws, that allow people out of their contractual debts, so that they don't get into contractual debts.

When you claimed governments and socialists like to control banks, did you mean to imply that capitalists do not or that the Rothschild brothers were socialists?

"The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits or be so dependent upon its favours that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests.” The Rothschild brothers of London writing to associates in New York, 1863."

I'm not clear on what advantage central banking bestows upon capital, are you?

Famous Quotations on Banking

 

[georgephillip]

Actually, the prior poster asked where the trial that resulted in an $8.7 billion settlement against Bank of America was held, did you notice?

I have noticeD you have not produced a criminal trial. :LOL:

"Bank of America Corp.’s $8.5 billion settlement with mortgage-securities investors can go through after all, a New York state judge said Wednesday. But dissenting investors like American International Group Inc. plan to keep protesting.

Judge rules against AIG in Bank of America's $8.5 billion settlement - The Tell - MarketWatch

Learn to read.

Still no tie in to my comments. There was no criminal trial, conviction and sentence.

Why don't you ever address the issues instead of going off on unrelated tangents.With government blessing!

"The four men and six women on the jury also found former Countrywide executive Rebecca Mairone liable on the one fraud charge she faced.

Wowee! One lady! She was absolutely responsible for the housing crash Wake up and smell the coffee, Freddie and Fannie competed hard to buy those loans, they lost, and now they want someone else to pay.

"The U.S. Justice Department has said it would seek up to $848.2 million, the gross loss it said Fannie and Freddie suffered on the loans. But it will be up to U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff to decide on the penalty. Arguments on how the judge will assess penalties are set for Dec. 5.

"Any penalty would add to the more than $40 billion Bank of America has spent on disputes stemming from the 2008 financial crisis."

Bank Of America Liable For Fraud In Countrywide Mortgage Case: Jury

I wonder if you'll bitch about civil as opposed criminal conviction
Sure you will.
Bitch.

If you are not guilty in a criminal trial, IT IS NOT CRIMINAL FRAUD. One banking system chose to settle out of court and another banking system chose to object for what ever their reasons were and sued. Civil arguments are not crimes, and obviously you are not smart enough to figure that out. In fact you aren't smart enough to figure most everything out.

When are you going to address the Wachter and Levitin bull crap you threw out the other day?

When you get around to explaining why the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission used a variant of the word "fraud" 157 times to explain the origin of the crisis.

"As the commission found, the signs of fraud were everywhere to be seen, with the number of reports of suspected mortgage fraud rising twenty-fold between 1996 and 2005 and then doubling again in the next four years. As early as 2004, FBI Assistant Director Chris Swecker was publicly warning of the 'pervasive problem' of mortgage fraud, driven by the voracious demand for mortgage-backed securities.

"Similar warnings, many from within the financial community, were disregarded, not because they were viewed as inaccurate, but because, as one high-level banker put it, 'A decision was made that "We’re going to have to hold our nose and start buying the stated product if we want to stay in business.’”

The reason there have been no convictions for criminal fraud in this latest looting is exactly the same as the reason why the looting occurred in the first place. Rich parasites funding the election campaigns and retirements of legislators and regulators who were empowered to prevent the epidemic of fraud.

The Financial Crisis: Why Have No High-Level Executives Been Prosecuted? by Jed S. Rakoff | The New York Review of Books