Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[itfitzme]

When banks hand millions of people hundreds of thousands of dollars, but not only do not get the interest on that back, they don't even the principle back - yes, that collapses housing markets.

Ask yourself if you can do basic math!

Again, you can't do math because you can't measure reality.

We've backed up everything we've said with facts, links, and hard data. What have you got, junior? Nothing but uninformed opinion. You're so far removed from "reality" in your immature daydream of utopia you don't even recognize reality any more. Sad.

It is pretty obvious you haven't debunked or proven anything. Saying "I debunked it" doesn't make it debunked. And, in order to say, "hard data", you actually have to have hard data.

 

[Contumacious]

The housing bubble was exactly what can be expected of a inefficient free market. .

Excuse me dingle berry, Sir:

Explain clearly and succinctly why is the GOVERNMENT MANDATED CRA consider "free market"?!?!?!?!?

Your big font with no actual information just makes you look really stupid.

First, CRA didn't cause the housing bubble.

.

BULLSHIT

The Government-Created Subprime Mortgage Meltdown

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

.........is the direct result of thirty years of government policy that has forced banks to make bad loans to un-creditworthy borrowers. The policy in question is the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which compels banks to make loans to low-income borrowers and in what the supporters of the Act call "communities of color" that they might not otherwise make based on purely economic criteria.

.

 

[itfitzme]

Excuse me dingle berry, Sir:

Explain clearly and succinctly why is the GOVERNMENT MANDATED CRA consider "free market"?!?!?!?!?

Your big font with no actual information just makes you look really stupid.

First, CRA didn't cause the housing bubble.

.

BULLSHIT

The Government-Created Subprime Mortgage Meltdown

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

.........is the direct result of thirty years of government policy that has forced banks to make bad loans to un-creditworthy borrowers. The policy in question is the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which compels banks to make loans to low-income borrowers and in what the supporters of the Act call "communities of color" that they might not otherwise make based on purely economic criteria.

.

Repeating statements made by hacks with no supporting data doesn't mean anything.

What you have is simple bs.

You can't make all the big fonts you but all you are doing is demonstrating that you can't tell the difference between a font and actual info.

But hey, if you want to waste good money on that hacks book, go ahead.

 

[Contumacious]

Your big font with no actual information just makes you look really stupid.

First, CRA didn't cause the housing bubble.

.

BULLSHIT

The Government-Created Subprime Mortgage Meltdown

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

.........is the direct result of thirty years of government policy that has forced banks to make bad loans to un-creditworthy borrowers. The policy in question is the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which compels banks to make loans to low-income borrowers and in what the supporters of the Act call "communities of color" that they might not otherwise make based on purely economic criteria.

.

Repeating statements made by hacks with no supporting data doesn't mean anything.

Isn't it a fact you low life scum sucker that :

"Banks have been placed in a Catch 22 situation by the CRA: If they comply, they know they will have to suffer from more loan defaults. If they don't comply, they face financial penalties and, worse yet, their business plans for mergers, branch expansions, etc. can be blocked by CRA protesters, which can cost a large corporation like Bank of America billions of dollars. Like most businesses, they have largely buckled under and have surrendered to their bureaucratic masters." ?!?!?!?!?!?!!?

/

 

[P@triot]

Again, you can't do math because you can't measure reality.

We've backed up everything we've said with facts, links, and hard data. What have you got, junior? Nothing but uninformed opinion. You're so far removed from "reality" in your immature daydream of utopia you don't even recognize reality any more. Sad.

It is pretty obvious you haven't debunked or proven anything. Saying "I debunked it" doesn't make it debunked. And, in order to say, "hard data", you actually have to have hard data.

There is nothing worse than the partisan asshat hacks like you. You've been slaughtered with facts in this thread. You're inability to accept reality is your problem. Not ours. You've been thoroughly owned...

 

[gnarlylove]

Yeah, Jamie Dimon's bonus was too low. All those poor bankers, they are crippled by CRA. They can't do good business when basic regulatory features that were intended to balance the economy prevents them from profiting all the time. Such a wretched catch 22 to be a banker and not as rich/irresponsible as you wish.

 

[P@triot]

Your big font with no actual information just makes you look really stupid.

First, CRA didn't cause the housing bubble.

.

BULLSHIT

The Government-Created Subprime Mortgage Meltdown

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

.........is the direct result of thirty years of government policy that has forced banks to make bad loans to un-creditworthy borrowers. The policy in question is the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which compels banks to make loans to low-income borrowers and in what the supporters of the Act call "communities of color" that they might not otherwise make based on purely economic criteria.

.

Repeating statements made by hacks with no supporting data doesn't mean anything.

What you have is simple bs.

You can't make all the big fonts you but all you are doing is demonstrating that you can't tell the difference between a font and actual info.

But hey, if you want to waste good money on that hacks book, go ahead.

So the person in this article is a "hack", but [MENTION=35236]itfitzme[/MENTION] who is sitting in his government subsidized home on his government subsidized computer is "someone"

We've crushed with you facts, links, and indisputable hard data. You're inability to accept reality because it clashes with your immature ideology is your problem junior....

Game. Set. Match.

 

[P@triot]

Yeah, Jamie Dimon's bonus was too low. All those poor bankers, they are crippled by CRA. They can't do good business when basic regulatory features that were intended to balance the economy prevents them from profiting all the time. Such a wretched catch 22 to be a banker and not as rich/irresponsible as you wish.

"Balance the economy"? Really? "Balance the economy"? Oh man, you are new - aren't you? Let me guess, you believe Obama really, truly, actually cares about you as well, uh?

The Community Re-Investment Act was never intended to "balance" the economy (that's such a nonsensical term I don't know whether to fall down laughing or throw up in disgust). The economy requires no "balancing" (you do realize that an economy is not a car tire, don't you?).

It was done for one reason and one reasonably only (the same reason the Dumbocrats do anything) - to funnel "stuff" to the parasite class in exchange for power.

This dude is the most naive crunch granola liberal I have ever encountered. I almost want to take him home with me!

 

[gnarlylove]

I know Obama is the same scum that is groomed by social and political elites. I am not ignorant of this fact Rot. I hope you are not ignorant to the fact neither parties represent public interest as much as their own.

When you think poor people are parasites, its natural for you to think any investment in their well-being or security is outlandish and not worthwhile. That's fine, so long as you know that such policies only further entrench education and achievement gaps creating an ever growing "parasite class." I assume you don't want more parasites do you? CRA helps regulate capital flow in a manner that reduces favoritism towards those who are already wealthy. Us parasites wouldn't be parasites if we had the same opportunities and education but you choose to frame this as a political match rather than real human issues. That's fine and bleed Republican all you want but you cannot escape the fact the same blood you bleed is the same that runs throughout all humanity, even the lowliest of parasites. (4 basic blood types)

DBlack, I know I've offered a bunch of sources but found this to be apt for our discussion:
A Capitalist Road to Communism

 

[georgephillip]

Public banks? Awesome!
Just what Illinois needs, another way for our crooked politicians to reward their friends.

Illinois should go Red

"But North Dakota is also red in another sense: it fully supports its state-owned Bank of North Dakota (BND), a socialist relic that exists nowhere else in America.

"Why is financial socialism still alive in North Dakota?

"Why haven't the North Dakotan free-market crusaders slain it dead?

"Because it works.

"In 1919, the Non-Partisan League, a vibrant populist organization, won a majority in the legislature and voted the bank into existence.

"The goal was to free North Dakota farmers from impoverishing debt dependence on the big banks in the Twin Cities, Chicago and New York.

"More than 90 years later, this state-owned bank is thriving as it helps the state's community banks, businesses, consumers and students obtain loans at reasonable rates.

"It also delivers a handsome profit to its owners -- the 700,000 residents of North Dakota.

"In 2011, the BND provided more than $70 million to the state's coffers.

"Extrapolate that profit-per-person to a big state like California and you're looking at an extra $3.8 billion a year in state revenues that could be used to fund education and infrastructure."

Why Is Socialism Doing So Darn Well in Deep-Red North Dakota? | Alternet

Awesome, right?

Yes, your idiocy is awesome!

"Extrapolate that profit-per-person to a big state like California and you're looking at an extra $3.8 billion a year in state revenues that could be used to fund education and infrastructure."

Where is California, or Illinois, going to get the money to start the bank?
Why put the taxpayer on the hook for crony loans?
Even if you somehow started out only making sane, conservative loans, political pressure would soon result in loans to green, that means money-losing, projects.

"As large as California's liabilities are, they are exceeded by its assets, which are sufficient to capitalize a bank rivaling any in the world.

"That's the idea behind Assembly Bill 750, introduced by Assemblyman Ben Hueso of San Diego, which would establish a blue ribbon task force to consider the viability of creating the California Investment Trust, a state bank receiving deposits of state funds.

"Instead of relying on Wall Street banks for credit -- or allowing Wall Street banks to enjoy the benefits of lending its capital -- California may decide to create its own, publicly-owned bank.

"On May 2, AB 750 moved out of the Banking and Finance Committee with only one nay vote and is now on its way to the Appropriations Committee. Three unions submitted their support for the bill -- the California Nurses Association, the California Firefighters and the California Labor Council.

"The state bank idea also got a nod from former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich in his speech at the California Democratic Convention in Sacramento the previous day.

"California joins eleven other states that have introduced bills to form state-owned banks or to study their feasibility.

"Eight of these bills were introduced just since January, including in Oregon, Washington State, Massachusetts, Arizona, Maryland, New Mexico, Maine and California. Illinois, Virginia, Hawaii and Louisiana introduced similar bills in 2010. For links, dates and text, see here."

Can't police your pols?
Move to Jersey.

Ellen Brown: What a Public Bank Could Mean for California

 

[P@triot]

I know Obama is the same scum that is groomed by social and political elites. I am not ignorant of this fact Rot. I hope you are not ignorant to the fact neither parties represent public interest as much as their own.

When you think poor people are parasites, its natural for you to think any investment in their well-being or security is outlandish and not worthwhile. That's fine, so long as you know that such policies only further entrench education and achievement gaps creating an ever growing "parasite class." I assume you don't want more parasites do you? CRA helps regulate capital flow in a manner that reduces favoritism towards those who are already wealthy. Us parasites wouldn't be parasites if we had the same opportunities and education but you choose to frame this as a political match rather than real human issues. That's fine and bleed Republican all you want but you cannot escape the fact the same blood you bleed is the same that runs throughout all humanity, even the lowliest of parasites. (4 basic blood types)

DBlack, I know I've offered a bunch of sources but found this to be apt for our discussion:
A Capitalist Road to Communism

GL - history has proven that people control their own path both in and out of poverty. Make the decision to have "fun" shooting up heroin at a party - end up in poverty. Make the decision to get an education - end up out of poverty.

This is not rocket science and there is no mystical force controlling in all. Therefore, it does not require an unconstitutional "investment" in the parasite class. Any person in poverty right now can get a minimum wage job at McDonald's and have their tuition paid in full.

You operate under the assumption that the entire thing is beyond the control of people and that is simply false. Show me a person in poverty more than a decade and I will show you a person who is either lazy, stupid, or addicted to some substance every time.

 

[itfitzme]

BULLSHIT

The Government-Created Subprime Mortgage Meltdown

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

.........is the direct result of thirty years of government policy that has forced banks to make bad loans to un-creditworthy borrowers. The policy in question is the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which compels banks to make loans to low-income borrowers and in what the supporters of the Act call "communities of color" that they might not otherwise make based on purely economic criteria.

.

Repeating statements made by hacks with no supporting data doesn't mean anything.

Isn't it a fact you low life scum sucker that :

"Banks have been placed in a Catch 22 situation by the CRA: If they comply, they know they will have to suffer from more loan defaults. If they don't comply, they face financial penalties and, worse yet, their business plans for mergers, branch expansions, etc. can be blocked by CRA protesters, which can cost a large corporation like Bank of America billions of dollars. Like most businesses, they have largely buckled under and have surrendered to their bureaucratic masters." ?!?!?!?!?!?!!?

/

The emotional rhetoric is a complete nonsequiter. I'm sure you feel that "bureaucratic masters" has meaning. It doesn't.

I can guarantee that you have no actual evidence to back up " they will have to suffer from more loan defaults".

I am sure you believe these must be true.

I am sure you believe alot of thing must be true that aren't.

 

[itfitzme]

We've backed up everything we've said with facts, links, and hard data. What have you got, junior? Nothing but uninformed opinion. You're so far removed from "reality" in your immature daydream of utopia you don't even recognize reality any more. Sad.

It is pretty obvious you haven't debunked or proven anything. Saying "I debunked it" doesn't make it debunked. And, in order to say, "hard data", you actually have to have hard data.

There is nothing worse than the partisan asshat hacks like you. You've been slaughtered with facts in this thread. You're inability to accept reality is your problem. Not ours. You've been thoroughly owned...

No doubt you believe it. You haven't done anything though. All yoi've managed to do is make unsupported claims. It is one thing to say "it's been debunked". It js a completely different thing to actually presemt the numbers.

The problem you have is that you don't know what real substantiating evidence is.

 

[boedicca]

Socialism guarantees increased equality at a level of squalor, excepting of course, the Rarified Overlords entrusted to tell us how to live.

 

[Contumacious]

Repeating statements made by hacks with no supporting data doesn't mean anything.

Isn't it a fact you low life scum sucker that :

"Banks have been placed in a Catch 22 situation by the CRA: If they comply, they know they will have to suffer from more loan defaults. If they don't comply, they face financial penalties and, worse yet, their business plans for mergers, branch expansions, etc. can be blocked by CRA protesters, which can cost a large corporation like Bank of America billions of dollars. Like most businesses, they have largely buckled under and have surrendered to their bureaucratic masters." ?!?!?!?!?!?!!?

/

The emotional rhetoric is a complete nonsequiter. I'm sure you feel that "bureaucratic masters" has meaning. It doesn't.

I can guarantee that you have no actual evidence to back up " they will have to suffer from more loan defaults".

I am sure you believe these must be true.

I am sure you believe alot of thing must be true that aren't.

"Did the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) Lead to Risky Lending?,"

Yes, it did. We use exogenous variation in banks’ incentives to conform to the standards of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) around regulatory exam dates to trace out the effect of the CRA on lending activity. Our empirical strategy compares lending behavior of banks undergoing CRA exams within a given census tract in a given month to the behavior of banks operating in the same census tract-month that do not face these exams. We find that adherence to the act led to riskier lending by banks: in the six quarters surrounding the CRA exams lending is elevated on average by about 5 percent every quarter and loans in these quarters default by about 15 percent more often. These patterns are accentuated in CRA-eligible census tracts and are concentrated among large banks. The effects are strongest during the time period when the market for private securitization was booming."

 

[georgephillip]

The loans to poor people were not the cause of the crash. The government played some role in the crash but there is plenty of blame to go around and the vast majority comes down to common problems markets can have..

BULLSHIT

The Government-Created Subprime Mortgage Meltdown

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

.........is the direct result of thirty years of government policy that has forced banks to make bad loans to un-creditworthy borrowers. The policy in question is the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which compels banks to make loans to low-income borrowers and in what the supporters of the Act call "communities of color" that they might not otherwise make based on purely economic criteria.

.

Wall Street speculators and their DC cronies caused the subprime mortgage meltdown:

"The subprime mortgage boom and the subsequent crash are very much concentrated in the private market, not the public market.

"Subprime is a creature of the private label securitization channel (PLS) market, instead of the Government-Sponsored Entities (GSEs, or Fannie and Freddie).

"The fly-by-night lending boom, slicing and dicing mortgage bonds, derivatives and CDOs, and all the other shadiness of the mortgage market in the 2000s were Wall Street creations, and they drove all those risky mortgages.

"Here's some data to back that up: 'More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions... Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.'"

The majority of loans responsible for the meltdown were made by private institutions not even covered by CRA loan requirements.

No, Marco Rubio, government did not cause the housing crisis

 

[itfitzme]

Yeah, Jamie Dimon's bonus was too low. All those poor bankers, they are crippled by CRA. They can't do good business when basic regulatory features that were intended to balance the economy prevents them from profiting all the time. Such a wretched catch 22 to be a banker and not as rich/irresponsible as you wish.

"Balance the economy"? Really? "Balance the economy"? Oh man, you are new - aren't you? Let me guess, you believe Obama really, truly, actually cares about you as well, uh?

The Community Re-Investment Act was never intended to "balance" the economy (that's such a nonsensical term I don't know whether to fall down laughing or throw up in disgust). The economy requires no "balancing" (you do realize that an economy is not a car tire, don't you?).

It was done for one reason and one reasonably only (the same reason the Dumbocrats do anything) - to funnel "stuff" to the parasite class in exchange for power.

This dude is the most naive crunch granola liberal I have ever encountered. I almost want to take him home with me!

Again, you say nothing significant except to demonstrate ignorance.

Tell us, oh brilliant economist, what is mathematical the definition of price elasticity? How is it related to market power?

What is the criteria at which a company has maximized profit. Derive it.

And regarding your CRA bs, surely you can present the histrical data of the percentage of CRA loans; 1st, 2nd, 3rd and fourth mortages; subprime loans; govt guaranteed motgages along with the default rates of each.

It's a little thing that economists like to call "counting". It is common among the sciences and necessary "to do the math".

Saying "naive crunch granola liberal" means nothing except that you are good at mental masterbation. You are great at spouting meaningless insults but can't actualy present researched material, hard data, or deductive arguments from basic principles.

 

[gnarlylove]

I agree people are ultimately responsible for their exit of poverty. After all, they are the individuals in question. However, when gaps in education, income, and opportunities are so severe that people are literally better off joining a gang and selling drugs from an economic standpoint then we have a problem. To you we only have a problem when it affects you and the rest of the world can fuck off. This is classic selfish display and is widely held by many Americans. Indeed, selfishness drives the economy.

However, capitalism has not removed scarcity. Scarcity is rampant in Africa, parts of Asia esp Southeast, and definitely here in America. Those lines I've waited in for soup kitchens represent scarcity yet I could walk into any store with endlessly stocked shelves. This demonstrates the raw power capitalism and its success at being able to produce and manufacture goods.

We are really good at production (globally) and we rely on cheap labor (less than 2 dollars oftentimes). In other words, in order to maintain our global production at affordable prices, we need people to live in scarcity otherwise the rest of us who do not have a big savings would be significantly threatened by having to pay many times higher than the currently affordable prices. And not just a few but billions would be threatened since the middle class is the largest class.

So if we ever wish to reduce the number of parasites, we must address our view of selfish behavior as a desirable trait. In capitalism it drives the economy. Other incentives exist such as recognition, praise, internal reward of helping another person among many others. As long as selfish desire is the baseline incentive, we are going to have "parasites." That's why I think capitalism is far from the final stage of social evolution. As long as all humanity stakes claim to dignity and fair treatment and equal access to basic needs capitalism is going to be revised and revised to meet the demands of all us fabulous parasites.

If you could for just one second realize what it would feel like to have people like yourself shouting at you to work at McDonalds "just get a damn job" when it simply isn't that simple. Indeed, if everyone decided to pick themselves up by their bootstraps suddenly, only a small percentage would be hired because there simply aren't enough jobs (because there is not enough demand in the economy) to create an extra 13 million McDonalds jobs (not even to mention the long term unemployed demarcated @ 6 months). So simply getting hired is not even a realistic strategy save for a small number of individuals.

Your understanding of concepts are good but you fail to grasp certain essential concepts that causes your ideas to have holes, quite large like a well worn prostitute.

It's funny you mention MickeyD's. They rely on socialism to succeed or more accurately the welfare state. Their employees simply cannot support themselves or families without public assistance AND MCDONALDS KNOWS THIS. In fact, MickeyD's has a hotline just for employees to learn more about these programs cause they know their wages are too low. Once again the private gain of a few greedy directors results in the taxpayers picking up the slack despite the fact they made 5 Billion in profits last year! Please take a moment to watch this short clip:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olUsgn-Ubh0]McResources "Help" Line - YouTube[/ame]

 

[georgephillip]

.

I think it's refreshing to have a lefty so honest about what they actually want.

.

This lefty wants a reversal of our continuing decay into a corporate oligarchy:

"Corporate oligarchy is a form of power, governmental or operational, where such power effectively rests with a small, elite group of inside individuals, sometimes from a small group of educational institutions, or influential economic entities or devices, such as banks, commercial entities, lobbyists that act in complicity with, or at the whim of the oligarchy, often with little or no regard for constitutionally protected prerogative.

"Monopolies are sometimes granted to state-controlled entities, such as the Royal Charter granted to the East India Company.

"Today's multinational corporations function as corporate oligarchies with influence over democratically elected officials.

Oligarchy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pity that neither party is interested in breaking up monopolies or oligarchies, or performing any of their constitutionally assigned duties. Both parties would rather focus on redistributing our income and acting as morality police than doing their job.

It's impossible for me to imagine how we change this dynamic by continuing to "choose" between Democrat OR Republican for our congressional representatives; there are established third-party alternatives already appearing on many US ballots...?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The only thing you said that was on point was that the risk was hidden to investors.

Your attempt to talk about the failure rate of these loans is not based in reality. The idea that the CRA started it is not based in reality.

Wrong.

Government pushing new home ownership was DIRECTLY related to the bubble, the CRA being a HUGE part of the Federal Government actions taken to create the bubble. Perhaps you don't understand what cause bubbles to start with or what makes them go pop?

Artificially inflating a sector by infusing government regulations and redistributing income.. almost always leads to an artificial price bubble that pops.

Yeah none of that is true.

If you want to blame the housing bubble on a part of government then look no further than the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates which had a direct impact on the prices of homes. Lower interest rates mean lower monthly payments which means people can afford a higher cost house. Ergo prices went up fast.

Once home prices started going up fast people started treating them like financial instruments which only inflated their prices more. In order for this bubble to happen there has to be a massive capital inflow into these investments. Once again we can look at the Federal Reserve for why that happened.

I am not one to blame the Federal Reserve for private citizens making bad financial choices even if they had a part in the changes in prices.

If you want to blame the housing bubble on a part of government then look no further than the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates which had a direct impact on the prices of homes.

When did the Fed lower rates "too much"?
What level should they have made rates to prevent the bubble?
At what time?