hey democrats ! is Americas capitalistic system a form of white supremacy ?

[Andylusion]

You have to be rioting to be angry? LOL

the rioting and looting makes us angry ....

As do blacks, Hispanics, the young, the old, the informed, the well, the rich, the poor, women, lgbt, latinas, Asians, immigrants, Etc...

As does heat, cold, sunlight, moonlight, damp conditions, dry conditions, global warming, the oceans, the plains, the air, the ground Etc...

the difference is in how the communist democrats like you express their anger ! stop trying to destroy our country with the violence and lawless anarchist .

So you guys mailing bombs to people was an act of love and not anger?
So you guys shooting up Wal*Marts and schools was an act of love and not anger?
So you guys running over political opponents in your car was an act of love and not anger?
So you guys making hit lists of democrats and liberals that you want to kill is an act of love and not anger?

Do us a favor, stop trying to love anyone if that was the case. Do what you always do and try to love yourself.

PS: It's not my fault your hand falls asleep.

"You guys"? When did we mail bombs, or shoot up WalMarts, or run anyone over, or make up hit lists of people we want to kill?

Do US a favor, and stop trying to collectively blame everyone who disagrees with you for acts committed by people you have arbitrarily decided are "just like us".

And spare us your frustrated sexual fantasies about us. Ewwww.

Most blob supporters crave violence. A grotesque bitch like yourself is the perfect mascot. You’re a profane idiot

Oooh, the dog shit I stepped over doesn't approve of me. I'll certainly get on caring about that.

As long as I'm not you, I'm good. I'm not part of a movement going down in history as the New Confederacy.

Your blob said your confederate heritage was under assault. I understand why you’re so angry all the time.

Well yes. You guys are making yourselves utterly repulsive to the American people. It's no wonder Trump won in 2016, and more and more it's looking like 2020 will equally be for Trump.. because you people are just evil terrible disgusting people, that are making everyone hate you.

You are the creators of hate and racism in this country. More people hate blacks now, than ever before.

BS: you’ve always hated blacks, gays, non Protestants, Hispanics, women, the educated, etc...


The blob just validated the latent hatred you’ve always had.

No, not true. Simply not true. You want that to be true, because then it makes you feel better that what you are doing isn't causing the hate you see.

I know people, right now who were never racists, until all this crap started up.

And especially on this forum, I've seen the change. Even conservatives who used to stand against Alt-right people, and tell them to stuff their racists statements... now... not so much.

They kind of see the point of the alt-rights hate of blacks, because look how conservatives like me who opposed racism have been treated?

Look at your post. Do you not get that? You treated me badly, and accusing me of all kinds of things, when for years I opposed alt-right loony racist people.

Why should I keep fighting against racists people, when bigots like you, attack me for it?

So when people accuse me now... yeah whatever candycorn... whatever you say. I'm all those evil things and billion more things you haven't had time to make up. Whatever you want to believe you bigoted b!tch. Whatever floats that half a life preserver excuse for a mind you have.

Whatever you say. I don't care what crap like you thinks about anything anymore. Go whip up more hate and evil and racism, and let more people die. That's all you turds are good for anyway.

“ I know people, right now who were never racists, until all this crap started up.”

Says it all right there.

Yeah it does. You created racists people, due to your hate spewing ideology.

Says it all, right there.

Even though many of the protesters, rioters, and demonstrators were white?

Can we presume that you, personally, also think Islam is a religion of violence even though very few of its billion plus followers take part in terrorism?

Liberals tend to blame the actors instead of condemning everyone who looks like the actor or happens to share the same faith as the actor.

Which changes what? I don't even know what color you are. Doesn't matter. If you scream at people and accuse them of all sorts of evil things, they are going to hate you.

If you, if you are white, scream at people the same way you attacked me when you know absolutely nothing about me, and accused me of all sorts of terrible things.... doesn't matter if you are white and protesting, rioting or demonstrating.... people are going to hate you.

You are the cause of racism in America.

Just because you are a bigot, doesn't mean that you being white, isn't going to cause people to hate you when you attack them.

If you do to others, what you did to me.... there's the cause of racism. Look in your mirror. That disgusting hag bigot you see in the mirror, is the cause of racism.

I didn't do it. You did.

Lol...

First you assert that a group forced others to become racists (a comical premise beyond compare) now you’re upset about what exactly...having been forced into it?

This is like Hillary and after being in the highest levels of government for 20 years, couldn't tell what was classified or not. Either she is the absolute most ignorant and stupid politicians in US history, or she's a lying evil bastard.

That's what I think about you. Really? Did I say "they were forced" to become racists? Are you an idiot? Or just an evil bastard?

I didn't say anyone was "forced" to do anything. I said I can clearly see that is the result of the actions you people are taking.

And it's not like I'm saying something that requires a Ph.D to figure out. Hate groups dramatically increased after Obama came into office, and especially after the 2012 election, and have been dramatically increasing.

Now granted, to all the conservatives on this forum, they are correct that they still represent a tiny tiny fraction of the public.

But the fact still remains dramatic increases in hate groups, both size and number of hate groups, since Obama.

Why do you think that is? Why is it such a difficult concept that if you scream at people, that you hate them, that they will end up hating you back?

Again, are you just that unbelievably dumb, or are you evil and immoral? Which is it? Because Forest Gump could figure out that attacking everyone, and accusing everyone of being racist, would eventually make them hate you. If a brainless retard can figure that out, why can't you?

Which are you? Plain stupid, or just an evil terrible person?

 

[Andylusion]

But none of this has to do with BlackRock.

ESG is not a creation of BlackRock. ESG is a creation of the Federal Government, going back to the 1970s if not before.

BlackRock is one more example of what kind of government you get when the richest one percent of voters decide fiscal and monetary policy for the vast majority of their countrymen and women:

Meet BlackRock, the New Great Vampire Squid - CounterPunch.org

"BlackRock’s strategic importance and political weight were evident when four BlackRock executives, led by former Swiss National Bank head Philipp Hildebrand, presented a proposal at the annual meeting of central bankers in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, in August 2019 for an economic reset that was actually put into effect in March 2020.

"Acknowledging that central bankers were running out of ammunition for controlling the money supply and the economy, the BlackRock group argued that it was time for the central bank to abandon its long-vaunted independence and join monetary policy (the usual province of the central bank) with fiscal policy (the usual province of the legislature).

"They proposed that the central bank maintain a 'Standing Emergency Fiscal Facility' that would be activated when interest rate manipulation was no longer working to avoid deflation. The Facility would be deployed by an 'independent expert' appointed by the central bank."

The richest individuals and corporations have been looting this country for a hundred years, yet conservatives continue blaming "government" that is owned by the rich.

Too much winning or MAGA?

Well, I don't believe that "the richest individuals and corporations" have been looting this country. There is no evidence of that.

The only people looting this country, are the people in government, and tied to government. And these are the policies that left-wingers support. Green energy grants and subsidies, being the largest of these.

What do you think SNAP is? It's government giving money to the richest agra-companies.

But left-wingers support SNAP and food stamps and so on.

What do you think subsidized housing is? It's giving money to rich land owners. But you support public housing, and programs like that.

Those are the only people 'looting'. Those are the people, that are getting my money, without my consent.

When I buy a product from Walmart... they are not looting me. We together, are engaging in free exchange. I'm getting a product for a lower price than I can find anywhere else, and Walmart is getting my dollars for it.

When I buy a Windows 10 license, Bill Gates is not looting me. We are engaging in free exchange, of my money for software to run my computer that I want.

When I pay for my insurance on my car, Warren Buffet is not looting me. We are engaging in free exchange. I'm getting insurance through Geico (that Berkshire Hathaway owns), for a lower price than I could find anywhere else. And they are getting my money for that coverage.

The richest people, are rich because they are providing goods and services that make the lives of the common people better.

The only people who are looting, are left-wingers under left-wing programs.

This is what irritates me most about people like you. You support programs that benefit the rich CONSTANTLY... and then turn right around, and complain the rich are looting the country, when YOU are the ones engaging in that.

 

[Andylusion]

Right, I'm against all giving money to anyone

Did you support Trump's tax cuts?
Most conservatives did.

Trump’s “YUGE” Tax Cut for the Rich

Well of course. What do you think the rich do with money? They invest it, they spend it, and they save it, and savings is only so they can do future investing and spending.

Even when they save the money, what do the banks do with it? They spend it, or invest it, or save it which is for future spending and investing.

All of those things are benefits to the economy.

You would rather have government take that money, and give it to political supporters and bad wasteful government projects.

Yes, I support policies that are good and beneficial to the US, over policies that are harmful and damaging to the US.
Yes I supported the tax cuts, as anyone who understands economics should.

 

[Andylusion]

Lie. Trump never denied Corona existed.

I asked you to assess Don the Con's leadership on Covid-19, and you responded by claiming he never denied the existence of the virus; why did you do that?

You can keep lying, but it's still a lie. Trump never denied Corona existed.

 

[Andylusion]

trading eggs for milk is capitalism ...taking eggs by force and then giving them to who you think should get them is not

Trading eggs for milk directly occurs in a barter system.

Capitalism requires a currency for exchange.

Barter System vs. Currency System: What's the Difference?

No it does not. The only thing that is required for Capitalism, is ownership and control of the capital.

If I own the chickens, and I am using those chickens to sell or trade those eggs for personal gain... that is capitalism. The chickens are the capital. The return on investment is the eggs. The personal gain is whatever I traded them for.

And by the way, everything can be currency. Everything can. They used to have people who traded pelts.

They would go and trade 50 pelts for a wagon, or 5 pelts for some food, or 1 pelt for water. And those people would trade the pelts they got from that guy, for other things.

The pelts were basically currency.

Same is true with gold dust. That's why everyone had scales, and you would weigh out such and such amount of gold dust for whatever it was you were buying.

Gold dust was currency. Everything can be currency. Literally everything. Tea Bricks, sea shells, Salt, large rocks, bottle caps and so on. At one point, in Italy, you could exchange goods for Cheese. Cheese was a currency.

Currency is an unavoidable aspect of economic transactions. It's difficult to tell how many eggs a wagon wheel is worth. Currency makes transactions easier, because you can determine a dozen eggs is worth 2 pelts, and a wagon wheel is worth 15 pelts. (made up numbers to make a point).

But regardless, Capitalism exists without currency. If you own something that produces goods and services, and use those goods and services to increase personal gain, that is Capitalism.

 

[Andylusion]

The left bitch and complain about corporations...while investing trillions of their own pension money in the same corporations.

And losing $2.4T of said retirement investments when BushCo crashed the economy.

First, Bush didn't crash the economy. The origins of the sub-prime housing boom started in 1997. Housing prices started rising to bubble levels in 1997, just like sub-prime mortgages started in 1997.

So unless you think Bush passed a policy that warped back into time to 1997, Bush cannot be blamed for the sub-prime crash.

Second, people did not lose $2.4 Trillion in retirement, unless you were stupid enough to sell when the price was low. I started buying stocks in 2008, specifically because prices were low. I didn't lose even a penny, because I simply didn't sell the stock. The market recovered, and I earned money, I did not lose it.

The markets never actually "recovered". They reinflated with massive socialist infusions by the Fed.

Capitalism!!

This is Capitalism 2.0 now: The Federal Reserve as a primary component of the economy, there to save our ass when capitalism fails.

I think all of you are greatly over estimating what effect the Federal Reserve has on anything.

Capitalism never failed either. A bank failing, is not Capitalism failing. Besides that, it was government involvement that caused those failures to begin with.

Under capitalism, where socialists don't dictate what loans banks have to make, no sub-prime loans would ever have been made, and thus no economic crash would have ever happened.

The Meltdown was far less about government than it was about Wall Street's Wild West show, starring the banks, insane unregulated leverage, the mortgage companies, insurance companies, CDO's, CMO's, swaps, synthentics and corruption at the ratings services. Even Alan "the markets will self correct" Greenspan admitted that. And the Fed had to save our ass. AND, he ignored the CLTC's Brooksley Borns when she PUBLICLY BEGGED him for regulation.

Then in 2019, short term credit markets froze again, and the NY Fed had to save our ass again. $1.5T.

Now in 2020, the Fed is saving our ass yet again by buying TRILLIONS in corporate bonds, junk bonds and even EQUITIES.

No, the Fed is all in now. It's our shiny new toy that we'll almost certainly over-use. Capitalism 2.0.

No, that's not true. Facts over opinion. Sub-prime loans have existed for decades. Yet the sub-prime mortgage market was a niche market until 1997, when it dramatically changed into a large portion of loans.

Why did it remain a tiny niche market for decades on decades? Because they were risky. And risky loans lose money.

So what happened in 1997 to 1998 that dramatically changed the entire market? Two things. First, government sued banks to force them to make sub-prime loans.



This is well documented. Cuomo proudly sued banks to make them make bad loans, that he himself in the video openly admits, yeah they didn't qualify for loans, and the default rate will be higher on these loans. That part for certain was true.

The second things government did, was guarantee sub-prime loans. Again well documented that in 1997 Freddie Mac, signed a contract with First Union, which later became Wachovia, and Bear Stearns, both of which were huge failures during the crash.

Bear Stearns, the CRA, and Freddie Mac - Cafe Hayek

I keep hearing that the subprime crisis was caused by people willing to buy stuff they couldn't evaluate. Why would smart people do that? One answer is that they were stupid. In an era of rising home prices, it's hard...

cafehayek.com

Press release from First Union in 1997.

​

Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a​

$384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment​

Act (CRA) loans – marking the industry’s first public securitization of​

CRA loans.​

​

The affordable mortgages were originated or acquired by First Union​

Corporation and subsidiaries. Customers will experience no impact –​

they will continue to make payments to and be serviced by First Union​

Mortgage Corp. CRA loans are loans targeted to low and moderate income​

borrowers and neighborhoods under the Community Reinvestment Act of​

1977.​

​

"The securitization of these affordable mortgages allows us to redeploy​

capital back into our communities and to expand our ability to provide​

credit to low and moderate income individuals," said Jane Henderson,​

managing director of First Union’s Community Reinvestment and Fair​

Lending Programs. "First Union is committed to promoting home ownership​

in traditionally underserved markets through a comprehensive line of​

competitive and flexible affordable mortgage products. This transaction​

enables us to continue to aggressively serve those markets."​

​

The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and​

have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the​

investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation.​

So when you consider that government gave bad loans a AAA rating, guaranteed the loans through Bear Stearns and First Union, and when you consider the government was suing banks to make these loans....

this is what caused the dramatic increase in sub-prime loans, and that caused the increase in housing prices which started in 1997, and eventually led to the crash in 2008.

It was government, from start to finish. Without government, banks would not have given loans to people who did not qualify for loans. Without government, Freddie Mac would not have guaranteed those loans. Without government those mortgage backed securities would never have been given a "AAA" rating.

Without government none of any of this would have happened.

As an impetus, fine. And Clinton opened the floodgates when he let Rubin and Summers talk him into getting rid of Glass Steagall.

But all the crap that happened afterwards - the derivatives, the AAA ratings, the leverage, the CDSs with zero reserve requirements, the banks shorting the very shit they were selling, on and on and on -- that was the free market run amok. Those were the elements of the meltdown, and government had nothing to do with them.

Nothing about Glass Steagall had anything at all to do with the sub-prime crash.

The repeal that you are talking about, happened in 1999. The sub-prime and housing price bubble started in 1999. The two things are not connected.

Additionally, most of the rest of the world, never had the Glass Steagall regulations. Lending requirements are lower in Canada, than in the US. And most of your Europe for that matter.

Moreover, if that 1999 repeal had never happened.... almost none of the banks that failed would have been under that regulation. Countrywide, nope. Indymac, nope. Bear Stearns, nope. Wachovia, nope. Only a very tiny few banks would have been impacted, like CitiGroup.

Even then, while the Glass Steagall regulations may have prevented the merger of Travelers Group, and CitiCorp, the fact is Travelers Group was spun off in 2002, years before the crash, and thus even then, would have had no impact whatsoever on the sub-prime crash in 2008.

So, no... Regulations, or deregulation, had nothing NOTHING to do with the sub-prime crash. Glass Steagall would not have prevented the crash. Deregulation did not cause the crash. And no amount regulations would have stopped the crash.

The crash was caused by government pushing sub-prime loans, and suing banks to make sub-prime loans. Government involvement in the housing market cashed the economy.

Holy crap.

This was Wall Street -- my industry -- behaving badly. Greenspan admitted it. Born admitted it. Paulsen admitted it. Dimon admitted it. Blankfein admitted it.

I'll side with them. Easily.

And with Guggenhem CIO Scott Minerd, who agrees with me about the Fed:

Let's think about what you are saying.... Greenspan, Paulsen, Demon, Blankfein and others.... people who worked for the government.... said it wasn't government, it was Wall Street.

Think about that. People who are getting paid by government, refuse to call out government...

Why is this a convincing argument to you?

Besides that... whatever complaint against Wall Street you have, doesn't change any of the facts I posted. Prior to 1997, Sub-prime mortgages were a tiny insignificant fraction of the market. That's not opinion, that's fact. You can look it up.

After 1997, sub-prime loans became a major part of the market. That's a fact. Not opinion.

What changed? Well we know. Freddie Mac gave sub-prime loans a "AAA" rating. That's not opinion, it's fact. We have the press release where they said this openly.

We know, Andrew Cuomo sued banks to force them to make bad loans. Cuomo said this, openly. We have the video, and even admitted that these were people who did not qualify for loans, and he said the default rate would be higher for those loans.

All of that is not opinion. It's fact. It documented uncontested concrete fact. None of this is disputed by any of those people you listed, because they can't.

And we know that two of the biggest failures, were the two banks who were originally in the deal with Freddie Mac sub-prime "AAA" rating scheme. Bear Stearns, and First Union, which became Wachovia.

That's a fact. Not opinion. Concrete undeniable fact.

And lastly, Glass Steagall would have stopped nothing. Bear Stearns would not have been affected by Glass Steagall. First Union, IndyMac, Countrywide, and on and on... none of them would have been affected by Glass Steagall. That's not opinion. That's fact. It is a fact.

So nothing you said, changes anything I said. I just posted the facts. They are facts. They are not debatable, anymore than rain is water falling from the sky, is a fact.

 

[pknopp]

The left bitch and complain about corporations...while investing trillions of their own pension money in the same corporations.

And losing $2.4T of said retirement investments when BushCo crashed the economy.

First, Bush didn't crash the economy. The origins of the sub-prime housing boom started in 1997. Housing prices started rising to bubble levels in 1997, just like sub-prime mortgages started in 1997.

So unless you think Bush passed a policy that warped back into time to 1997, Bush cannot be blamed for the sub-prime crash.

Second, people did not lose $2.4 Trillion in retirement, unless you were stupid enough to sell when the price was low. I started buying stocks in 2008, specifically because prices were low. I didn't lose even a penny, because I simply didn't sell the stock. The market recovered, and I earned money, I did not lose it.

The markets never actually "recovered". They reinflated with massive socialist infusions by the Fed.

Capitalism!!

This is Capitalism 2.0 now: The Federal Reserve as a primary component of the economy, there to save our ass when capitalism fails.

I think all of you are greatly over estimating what effect the Federal Reserve has on anything.

Capitalism never failed either. A bank failing, is not Capitalism failing. Besides that, it was government involvement that caused those failures to begin with.

Under capitalism, where socialists don't dictate what loans banks have to make, no sub-prime loans would ever have been made, and thus no economic crash would have ever happened.

The Meltdown was far less about government than it was about Wall Street's Wild West show, starring the banks, insane unregulated leverage, the mortgage companies, insurance companies, CDO's, CMO's, swaps, synthentics and corruption at the ratings services. Even Alan "the markets will self correct" Greenspan admitted that. And the Fed had to save our ass. AND, he ignored the CLTC's Brooksley Borns when she PUBLICLY BEGGED him for regulation.

Then in 2019, short term credit markets froze again, and the NY Fed had to save our ass again. $1.5T.

Now in 2020, the Fed is saving our ass yet again by buying TRILLIONS in corporate bonds, junk bonds and even EQUITIES.

No, the Fed is all in now. It's our shiny new toy that we'll almost certainly over-use. Capitalism 2.0.

No, that's not true. Facts over opinion. Sub-prime loans have existed for decades. Yet the sub-prime mortgage market was a niche market until 1997, when it dramatically changed into a large portion of loans.

Why did it remain a tiny niche market for decades on decades? Because they were risky. And risky loans lose money.

So what happened in 1997 to 1998 that dramatically changed the entire market? Two things. First, government sued banks to force them to make sub-prime loans.



This is well documented. Cuomo proudly sued banks to make them make bad loans, that he himself in the video openly admits, yeah they didn't qualify for loans, and the default rate will be higher on these loans. That part for certain was true.

The second things government did, was guarantee sub-prime loans. Again well documented that in 1997 Freddie Mac, signed a contract with First Union, which later became Wachovia, and Bear Stearns, both of which were huge failures during the crash.

Bear Stearns, the CRA, and Freddie Mac - Cafe Hayek

I keep hearing that the subprime crisis was caused by people willing to buy stuff they couldn't evaluate. Why would smart people do that? One answer is that they were stupid. In an era of rising home prices, it's hard...

cafehayek.com

Press release from First Union in 1997.

​

Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a​

$384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment​

Act (CRA) loans – marking the industry’s first public securitization of​

CRA loans.​

​

The affordable mortgages were originated or acquired by First Union​

Corporation and subsidiaries. Customers will experience no impact –​

they will continue to make payments to and be serviced by First Union​

Mortgage Corp. CRA loans are loans targeted to low and moderate income​

borrowers and neighborhoods under the Community Reinvestment Act of​

1977.​

​

"The securitization of these affordable mortgages allows us to redeploy​

capital back into our communities and to expand our ability to provide​

credit to low and moderate income individuals," said Jane Henderson,​

managing director of First Union’s Community Reinvestment and Fair​

Lending Programs. "First Union is committed to promoting home ownership​

in traditionally underserved markets through a comprehensive line of​

competitive and flexible affordable mortgage products. This transaction​

enables us to continue to aggressively serve those markets."​

​

The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and​

have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the​

investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation.​

So when you consider that government gave bad loans a AAA rating, guaranteed the loans through Bear Stearns and First Union, and when you consider the government was suing banks to make these loans....

this is what caused the dramatic increase in sub-prime loans, and that caused the increase in housing prices which started in 1997, and eventually led to the crash in 2008.

It was government, from start to finish. Without government, banks would not have given loans to people who did not qualify for loans. Without government, Freddie Mac would not have guaranteed those loans. Without government those mortgage backed securities would never have been given a "AAA" rating.

Without government none of any of this would have happened.

As an impetus, fine. And Clinton opened the floodgates when he let Rubin and Summers talk him into getting rid of Glass Steagall.

But all the crap that happened afterwards - the derivatives, the AAA ratings, the leverage, the CDSs with zero reserve requirements, the banks shorting the very shit they were selling, on and on and on -- that was the free market run amok. Those were the elements of the meltdown, and government had nothing to do with them.

Nothing about Glass Steagall had anything at all to do with the sub-prime crash.

The repeal that you are talking about, happened in 1999. The sub-prime and housing price bubble started in 1999. The two things are not connected.

Additionally, most of the rest of the world, never had the Glass Steagall regulations. Lending requirements are lower in Canada, than in the US. And most of your Europe for that matter.

Moreover, if that 1999 repeal had never happened.... almost none of the banks that failed would have been under that regulation. Countrywide, nope. Indymac, nope. Bear Stearns, nope. Wachovia, nope. Only a very tiny few banks would have been impacted, like CitiGroup.

Even then, while the Glass Steagall regulations may have prevented the merger of Travelers Group, and CitiCorp, the fact is Travelers Group was spun off in 2002, years before the crash, and thus even then, would have had no impact whatsoever on the sub-prime crash in 2008.

So, no... Regulations, or deregulation, had nothing NOTHING to do with the sub-prime crash. Glass Steagall would not have prevented the crash. Deregulation did not cause the crash. And no amount regulations would have stopped the crash.

The crash was caused by government pushing sub-prime loans, and suing banks to make sub-prime loans. Government involvement in the housing market cashed the economy.

Holy crap.

This was Wall Street -- my industry -- behaving badly. Greenspan admitted it. Born admitted it. Paulsen admitted it. Dimon admitted it. Blankfein admitted it.

I'll side with them. Easily.

And with Guggenhem CIO Scott Minerd, who agrees with me about the Fed:

Let's think about what you are saying.... Greenspan, Paulsen, Demon, Blankfein and others.... people who worked for the government.... said it wasn't government, it was Wall Street.

No they didn't.

Think about that. People who are getting paid by government, refuse to call out government...

Why is this a convincing argument to you?

Besides that... whatever complaint against Wall Street you have, doesn't change any of the facts I posted. Prior to 1997, Sub-prime mortgages were a tiny insignificant fraction of the market. That's not opinion, that's fact. You can look it up.

After 1997, sub-prime loans became a major part of the market. That's a fact. Not opinion.

What changed? Well we know. Freddie Mac gave sub-prime loans a "AAA" rating. That's not opinion, it's fact. We have the press release where they said this openly.

We know, Andrew Cuomo sued banks to force them to make bad loans. Cuomo said this, openly. We have the video, and even admitted that these were people who did not qualify for loans, and he said the default rate would be higher for those loans.

All of that is not opinion. It's fact. It documented uncontested concrete fact. None of this is disputed by any of those people you listed, because they can't.

And we know that two of the biggest failures, were the two banks who were originally in the deal with Freddie Mac sub-prime "AAA" rating scheme. Bear Stearns, and First Union, which became Wachovia.

That's a fact. Not opinion. Concrete undeniable fact.

And lastly, Glass Steagall would have stopped nothing. Bear Stearns would not have been affected by Glass Steagall. First Union, IndyMac, Countrywide, and on and on... none of them would have been affected by Glass Steagall. That's not opinion. That's fact. It is a fact.

So nothing you said, changes anything I said. I just posted the facts. They are facts. They are not debatable, anymore than rain is water falling from the sky, is a fact.

Care to quote them?

 

[Andylusion]

The left bitch and complain about corporations...while investing trillions of their own pension money in the same corporations.

And losing $2.4T of said retirement investments when BushCo crashed the economy.

First, Bush didn't crash the economy. The origins of the sub-prime housing boom started in 1997. Housing prices started rising to bubble levels in 1997, just like sub-prime mortgages started in 1997.

So unless you think Bush passed a policy that warped back into time to 1997, Bush cannot be blamed for the sub-prime crash.

Second, people did not lose $2.4 Trillion in retirement, unless you were stupid enough to sell when the price was low. I started buying stocks in 2008, specifically because prices were low. I didn't lose even a penny, because I simply didn't sell the stock. The market recovered, and I earned money, I did not lose it.

The markets never actually "recovered". They reinflated with massive socialist infusions by the Fed.

Capitalism!!

This is Capitalism 2.0 now: The Federal Reserve as a primary component of the economy, there to save our ass when capitalism fails.

I think all of you are greatly over estimating what effect the Federal Reserve has on anything.

Capitalism never failed either. A bank failing, is not Capitalism failing. Besides that, it was government involvement that caused those failures to begin with.

Under capitalism, where socialists don't dictate what loans banks have to make, no sub-prime loans would ever have been made, and thus no economic crash would have ever happened.

The Meltdown was far less about government than it was about Wall Street's Wild West show, starring the banks, insane unregulated leverage, the mortgage companies, insurance companies, CDO's, CMO's, swaps, synthentics and corruption at the ratings services. Even Alan "the markets will self correct" Greenspan admitted that. And the Fed had to save our ass. AND, he ignored the CLTC's Brooksley Borns when she PUBLICLY BEGGED him for regulation.

Then in 2019, short term credit markets froze again, and the NY Fed had to save our ass again. $1.5T.

Now in 2020, the Fed is saving our ass yet again by buying TRILLIONS in corporate bonds, junk bonds and even EQUITIES.

No, the Fed is all in now. It's our shiny new toy that we'll almost certainly over-use. Capitalism 2.0.

No, that's not true. Facts over opinion. Sub-prime loans have existed for decades. Yet the sub-prime mortgage market was a niche market until 1997, when it dramatically changed into a large portion of loans.

Why did it remain a tiny niche market for decades on decades? Because they were risky. And risky loans lose money.

So what happened in 1997 to 1998 that dramatically changed the entire market? Two things. First, government sued banks to force them to make sub-prime loans.



This is well documented. Cuomo proudly sued banks to make them make bad loans, that he himself in the video openly admits, yeah they didn't qualify for loans, and the default rate will be higher on these loans. That part for certain was true.

The second things government did, was guarantee sub-prime loans. Again well documented that in 1997 Freddie Mac, signed a contract with First Union, which later became Wachovia, and Bear Stearns, both of which were huge failures during the crash.

Bear Stearns, the CRA, and Freddie Mac - Cafe Hayek

I keep hearing that the subprime crisis was caused by people willing to buy stuff they couldn't evaluate. Why would smart people do that? One answer is that they were stupid. In an era of rising home prices, it's hard...

cafehayek.com

Press release from First Union in 1997.

​

Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a​

$384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment​

Act (CRA) loans – marking the industry’s first public securitization of​

CRA loans.​

​

The affordable mortgages were originated or acquired by First Union​

Corporation and subsidiaries. Customers will experience no impact –​

they will continue to make payments to and be serviced by First Union​

Mortgage Corp. CRA loans are loans targeted to low and moderate income​

borrowers and neighborhoods under the Community Reinvestment Act of​

1977.​

​

"The securitization of these affordable mortgages allows us to redeploy​

capital back into our communities and to expand our ability to provide​

credit to low and moderate income individuals," said Jane Henderson,​

managing director of First Union’s Community Reinvestment and Fair​

Lending Programs. "First Union is committed to promoting home ownership​

in traditionally underserved markets through a comprehensive line of​

competitive and flexible affordable mortgage products. This transaction​

enables us to continue to aggressively serve those markets."​

​

The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and​

have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the​

investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation.​

So when you consider that government gave bad loans a AAA rating, guaranteed the loans through Bear Stearns and First Union, and when you consider the government was suing banks to make these loans....

this is what caused the dramatic increase in sub-prime loans, and that caused the increase in housing prices which started in 1997, and eventually led to the crash in 2008.

It was government, from start to finish. Without government, banks would not have given loans to people who did not qualify for loans. Without government, Freddie Mac would not have guaranteed those loans. Without government those mortgage backed securities would never have been given a "AAA" rating.

Without government none of any of this would have happened.

As an impetus, fine. And Clinton opened the floodgates when he let Rubin and Summers talk him into getting rid of Glass Steagall.

But all the crap that happened afterwards - the derivatives, the AAA ratings, the leverage, the CDSs with zero reserve requirements, the banks shorting the very shit they were selling, on and on and on -- that was the free market run amok. Those were the elements of the meltdown, and government had nothing to do with them.

Nothing about Glass Steagall had anything at all to do with the sub-prime crash.

The repeal that you are talking about, happened in 1999. The sub-prime and housing price bubble started in 1999. The two things are not connected.

Additionally, most of the rest of the world, never had the Glass Steagall regulations. Lending requirements are lower in Canada, than in the US. And most of your Europe for that matter.

Moreover, if that 1999 repeal had never happened.... almost none of the banks that failed would have been under that regulation. Countrywide, nope. Indymac, nope. Bear Stearns, nope. Wachovia, nope. Only a very tiny few banks would have been impacted, like CitiGroup.

Even then, while the Glass Steagall regulations may have prevented the merger of Travelers Group, and CitiCorp, the fact is Travelers Group was spun off in 2002, years before the crash, and thus even then, would have had no impact whatsoever on the sub-prime crash in 2008.

So, no... Regulations, or deregulation, had nothing NOTHING to do with the sub-prime crash. Glass Steagall would not have prevented the crash. Deregulation did not cause the crash. And no amount regulations would have stopped the crash.

The crash was caused by government pushing sub-prime loans, and suing banks to make sub-prime loans. Government involvement in the housing market cashed the economy.

Holy crap.

This was Wall Street -- my industry -- behaving badly. Greenspan admitted it. Born admitted it. Paulsen admitted it. Dimon admitted it. Blankfein admitted it.

I'll side with them. Easily.

And with Guggenhem CIO Scott Minerd, who agrees with me about the Fed:

Let's think about what you are saying.... Greenspan, Paulsen, Demon, Blankfein and others.... people who worked for the government.... said it wasn't government, it was Wall Street.

No they didn't.

Think about that. People who are getting paid by government, refuse to call out government...

Why is this a convincing argument to you?

Besides that... whatever complaint against Wall Street you have, doesn't change any of the facts I posted. Prior to 1997, Sub-prime mortgages were a tiny insignificant fraction of the market. That's not opinion, that's fact. You can look it up.

After 1997, sub-prime loans became a major part of the market. That's a fact. Not opinion.

What changed? Well we know. Freddie Mac gave sub-prime loans a "AAA" rating. That's not opinion, it's fact. We have the press release where they said this openly.

We know, Andrew Cuomo sued banks to force them to make bad loans. Cuomo said this, openly. We have the video, and even admitted that these were people who did not qualify for loans, and he said the default rate would be higher for those loans.

All of that is not opinion. It's fact. It documented uncontested concrete fact. None of this is disputed by any of those people you listed, because they can't.

And we know that two of the biggest failures, were the two banks who were originally in the deal with Freddie Mac sub-prime "AAA" rating scheme. Bear Stearns, and First Union, which became Wachovia.

That's a fact. Not opinion. Concrete undeniable fact.

And lastly, Glass Steagall would have stopped nothing. Bear Stearns would not have been affected by Glass Steagall. First Union, IndyMac, Countrywide, and on and on... none of them would have been affected by Glass Steagall. That's not opinion. That's fact. It is a fact.

So nothing you said, changes anything I said. I just posted the facts. They are facts. They are not debatable, anymore than rain is water falling from the sky, is a fact.

Care to quote them?

No I don't, because I'm not the one who claimed they said it was Wall Street. Ask the guy that claimed they said it was Wall Street, if you want quotes.

All I said, was that I don't buy this idea that it was all Wall Street, when I have concrete hard evidence that Government was involved in the Sub-prime crashes origins, at every level, and I provided proof of that.

I don't care what any of those people said, because it doesn't matter to the facts I posted.

 

[Mac1958]

The left bitch and complain about corporations...while investing trillions of their own pension money in the same corporations.

And losing $2.4T of said retirement investments when BushCo crashed the economy.

First, Bush didn't crash the economy. The origins of the sub-prime housing boom started in 1997. Housing prices started rising to bubble levels in 1997, just like sub-prime mortgages started in 1997.

So unless you think Bush passed a policy that warped back into time to 1997, Bush cannot be blamed for the sub-prime crash.

Second, people did not lose $2.4 Trillion in retirement, unless you were stupid enough to sell when the price was low. I started buying stocks in 2008, specifically because prices were low. I didn't lose even a penny, because I simply didn't sell the stock. The market recovered, and I earned money, I did not lose it.

The markets never actually "recovered". They reinflated with massive socialist infusions by the Fed.

Capitalism!!

This is Capitalism 2.0 now: The Federal Reserve as a primary component of the economy, there to save our ass when capitalism fails.

I think all of you are greatly over estimating what effect the Federal Reserve has on anything.

Capitalism never failed either. A bank failing, is not Capitalism failing. Besides that, it was government involvement that caused those failures to begin with.

Under capitalism, where socialists don't dictate what loans banks have to make, no sub-prime loans would ever have been made, and thus no economic crash would have ever happened.

The Meltdown was far less about government than it was about Wall Street's Wild West show, starring the banks, insane unregulated leverage, the mortgage companies, insurance companies, CDO's, CMO's, swaps, synthentics and corruption at the ratings services. Even Alan "the markets will self correct" Greenspan admitted that. And the Fed had to save our ass. AND, he ignored the CLTC's Brooksley Borns when she PUBLICLY BEGGED him for regulation.

Then in 2019, short term credit markets froze again, and the NY Fed had to save our ass again. $1.5T.

Now in 2020, the Fed is saving our ass yet again by buying TRILLIONS in corporate bonds, junk bonds and even EQUITIES.

No, the Fed is all in now. It's our shiny new toy that we'll almost certainly over-use. Capitalism 2.0.

No, that's not true. Facts over opinion. Sub-prime loans have existed for decades. Yet the sub-prime mortgage market was a niche market until 1997, when it dramatically changed into a large portion of loans.

Why did it remain a tiny niche market for decades on decades? Because they were risky. And risky loans lose money.

So what happened in 1997 to 1998 that dramatically changed the entire market? Two things. First, government sued banks to force them to make sub-prime loans.



This is well documented. Cuomo proudly sued banks to make them make bad loans, that he himself in the video openly admits, yeah they didn't qualify for loans, and the default rate will be higher on these loans. That part for certain was true.

The second things government did, was guarantee sub-prime loans. Again well documented that in 1997 Freddie Mac, signed a contract with First Union, which later became Wachovia, and Bear Stearns, both of which were huge failures during the crash.

Bear Stearns, the CRA, and Freddie Mac - Cafe Hayek

I keep hearing that the subprime crisis was caused by people willing to buy stuff they couldn't evaluate. Why would smart people do that? One answer is that they were stupid. In an era of rising home prices, it's hard...

cafehayek.com

Press release from First Union in 1997.

​

Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a​

$384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment​

Act (CRA) loans – marking the industry’s first public securitization of​

CRA loans.​

​

The affordable mortgages were originated or acquired by First Union​

Corporation and subsidiaries. Customers will experience no impact –​

they will continue to make payments to and be serviced by First Union​

Mortgage Corp. CRA loans are loans targeted to low and moderate income​

borrowers and neighborhoods under the Community Reinvestment Act of​

1977.​

​

"The securitization of these affordable mortgages allows us to redeploy​

capital back into our communities and to expand our ability to provide​

credit to low and moderate income individuals," said Jane Henderson,​

managing director of First Union’s Community Reinvestment and Fair​

Lending Programs. "First Union is committed to promoting home ownership​

in traditionally underserved markets through a comprehensive line of​

competitive and flexible affordable mortgage products. This transaction​

enables us to continue to aggressively serve those markets."​

​

The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and​

have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the​

investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation.​

So when you consider that government gave bad loans a AAA rating, guaranteed the loans through Bear Stearns and First Union, and when you consider the government was suing banks to make these loans....

this is what caused the dramatic increase in sub-prime loans, and that caused the increase in housing prices which started in 1997, and eventually led to the crash in 2008.

It was government, from start to finish. Without government, banks would not have given loans to people who did not qualify for loans. Without government, Freddie Mac would not have guaranteed those loans. Without government those mortgage backed securities would never have been given a "AAA" rating.

Without government none of any of this would have happened.

As an impetus, fine. And Clinton opened the floodgates when he let Rubin and Summers talk him into getting rid of Glass Steagall.

But all the crap that happened afterwards - the derivatives, the AAA ratings, the leverage, the CDSs with zero reserve requirements, the banks shorting the very shit they were selling, on and on and on -- that was the free market run amok. Those were the elements of the meltdown, and government had nothing to do with them.

Nothing about Glass Steagall had anything at all to do with the sub-prime crash.

The repeal that you are talking about, happened in 1999. The sub-prime and housing price bubble started in 1999. The two things are not connected.

Additionally, most of the rest of the world, never had the Glass Steagall regulations. Lending requirements are lower in Canada, than in the US. And most of your Europe for that matter.

Moreover, if that 1999 repeal had never happened.... almost none of the banks that failed would have been under that regulation. Countrywide, nope. Indymac, nope. Bear Stearns, nope. Wachovia, nope. Only a very tiny few banks would have been impacted, like CitiGroup.

Even then, while the Glass Steagall regulations may have prevented the merger of Travelers Group, and CitiCorp, the fact is Travelers Group was spun off in 2002, years before the crash, and thus even then, would have had no impact whatsoever on the sub-prime crash in 2008.

So, no... Regulations, or deregulation, had nothing NOTHING to do with the sub-prime crash. Glass Steagall would not have prevented the crash. Deregulation did not cause the crash. And no amount regulations would have stopped the crash.

The crash was caused by government pushing sub-prime loans, and suing banks to make sub-prime loans. Government involvement in the housing market cashed the economy.

Holy crap.

This was Wall Street -- my industry -- behaving badly. Greenspan admitted it. Born admitted it. Paulsen admitted it. Dimon admitted it. Blankfein admitted it.

I'll side with them. Easily.

And with Guggenhem CIO Scott Minerd, who agrees with me about the Fed:

Let's think about what you are saying.... Greenspan, Paulsen, Demon, Blankfein and others.... people who worked for the government.... said it wasn't government, it was Wall Street.

Think about that. People who are getting paid by government, refuse to call out government...

Why is this a convincing argument to you?

Besides that... whatever complaint against Wall Street you have, doesn't change any of the facts I posted. Prior to 1997, Sub-prime mortgages were a tiny insignificant fraction of the market. That's not opinion, that's fact. You can look it up.

After 1997, sub-prime loans became a major part of the market. That's a fact. Not opinion.

What changed? Well we know. Freddie Mac gave sub-prime loans a "AAA" rating. That's not opinion, it's fact. We have the press release where they said this openly.

We know, Andrew Cuomo sued banks to force them to make bad loans. Cuomo said this, openly. We have the video, and even admitted that these were people who did not qualify for loans, and he said the default rate would be higher for those loans.

All of that is not opinion. It's fact. It documented uncontested concrete fact. None of this is disputed by any of those people you listed, because they can't.

And we know that two of the biggest failures, were the two banks who were originally in the deal with Freddie Mac sub-prime "AAA" rating scheme. Bear Stearns, and First Union, which became Wachovia.

That's a fact. Not opinion. Concrete undeniable fact.

And lastly, Glass Steagall would have stopped nothing. Bear Stearns would not have been affected by Glass Steagall. First Union, IndyMac, Countrywide, and on and on... none of them would have been affected by Glass Steagall. That's not opinion. That's fact. It is a fact.

So nothing you said, changes anything I said. I just posted the facts. They are facts. They are not debatable, anymore than rain is water falling from the sky, is a fact.

Dimon and Blankfein are/were bank CEO's.

This is my profession. I've studied what happened for years.

Damn near everything was affected by the repeal of Glass Steagall, as it opened the doors for banks to do EXACTLY what they DID. They could not have done what they did before the silo walls came down.

Your "facts" are based in political partisanship. I have to take this stuff seriously. Believe whatever you want.

 

[pknopp]

The left bitch and complain about corporations...while investing trillions of their own pension money in the same corporations.

And losing $2.4T of said retirement investments when BushCo crashed the economy.

First, Bush didn't crash the economy. The origins of the sub-prime housing boom started in 1997. Housing prices started rising to bubble levels in 1997, just like sub-prime mortgages started in 1997.

So unless you think Bush passed a policy that warped back into time to 1997, Bush cannot be blamed for the sub-prime crash.

Second, people did not lose $2.4 Trillion in retirement, unless you were stupid enough to sell when the price was low. I started buying stocks in 2008, specifically because prices were low. I didn't lose even a penny, because I simply didn't sell the stock. The market recovered, and I earned money, I did not lose it.

The markets never actually "recovered". They reinflated with massive socialist infusions by the Fed.

Capitalism!!

This is Capitalism 2.0 now: The Federal Reserve as a primary component of the economy, there to save our ass when capitalism fails.

I think all of you are greatly over estimating what effect the Federal Reserve has on anything.

Capitalism never failed either. A bank failing, is not Capitalism failing. Besides that, it was government involvement that caused those failures to begin with.

Under capitalism, where socialists don't dictate what loans banks have to make, no sub-prime loans would ever have been made, and thus no economic crash would have ever happened.

The Meltdown was far less about government than it was about Wall Street's Wild West show, starring the banks, insane unregulated leverage, the mortgage companies, insurance companies, CDO's, CMO's, swaps, synthentics and corruption at the ratings services. Even Alan "the markets will self correct" Greenspan admitted that. And the Fed had to save our ass. AND, he ignored the CLTC's Brooksley Borns when she PUBLICLY BEGGED him for regulation.

Then in 2019, short term credit markets froze again, and the NY Fed had to save our ass again. $1.5T.

Now in 2020, the Fed is saving our ass yet again by buying TRILLIONS in corporate bonds, junk bonds and even EQUITIES.

No, the Fed is all in now. It's our shiny new toy that we'll almost certainly over-use. Capitalism 2.0.

No, that's not true. Facts over opinion. Sub-prime loans have existed for decades. Yet the sub-prime mortgage market was a niche market until 1997, when it dramatically changed into a large portion of loans.

Why did it remain a tiny niche market for decades on decades? Because they were risky. And risky loans lose money.

So what happened in 1997 to 1998 that dramatically changed the entire market? Two things. First, government sued banks to force them to make sub-prime loans.



This is well documented. Cuomo proudly sued banks to make them make bad loans, that he himself in the video openly admits, yeah they didn't qualify for loans, and the default rate will be higher on these loans. That part for certain was true.

The second things government did, was guarantee sub-prime loans. Again well documented that in 1997 Freddie Mac, signed a contract with First Union, which later became Wachovia, and Bear Stearns, both of which were huge failures during the crash.

Bear Stearns, the CRA, and Freddie Mac - Cafe Hayek

I keep hearing that the subprime crisis was caused by people willing to buy stuff they couldn't evaluate. Why would smart people do that? One answer is that they were stupid. In an era of rising home prices, it's hard...

cafehayek.com

Press release from First Union in 1997.

​

Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a​

$384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment​

Act (CRA) loans – marking the industry’s first public securitization of​

CRA loans.​

​

The affordable mortgages were originated or acquired by First Union​

Corporation and subsidiaries. Customers will experience no impact –​

they will continue to make payments to and be serviced by First Union​

Mortgage Corp. CRA loans are loans targeted to low and moderate income​

borrowers and neighborhoods under the Community Reinvestment Act of​

1977.​

​

"The securitization of these affordable mortgages allows us to redeploy​

capital back into our communities and to expand our ability to provide​

credit to low and moderate income individuals," said Jane Henderson,​

managing director of First Union’s Community Reinvestment and Fair​

Lending Programs. "First Union is committed to promoting home ownership​

in traditionally underserved markets through a comprehensive line of​

competitive and flexible affordable mortgage products. This transaction​

enables us to continue to aggressively serve those markets."​

​

The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and​

have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the​

investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation.​

So when you consider that government gave bad loans a AAA rating, guaranteed the loans through Bear Stearns and First Union, and when you consider the government was suing banks to make these loans....

this is what caused the dramatic increase in sub-prime loans, and that caused the increase in housing prices which started in 1997, and eventually led to the crash in 2008.

It was government, from start to finish. Without government, banks would not have given loans to people who did not qualify for loans. Without government, Freddie Mac would not have guaranteed those loans. Without government those mortgage backed securities would never have been given a "AAA" rating.

Without government none of any of this would have happened.

As an impetus, fine. And Clinton opened the floodgates when he let Rubin and Summers talk him into getting rid of Glass Steagall.

But all the crap that happened afterwards - the derivatives, the AAA ratings, the leverage, the CDSs with zero reserve requirements, the banks shorting the very shit they were selling, on and on and on -- that was the free market run amok. Those were the elements of the meltdown, and government had nothing to do with them.

Nothing about Glass Steagall had anything at all to do with the sub-prime crash.

The repeal that you are talking about, happened in 1999. The sub-prime and housing price bubble started in 1999. The two things are not connected.

Additionally, most of the rest of the world, never had the Glass Steagall regulations. Lending requirements are lower in Canada, than in the US. And most of your Europe for that matter.

Moreover, if that 1999 repeal had never happened.... almost none of the banks that failed would have been under that regulation. Countrywide, nope. Indymac, nope. Bear Stearns, nope. Wachovia, nope. Only a very tiny few banks would have been impacted, like CitiGroup.

Even then, while the Glass Steagall regulations may have prevented the merger of Travelers Group, and CitiCorp, the fact is Travelers Group was spun off in 2002, years before the crash, and thus even then, would have had no impact whatsoever on the sub-prime crash in 2008.

So, no... Regulations, or deregulation, had nothing NOTHING to do with the sub-prime crash. Glass Steagall would not have prevented the crash. Deregulation did not cause the crash. And no amount regulations would have stopped the crash.

The crash was caused by government pushing sub-prime loans, and suing banks to make sub-prime loans. Government involvement in the housing market cashed the economy.

Holy crap.

This was Wall Street -- my industry -- behaving badly. Greenspan admitted it. Born admitted it. Paulsen admitted it. Dimon admitted it. Blankfein admitted it.

I'll side with them. Easily.

And with Guggenhem CIO Scott Minerd, who agrees with me about the Fed:

Let's think about what you are saying.... Greenspan, Paulsen, Demon, Blankfein and others.... people who worked for the government.... said it wasn't government, it was Wall Street.

No they didn't.

Think about that. People who are getting paid by government, refuse to call out government...

Why is this a convincing argument to you?

Besides that... whatever complaint against Wall Street you have, doesn't change any of the facts I posted. Prior to 1997, Sub-prime mortgages were a tiny insignificant fraction of the market. That's not opinion, that's fact. You can look it up.

After 1997, sub-prime loans became a major part of the market. That's a fact. Not opinion.

What changed? Well we know. Freddie Mac gave sub-prime loans a "AAA" rating. That's not opinion, it's fact. We have the press release where they said this openly.

We know, Andrew Cuomo sued banks to force them to make bad loans. Cuomo said this, openly. We have the video, and even admitted that these were people who did not qualify for loans, and he said the default rate would be higher for those loans.

All of that is not opinion. It's fact. It documented uncontested concrete fact. None of this is disputed by any of those people you listed, because they can't.

And we know that two of the biggest failures, were the two banks who were originally in the deal with Freddie Mac sub-prime "AAA" rating scheme. Bear Stearns, and First Union, which became Wachovia.

That's a fact. Not opinion. Concrete undeniable fact.

And lastly, Glass Steagall would have stopped nothing. Bear Stearns would not have been affected by Glass Steagall. First Union, IndyMac, Countrywide, and on and on... none of them would have been affected by Glass Steagall. That's not opinion. That's fact. It is a fact.

So nothing you said, changes anything I said. I just posted the facts. They are facts. They are not debatable, anymore than rain is water falling from the sky, is a fact.

Care to quote them?

No I don't, because I'm not the one who claimed they said it was Wall Street. Ask the guy that claimed they said it was Wall Street, if you want quotes.

Greenspan Concedes Error on Regulation

I didn't need to ask because I already know what was said.

All I said, was that I don't buy this idea that it was all Wall Street, when I have concrete hard evidence that Government was involved in the Sub-prime crashes origins, at every level, and I provided proof of that.

I don't care what any of those people said, because it doesn't matter to the facts I posted.

Right, you won't be providing the quotes.

 

[bripat9643]

many in blm antifa and dem leaders like the gang of 4 headed by AOC claim that the capitalist system in America is a form of white supremacy and the ultimate goal of said leaders and groups is to do away with that system .... so the question for left voters is whether or not they believe capitalism is a form of white supremacy and what economic system do they believe would be better or more importantly to their ideology fairer ?

What they mean is that blacks can't hack it in a fair competitive system. That's truly a sad admission.

 

[Andylusion]

The left bitch and complain about corporations...while investing trillions of their own pension money in the same corporations.

And losing $2.4T of said retirement investments when BushCo crashed the economy.

First, Bush didn't crash the economy. The origins of the sub-prime housing boom started in 1997. Housing prices started rising to bubble levels in 1997, just like sub-prime mortgages started in 1997.

So unless you think Bush passed a policy that warped back into time to 1997, Bush cannot be blamed for the sub-prime crash.

Second, people did not lose $2.4 Trillion in retirement, unless you were stupid enough to sell when the price was low. I started buying stocks in 2008, specifically because prices were low. I didn't lose even a penny, because I simply didn't sell the stock. The market recovered, and I earned money, I did not lose it.

The markets never actually "recovered". They reinflated with massive socialist infusions by the Fed.

Capitalism!!

This is Capitalism 2.0 now: The Federal Reserve as a primary component of the economy, there to save our ass when capitalism fails.

I think all of you are greatly over estimating what effect the Federal Reserve has on anything.

Capitalism never failed either. A bank failing, is not Capitalism failing. Besides that, it was government involvement that caused those failures to begin with.

Under capitalism, where socialists don't dictate what loans banks have to make, no sub-prime loans would ever have been made, and thus no economic crash would have ever happened.

The Meltdown was far less about government than it was about Wall Street's Wild West show, starring the banks, insane unregulated leverage, the mortgage companies, insurance companies, CDO's, CMO's, swaps, synthentics and corruption at the ratings services. Even Alan "the markets will self correct" Greenspan admitted that. And the Fed had to save our ass. AND, he ignored the CLTC's Brooksley Borns when she PUBLICLY BEGGED him for regulation.

Then in 2019, short term credit markets froze again, and the NY Fed had to save our ass again. $1.5T.

Now in 2020, the Fed is saving our ass yet again by buying TRILLIONS in corporate bonds, junk bonds and even EQUITIES.

No, the Fed is all in now. It's our shiny new toy that we'll almost certainly over-use. Capitalism 2.0.

No, that's not true. Facts over opinion. Sub-prime loans have existed for decades. Yet the sub-prime mortgage market was a niche market until 1997, when it dramatically changed into a large portion of loans.

Why did it remain a tiny niche market for decades on decades? Because they were risky. And risky loans lose money.

So what happened in 1997 to 1998 that dramatically changed the entire market? Two things. First, government sued banks to force them to make sub-prime loans.



This is well documented. Cuomo proudly sued banks to make them make bad loans, that he himself in the video openly admits, yeah they didn't qualify for loans, and the default rate will be higher on these loans. That part for certain was true.

The second things government did, was guarantee sub-prime loans. Again well documented that in 1997 Freddie Mac, signed a contract with First Union, which later became Wachovia, and Bear Stearns, both of which were huge failures during the crash.

Bear Stearns, the CRA, and Freddie Mac - Cafe Hayek

I keep hearing that the subprime crisis was caused by people willing to buy stuff they couldn't evaluate. Why would smart people do that? One answer is that they were stupid. In an era of rising home prices, it's hard...

cafehayek.com

Press release from First Union in 1997.

​

Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a​

$384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment​

Act (CRA) loans – marking the industry’s first public securitization of​

CRA loans.​

​

The affordable mortgages were originated or acquired by First Union​

Corporation and subsidiaries. Customers will experience no impact –​

they will continue to make payments to and be serviced by First Union​

Mortgage Corp. CRA loans are loans targeted to low and moderate income​

borrowers and neighborhoods under the Community Reinvestment Act of​

1977.​

​

"The securitization of these affordable mortgages allows us to redeploy​

capital back into our communities and to expand our ability to provide​

credit to low and moderate income individuals," said Jane Henderson,​

managing director of First Union’s Community Reinvestment and Fair​

Lending Programs. "First Union is committed to promoting home ownership​

in traditionally underserved markets through a comprehensive line of​

competitive and flexible affordable mortgage products. This transaction​

enables us to continue to aggressively serve those markets."​

​

The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and​

have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the​

investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation.​

So when you consider that government gave bad loans a AAA rating, guaranteed the loans through Bear Stearns and First Union, and when you consider the government was suing banks to make these loans....

this is what caused the dramatic increase in sub-prime loans, and that caused the increase in housing prices which started in 1997, and eventually led to the crash in 2008.

It was government, from start to finish. Without government, banks would not have given loans to people who did not qualify for loans. Without government, Freddie Mac would not have guaranteed those loans. Without government those mortgage backed securities would never have been given a "AAA" rating.

Without government none of any of this would have happened.

As an impetus, fine. And Clinton opened the floodgates when he let Rubin and Summers talk him into getting rid of Glass Steagall.

But all the crap that happened afterwards - the derivatives, the AAA ratings, the leverage, the CDSs with zero reserve requirements, the banks shorting the very shit they were selling, on and on and on -- that was the free market run amok. Those were the elements of the meltdown, and government had nothing to do with them.

Nothing about Glass Steagall had anything at all to do with the sub-prime crash.

The repeal that you are talking about, happened in 1999. The sub-prime and housing price bubble started in 1999. The two things are not connected.

Additionally, most of the rest of the world, never had the Glass Steagall regulations. Lending requirements are lower in Canada, than in the US. And most of your Europe for that matter.

Moreover, if that 1999 repeal had never happened.... almost none of the banks that failed would have been under that regulation. Countrywide, nope. Indymac, nope. Bear Stearns, nope. Wachovia, nope. Only a very tiny few banks would have been impacted, like CitiGroup.

Even then, while the Glass Steagall regulations may have prevented the merger of Travelers Group, and CitiCorp, the fact is Travelers Group was spun off in 2002, years before the crash, and thus even then, would have had no impact whatsoever on the sub-prime crash in 2008.

So, no... Regulations, or deregulation, had nothing NOTHING to do with the sub-prime crash. Glass Steagall would not have prevented the crash. Deregulation did not cause the crash. And no amount regulations would have stopped the crash.

The crash was caused by government pushing sub-prime loans, and suing banks to make sub-prime loans. Government involvement in the housing market cashed the economy.

Holy crap.

This was Wall Street -- my industry -- behaving badly. Greenspan admitted it. Born admitted it. Paulsen admitted it. Dimon admitted it. Blankfein admitted it.

I'll side with them. Easily.

And with Guggenhem CIO Scott Minerd, who agrees with me about the Fed:

Let's think about what you are saying.... Greenspan, Paulsen, Demon, Blankfein and others.... people who worked for the government.... said it wasn't government, it was Wall Street.

Think about that. People who are getting paid by government, refuse to call out government...

Why is this a convincing argument to you?

Besides that... whatever complaint against Wall Street you have, doesn't change any of the facts I posted. Prior to 1997, Sub-prime mortgages were a tiny insignificant fraction of the market. That's not opinion, that's fact. You can look it up.

After 1997, sub-prime loans became a major part of the market. That's a fact. Not opinion.

What changed? Well we know. Freddie Mac gave sub-prime loans a "AAA" rating. That's not opinion, it's fact. We have the press release where they said this openly.

We know, Andrew Cuomo sued banks to force them to make bad loans. Cuomo said this, openly. We have the video, and even admitted that these were people who did not qualify for loans, and he said the default rate would be higher for those loans.

All of that is not opinion. It's fact. It documented uncontested concrete fact. None of this is disputed by any of those people you listed, because they can't.

And we know that two of the biggest failures, were the two banks who were originally in the deal with Freddie Mac sub-prime "AAA" rating scheme. Bear Stearns, and First Union, which became Wachovia.

That's a fact. Not opinion. Concrete undeniable fact.

And lastly, Glass Steagall would have stopped nothing. Bear Stearns would not have been affected by Glass Steagall. First Union, IndyMac, Countrywide, and on and on... none of them would have been affected by Glass Steagall. That's not opinion. That's fact. It is a fact.

So nothing you said, changes anything I said. I just posted the facts. They are facts. They are not debatable, anymore than rain is water falling from the sky, is a fact.

Dimon and Blankfein are/were bank CEO's.

This is my profession. I've studied what happened for years.

Damn near everything was affected by the repeal of Glass Steagall, as it opened the doors for banks to do EXACTLY what they DID. They could not have done what they did before the silo walls came down.

Your "facts" are based in political partisanship. I have to take this stuff seriously. Believe whatever you want.

Name one fact I posted that was not true.

Explain how a repeal that happened in 1999, caused a sub-prime mortgages surge, and housing price bubble that happened in 1997?

What exactly did the 1999 repeal do, that affected the sub-prime crash?

 

[Cecilie1200]

many in blm antifa and dem leaders like the gang of 4 headed by AOC claim that the capitalist system in America is a form of white supremacy and the ultimate goal of said leaders and groups is to do away with that system .... so the question for left voters is whether or not they believe capitalism is a form of white supremacy and what economic system do they believe would be better or more importantly to their ideology fairer ?

What they mean is that blacks can't hack it in a fair competitive system. That's truly a sad admission.

The soft bigotry of low expectations.

 

[Mac1958]

What exactly did the 1999 repeal do, that affected the sub-prime crash?

Well,

• It tore down the wall between commercial banks and investment banks.
• It opened the door to CDO's, CMO's, synthetics.
• It created the market for the swaps -- with ZERO fucking reserve requirements -- that allowed them to move risk off their balance sheets.
• It allowed the banks to bet against the very fucking securities they were selling to clients.
• It allowed GS and John Paulson to CREATE CMO's they EXPECTED to fail so that they could SELL them and then SHORT them.
• It incentivized mortgage companies to sell SHIT loans because they knew they'd sell them off in 12 hours into shit CMO's.
• It incentivized the banks to lean on the ratings agencies to give TREASURY LEVEL ratings to shit bonds.
• It incentivized banks to lever from 4 to 1 to 35 to 1 with no regulations.

I'm not doing this again with one of you guys. You'll just deny everything I say out of pure partisanship.

I'm done trying to educate you, and with asymmetrical conversations. Believe what you want.

 

[pknopp]

The left bitch and complain about corporations...while investing trillions of their own pension money in the same corporations.

And losing $2.4T of said retirement investments when BushCo crashed the economy.

First, Bush didn't crash the economy. The origins of the sub-prime housing boom started in 1997. Housing prices started rising to bubble levels in 1997, just like sub-prime mortgages started in 1997.

So unless you think Bush passed a policy that warped back into time to 1997, Bush cannot be blamed for the sub-prime crash.

Second, people did not lose $2.4 Trillion in retirement, unless you were stupid enough to sell when the price was low. I started buying stocks in 2008, specifically because prices were low. I didn't lose even a penny, because I simply didn't sell the stock. The market recovered, and I earned money, I did not lose it.

The markets never actually "recovered". They reinflated with massive socialist infusions by the Fed.

Capitalism!!

This is Capitalism 2.0 now: The Federal Reserve as a primary component of the economy, there to save our ass when capitalism fails.

I think all of you are greatly over estimating what effect the Federal Reserve has on anything.

Capitalism never failed either. A bank failing, is not Capitalism failing. Besides that, it was government involvement that caused those failures to begin with.

Under capitalism, where socialists don't dictate what loans banks have to make, no sub-prime loans would ever have been made, and thus no economic crash would have ever happened.

The Meltdown was far less about government than it was about Wall Street's Wild West show, starring the banks, insane unregulated leverage, the mortgage companies, insurance companies, CDO's, CMO's, swaps, synthentics and corruption at the ratings services. Even Alan "the markets will self correct" Greenspan admitted that. And the Fed had to save our ass. AND, he ignored the CLTC's Brooksley Borns when she PUBLICLY BEGGED him for regulation.

Then in 2019, short term credit markets froze again, and the NY Fed had to save our ass again. $1.5T.

Now in 2020, the Fed is saving our ass yet again by buying TRILLIONS in corporate bonds, junk bonds and even EQUITIES.

No, the Fed is all in now. It's our shiny new toy that we'll almost certainly over-use. Capitalism 2.0.

No, that's not true. Facts over opinion. Sub-prime loans have existed for decades. Yet the sub-prime mortgage market was a niche market until 1997, when it dramatically changed into a large portion of loans.

Why did it remain a tiny niche market for decades on decades? Because they were risky. And risky loans lose money.

So what happened in 1997 to 1998 that dramatically changed the entire market? Two things. First, government sued banks to force them to make sub-prime loans.



This is well documented. Cuomo proudly sued banks to make them make bad loans, that he himself in the video openly admits, yeah they didn't qualify for loans, and the default rate will be higher on these loans. That part for certain was true.

The second things government did, was guarantee sub-prime loans. Again well documented that in 1997 Freddie Mac, signed a contract with First Union, which later became Wachovia, and Bear Stearns, both of which were huge failures during the crash.

Bear Stearns, the CRA, and Freddie Mac - Cafe Hayek

I keep hearing that the subprime crisis was caused by people willing to buy stuff they couldn't evaluate. Why would smart people do that? One answer is that they were stupid. In an era of rising home prices, it's hard...

cafehayek.com

Press release from First Union in 1997.

​

Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a​

$384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment​

Act (CRA) loans – marking the industry’s first public securitization of​

CRA loans.​

​

The affordable mortgages were originated or acquired by First Union​

Corporation and subsidiaries. Customers will experience no impact –​

they will continue to make payments to and be serviced by First Union​

Mortgage Corp. CRA loans are loans targeted to low and moderate income​

borrowers and neighborhoods under the Community Reinvestment Act of​

1977.​

​

"The securitization of these affordable mortgages allows us to redeploy​

capital back into our communities and to expand our ability to provide​

credit to low and moderate income individuals," said Jane Henderson,​

managing director of First Union’s Community Reinvestment and Fair​

Lending Programs. "First Union is committed to promoting home ownership​

in traditionally underserved markets through a comprehensive line of​

competitive and flexible affordable mortgage products. This transaction​

enables us to continue to aggressively serve those markets."​

​

The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and​

have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the​

investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation.​

So when you consider that government gave bad loans a AAA rating, guaranteed the loans through Bear Stearns and First Union, and when you consider the government was suing banks to make these loans....

this is what caused the dramatic increase in sub-prime loans, and that caused the increase in housing prices which started in 1997, and eventually led to the crash in 2008.

It was government, from start to finish. Without government, banks would not have given loans to people who did not qualify for loans. Without government, Freddie Mac would not have guaranteed those loans. Without government those mortgage backed securities would never have been given a "AAA" rating.

Without government none of any of this would have happened.

As an impetus, fine. And Clinton opened the floodgates when he let Rubin and Summers talk him into getting rid of Glass Steagall.

But all the crap that happened afterwards - the derivatives, the AAA ratings, the leverage, the CDSs with zero reserve requirements, the banks shorting the very shit they were selling, on and on and on -- that was the free market run amok. Those were the elements of the meltdown, and government had nothing to do with them.

Nothing about Glass Steagall had anything at all to do with the sub-prime crash.

The repeal that you are talking about, happened in 1999. The sub-prime and housing price bubble started in 1999. The two things are not connected.

Additionally, most of the rest of the world, never had the Glass Steagall regulations. Lending requirements are lower in Canada, than in the US. And most of your Europe for that matter.

Moreover, if that 1999 repeal had never happened.... almost none of the banks that failed would have been under that regulation. Countrywide, nope. Indymac, nope. Bear Stearns, nope. Wachovia, nope. Only a very tiny few banks would have been impacted, like CitiGroup.

Even then, while the Glass Steagall regulations may have prevented the merger of Travelers Group, and CitiCorp, the fact is Travelers Group was spun off in 2002, years before the crash, and thus even then, would have had no impact whatsoever on the sub-prime crash in 2008.

So, no... Regulations, or deregulation, had nothing NOTHING to do with the sub-prime crash. Glass Steagall would not have prevented the crash. Deregulation did not cause the crash. And no amount regulations would have stopped the crash.

The crash was caused by government pushing sub-prime loans, and suing banks to make sub-prime loans. Government involvement in the housing market cashed the economy.

Holy crap.

This was Wall Street -- my industry -- behaving badly. Greenspan admitted it. Born admitted it. Paulsen admitted it. Dimon admitted it. Blankfein admitted it.

I'll side with them. Easily.

And with Guggenhem CIO Scott Minerd, who agrees with me about the Fed:

Let's think about what you are saying.... Greenspan, Paulsen, Demon, Blankfein and others.... people who worked for the government.... said it wasn't government, it was Wall Street.

Think about that. People who are getting paid by government, refuse to call out government...

Why is this a convincing argument to you?

Besides that... whatever complaint against Wall Street you have, doesn't change any of the facts I posted. Prior to 1997, Sub-prime mortgages were a tiny insignificant fraction of the market. That's not opinion, that's fact. You can look it up.

After 1997, sub-prime loans became a major part of the market. That's a fact. Not opinion.

What changed? Well we know. Freddie Mac gave sub-prime loans a "AAA" rating. That's not opinion, it's fact. We have the press release where they said this openly.

We know, Andrew Cuomo sued banks to force them to make bad loans. Cuomo said this, openly. We have the video, and even admitted that these were people who did not qualify for loans, and he said the default rate would be higher for those loans.

All of that is not opinion. It's fact. It documented uncontested concrete fact. None of this is disputed by any of those people you listed, because they can't.

And we know that two of the biggest failures, were the two banks who were originally in the deal with Freddie Mac sub-prime "AAA" rating scheme. Bear Stearns, and First Union, which became Wachovia.

That's a fact. Not opinion. Concrete undeniable fact.

And lastly, Glass Steagall would have stopped nothing. Bear Stearns would not have been affected by Glass Steagall. First Union, IndyMac, Countrywide, and on and on... none of them would have been affected by Glass Steagall. That's not opinion. That's fact. It is a fact.

So nothing you said, changes anything I said. I just posted the facts. They are facts. They are not debatable, anymore than rain is water falling from the sky, is a fact.

Dimon and Blankfein are/were bank CEO's.

This is my profession. I've studied what happened for years.

Damn near everything was affected by the repeal of Glass Steagall, as it opened the doors for banks to do EXACTLY what they DID. They could not have done what they did before the silo walls came down.

Your "facts" are based in political partisanship. I have to take this stuff seriously. Believe whatever you want.

Name one fact I posted that was not true.

Explain how a repeal that happened in 1999, caused a sub-prime mortgages surge, and housing price bubble that happened in 1997?

What exactly did the 1999 repeal do, that affected the sub-prime crash?

• It tore down the wall between commercial banks and investment banks.
• It opened the door to CDO's, CMO's, synthetics.
• It created the market for the swaps that allowed them to move risk off their balance sheets.
• It allowed the banks to bet against the very fucking securities they were selling to clients.
• It allowed GS and John Paulson to CREATE CMO's they EXPECTED to fail so that they could SELL them and then SHORT them.
• It incentivized mortgage companies to sell SHIT loans because they knew they'd sell them off in 12 hours into shit CMO's.
• It incentivized the banks to lean on the ratings agencies to give TREASURY LEVEL ratings to shit bonds.
• It incentivized banks to lever from 4 to 1 to 35 to 1 with no regulations.

For starters. I'm not doing this again with one of you guys. You'll just deny everything I say out of pure partisanship.

I'm done trying to educate you, and with asymmetrical conversations. Believe what you want.

If banks had been restricted to gambling only their money, the problem might have still happened but it would have been far smaller. Oddly we haven't really fixed this.

If there wasn't so much money being gambled one can also argue it simply never happens also.

 

[Mac1958]

The left bitch and complain about corporations...while investing trillions of their own pension money in the same corporations.

And losing $2.4T of said retirement investments when BushCo crashed the economy.

First, Bush didn't crash the economy. The origins of the sub-prime housing boom started in 1997. Housing prices started rising to bubble levels in 1997, just like sub-prime mortgages started in 1997.

So unless you think Bush passed a policy that warped back into time to 1997, Bush cannot be blamed for the sub-prime crash.

Second, people did not lose $2.4 Trillion in retirement, unless you were stupid enough to sell when the price was low. I started buying stocks in 2008, specifically because prices were low. I didn't lose even a penny, because I simply didn't sell the stock. The market recovered, and I earned money, I did not lose it.

The markets never actually "recovered". They reinflated with massive socialist infusions by the Fed.

Capitalism!!

This is Capitalism 2.0 now: The Federal Reserve as a primary component of the economy, there to save our ass when capitalism fails.

I think all of you are greatly over estimating what effect the Federal Reserve has on anything.

Capitalism never failed either. A bank failing, is not Capitalism failing. Besides that, it was government involvement that caused those failures to begin with.

Under capitalism, where socialists don't dictate what loans banks have to make, no sub-prime loans would ever have been made, and thus no economic crash would have ever happened.

The Meltdown was far less about government than it was about Wall Street's Wild West show, starring the banks, insane unregulated leverage, the mortgage companies, insurance companies, CDO's, CMO's, swaps, synthentics and corruption at the ratings services. Even Alan "the markets will self correct" Greenspan admitted that. And the Fed had to save our ass. AND, he ignored the CLTC's Brooksley Borns when she PUBLICLY BEGGED him for regulation.

Then in 2019, short term credit markets froze again, and the NY Fed had to save our ass again. $1.5T.

Now in 2020, the Fed is saving our ass yet again by buying TRILLIONS in corporate bonds, junk bonds and even EQUITIES.

No, the Fed is all in now. It's our shiny new toy that we'll almost certainly over-use. Capitalism 2.0.

No, that's not true. Facts over opinion. Sub-prime loans have existed for decades. Yet the sub-prime mortgage market was a niche market until 1997, when it dramatically changed into a large portion of loans.

Why did it remain a tiny niche market for decades on decades? Because they were risky. And risky loans lose money.

So what happened in 1997 to 1998 that dramatically changed the entire market? Two things. First, government sued banks to force them to make sub-prime loans.



This is well documented. Cuomo proudly sued banks to make them make bad loans, that he himself in the video openly admits, yeah they didn't qualify for loans, and the default rate will be higher on these loans. That part for certain was true.

The second things government did, was guarantee sub-prime loans. Again well documented that in 1997 Freddie Mac, signed a contract with First Union, which later became Wachovia, and Bear Stearns, both of which were huge failures during the crash.

Bear Stearns, the CRA, and Freddie Mac - Cafe Hayek

I keep hearing that the subprime crisis was caused by people willing to buy stuff they couldn't evaluate. Why would smart people do that? One answer is that they were stupid. In an era of rising home prices, it's hard...

cafehayek.com

Press release from First Union in 1997.

​

Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a​

$384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment​

Act (CRA) loans – marking the industry’s first public securitization of​

CRA loans.​

​

The affordable mortgages were originated or acquired by First Union​

Corporation and subsidiaries. Customers will experience no impact –​

they will continue to make payments to and be serviced by First Union​

Mortgage Corp. CRA loans are loans targeted to low and moderate income​

borrowers and neighborhoods under the Community Reinvestment Act of​

1977.​

​

"The securitization of these affordable mortgages allows us to redeploy​

capital back into our communities and to expand our ability to provide​

credit to low and moderate income individuals," said Jane Henderson,​

managing director of First Union’s Community Reinvestment and Fair​

Lending Programs. "First Union is committed to promoting home ownership​

in traditionally underserved markets through a comprehensive line of​

competitive and flexible affordable mortgage products. This transaction​

enables us to continue to aggressively serve those markets."​

​

The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and​

have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the​

investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation.​

So when you consider that government gave bad loans a AAA rating, guaranteed the loans through Bear Stearns and First Union, and when you consider the government was suing banks to make these loans....

this is what caused the dramatic increase in sub-prime loans, and that caused the increase in housing prices which started in 1997, and eventually led to the crash in 2008.

It was government, from start to finish. Without government, banks would not have given loans to people who did not qualify for loans. Without government, Freddie Mac would not have guaranteed those loans. Without government those mortgage backed securities would never have been given a "AAA" rating.

Without government none of any of this would have happened.

As an impetus, fine. And Clinton opened the floodgates when he let Rubin and Summers talk him into getting rid of Glass Steagall.

But all the crap that happened afterwards - the derivatives, the AAA ratings, the leverage, the CDSs with zero reserve requirements, the banks shorting the very shit they were selling, on and on and on -- that was the free market run amok. Those were the elements of the meltdown, and government had nothing to do with them.

Nothing about Glass Steagall had anything at all to do with the sub-prime crash.

The repeal that you are talking about, happened in 1999. The sub-prime and housing price bubble started in 1999. The two things are not connected.

Additionally, most of the rest of the world, never had the Glass Steagall regulations. Lending requirements are lower in Canada, than in the US. And most of your Europe for that matter.

Moreover, if that 1999 repeal had never happened.... almost none of the banks that failed would have been under that regulation. Countrywide, nope. Indymac, nope. Bear Stearns, nope. Wachovia, nope. Only a very tiny few banks would have been impacted, like CitiGroup.

Even then, while the Glass Steagall regulations may have prevented the merger of Travelers Group, and CitiCorp, the fact is Travelers Group was spun off in 2002, years before the crash, and thus even then, would have had no impact whatsoever on the sub-prime crash in 2008.

So, no... Regulations, or deregulation, had nothing NOTHING to do with the sub-prime crash. Glass Steagall would not have prevented the crash. Deregulation did not cause the crash. And no amount regulations would have stopped the crash.

The crash was caused by government pushing sub-prime loans, and suing banks to make sub-prime loans. Government involvement in the housing market cashed the economy.

Holy crap.

This was Wall Street -- my industry -- behaving badly. Greenspan admitted it. Born admitted it. Paulsen admitted it. Dimon admitted it. Blankfein admitted it.

I'll side with them. Easily.

And with Guggenhem CIO Scott Minerd, who agrees with me about the Fed:

Let's think about what you are saying.... Greenspan, Paulsen, Demon, Blankfein and others.... people who worked for the government.... said it wasn't government, it was Wall Street.

Think about that. People who are getting paid by government, refuse to call out government...

Why is this a convincing argument to you?

Besides that... whatever complaint against Wall Street you have, doesn't change any of the facts I posted. Prior to 1997, Sub-prime mortgages were a tiny insignificant fraction of the market. That's not opinion, that's fact. You can look it up.

After 1997, sub-prime loans became a major part of the market. That's a fact. Not opinion.

What changed? Well we know. Freddie Mac gave sub-prime loans a "AAA" rating. That's not opinion, it's fact. We have the press release where they said this openly.

We know, Andrew Cuomo sued banks to force them to make bad loans. Cuomo said this, openly. We have the video, and even admitted that these were people who did not qualify for loans, and he said the default rate would be higher for those loans.

All of that is not opinion. It's fact. It documented uncontested concrete fact. None of this is disputed by any of those people you listed, because they can't.

And we know that two of the biggest failures, were the two banks who were originally in the deal with Freddie Mac sub-prime "AAA" rating scheme. Bear Stearns, and First Union, which became Wachovia.

That's a fact. Not opinion. Concrete undeniable fact.

And lastly, Glass Steagall would have stopped nothing. Bear Stearns would not have been affected by Glass Steagall. First Union, IndyMac, Countrywide, and on and on... none of them would have been affected by Glass Steagall. That's not opinion. That's fact. It is a fact.

So nothing you said, changes anything I said. I just posted the facts. They are facts. They are not debatable, anymore than rain is water falling from the sky, is a fact.

Dimon and Blankfein are/were bank CEO's.

This is my profession. I've studied what happened for years.

Damn near everything was affected by the repeal of Glass Steagall, as it opened the doors for banks to do EXACTLY what they DID. They could not have done what they did before the silo walls came down.

Your "facts" are based in political partisanship. I have to take this stuff seriously. Believe whatever you want.

Name one fact I posted that was not true.

Explain how a repeal that happened in 1999, caused a sub-prime mortgages surge, and housing price bubble that happened in 1997?

What exactly did the 1999 repeal do, that affected the sub-prime crash?

• It tore down the wall between commercial banks and investment banks.
• It opened the door to CDO's, CMO's, synthetics.
• It created the market for the swaps that allowed them to move risk off their balance sheets.
• It allowed the banks to bet against the very fucking securities they were selling to clients.
• It allowed GS and John Paulson to CREATE CMO's they EXPECTED to fail so that they could SELL them and then SHORT them.
• It incentivized mortgage companies to sell SHIT loans because they knew they'd sell them off in 12 hours into shit CMO's.
• It incentivized the banks to lean on the ratings agencies to give TREASURY LEVEL ratings to shit bonds.
• It incentivized banks to lever from 4 to 1 to 35 to 1 with no regulations.

For starters. I'm not doing this again with one of you guys. You'll just deny everything I say out of pure partisanship.

I'm done trying to educate you, and with asymmetrical conversations. Believe what you want.

If banks had been restricted to gambling only their money, the problem might have still happened but it would have been far smaller. Oddly we haven't really fixed this.

If there wasn't so much money being gambled one can also argue it simply never happens also.

And, of course, they made the banks even BIGGER than they were before when they were patching things together.

Unless and until we go back to something like Glass Steagall, we're just hanging over a cliff.

 

[sartre play]

The left bitch and complain about corporations...while investing trillions of their own pension money in the same corporations.

And losing $2.4T of said retirement investments when BushCo crashed the economy.

First, Bush didn't crash the economy. The origins of the sub-prime housing boom started in 1997. Housing prices started rising to bubble levels in 1997, just like sub-prime mortgages started in 1997.

So unless you think Bush passed a policy that warped back into time to 1997, Bush cannot be blamed for the sub-prime crash.

Second, people did not lose $2.4 Trillion in retirement, unless you were stupid enough to sell when the price was low. I started buying stocks in 2008, specifically because prices were low. I didn't lose even a penny, because I simply didn't sell the stock. The market recovered, and I earned money, I did not lose it.

The markets never actually "recovered". They reinflated with massive socialist infusions by the Fed.

Capitalism!!

This is Capitalism 2.0 now: The Federal Reserve as a primary component of the economy, there to save our ass when capitalism fails.

I think all of you are greatly over estimating what effect the Federal Reserve has on anything.

Capitalism never failed either. A bank failing, is not Capitalism failing. Besides that, it was government involvement that caused those failures to begin with.

Under capitalism, where socialists don't dictate what loans banks have to make, no sub-prime loans would ever have been made, and thus no economic crash would have ever happened.

The Meltdown was far less about government than it was about Wall Street's Wild West show, starring the banks, insane unregulated leverage, the mortgage companies, insurance companies, CDO's, CMO's, swaps, synthentics and corruption at the ratings services. Even Alan "the markets will self correct" Greenspan admitted that. And the Fed had to save our ass. AND, he ignored the CLTC's Brooksley Borns when she PUBLICLY BEGGED him for regulation.

Then in 2019, short term credit markets froze again, and the NY Fed had to save our ass again. $1.5T.

Now in 2020, the Fed is saving our ass yet again by buying TRILLIONS in corporate bonds, junk bonds and even EQUITIES.

No, the Fed is all in now. It's our shiny new toy that we'll almost certainly over-use. Capitalism 2.0.

No, that's not true. Facts over opinion. Sub-prime loans have existed for decades. Yet the sub-prime mortgage market was a niche market until 1997, when it dramatically changed into a large portion of loans.

Why did it remain a tiny niche market for decades on decades? Because they were risky. And risky loans lose money.

So what happened in 1997 to 1998 that dramatically changed the entire market? Two things. First, government sued banks to force them to make sub-prime loans.



This is well documented. Cuomo proudly sued banks to make them make bad loans, that he himself in the video openly admits, yeah they didn't qualify for loans, and the default rate will be higher on these loans. That part for certain was true.

The second things government did, was guarantee sub-prime loans. Again well documented that in 1997 Freddie Mac, signed a contract with First Union, which later became Wachovia, and Bear Stearns, both of which were huge failures during the crash.

Bear Stearns, the CRA, and Freddie Mac - Cafe Hayek

I keep hearing that the subprime crisis was caused by people willing to buy stuff they couldn't evaluate. Why would smart people do that? One answer is that they were stupid. In an era of rising home prices, it's hard...

cafehayek.com

Press release from First Union in 1997.

​

Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a​

$384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment​

Act (CRA) loans – marking the industry’s first public securitization of​

CRA loans.​

​

The affordable mortgages were originated or acquired by First Union​

Corporation and subsidiaries. Customers will experience no impact –​

they will continue to make payments to and be serviced by First Union​

Mortgage Corp. CRA loans are loans targeted to low and moderate income​

borrowers and neighborhoods under the Community Reinvestment Act of​

1977.​

​

"The securitization of these affordable mortgages allows us to redeploy​

capital back into our communities and to expand our ability to provide​

credit to low and moderate income individuals," said Jane Henderson,​

managing director of First Union’s Community Reinvestment and Fair​

Lending Programs. "First Union is committed to promoting home ownership​

in traditionally underserved markets through a comprehensive line of​

competitive and flexible affordable mortgage products. This transaction​

enables us to continue to aggressively serve those markets."​

​

The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and​

have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the​

investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation.​

So when you consider that government gave bad loans a AAA rating, guaranteed the loans through Bear Stearns and First Union, and when you consider the government was suing banks to make these loans....

this is what caused the dramatic increase in sub-prime loans, and that caused the increase in housing prices which started in 1997, and eventually led to the crash in 2008.

It was government, from start to finish. Without government, banks would not have given loans to people who did not qualify for loans. Without government, Freddie Mac would not have guaranteed those loans. Without government those mortgage backed securities would never have been given a "AAA" rating.

Without government none of any of this would have happened.

As an impetus, fine. And Clinton opened the floodgates when he let Rubin and Summers talk him into getting rid of Glass Steagall.

But all the crap that happened afterwards - the derivatives, the AAA ratings, the leverage, the CDSs with zero reserve requirements, the banks shorting the very shit they were selling, on and on and on -- that was the free market run amok. Those were the elements of the meltdown, and government had nothing to do with them.

Nothing about Glass Steagall had anything at all to do with the sub-prime crash.

The repeal that you are talking about, happened in 1999. The sub-prime and housing price bubble started in 1999. The two things are not connected.

Additionally, most of the rest of the world, never had the Glass Steagall regulations. Lending requirements are lower in Canada, than in the US. And most of your Europe for that matter.

Moreover, if that 1999 repeal had never happened.... almost none of the banks that failed would have been under that regulation. Countrywide, nope. Indymac, nope. Bear Stearns, nope. Wachovia, nope. Only a very tiny few banks would have been impacted, like CitiGroup.

Even then, while the Glass Steagall regulations may have prevented the merger of Travelers Group, and CitiCorp, the fact is Travelers Group was spun off in 2002, years before the crash, and thus even then, would have had no impact whatsoever on the sub-prime crash in 2008.

So, no... Regulations, or deregulation, had nothing NOTHING to do with the sub-prime crash. Glass Steagall would not have prevented the crash. Deregulation did not cause the crash. And no amount regulations would have stopped the crash.

The crash was caused by government pushing sub-prime loans, and suing banks to make sub-prime loans. Government involvement in the housing market cashed the economy.

Holy crap.

This was Wall Street -- my industry -- behaving badly. Greenspan admitted it. Born admitted it. Paulsen admitted it. Dimon admitted it. Blankfein admitted it.

I'll side with them. Easily.

And with Guggenhem CIO Scott Minerd, who agrees with me about the Fed:

I clearly remember Greenspan saying that he just would not allow him self to believe that people could be that dishonest & greedy.

 

[Mac1958]

The left bitch and complain about corporations...while investing trillions of their own pension money in the same corporations.

And losing $2.4T of said retirement investments when BushCo crashed the economy.

First, Bush didn't crash the economy. The origins of the sub-prime housing boom started in 1997. Housing prices started rising to bubble levels in 1997, just like sub-prime mortgages started in 1997.

So unless you think Bush passed a policy that warped back into time to 1997, Bush cannot be blamed for the sub-prime crash.

Second, people did not lose $2.4 Trillion in retirement, unless you were stupid enough to sell when the price was low. I started buying stocks in 2008, specifically because prices were low. I didn't lose even a penny, because I simply didn't sell the stock. The market recovered, and I earned money, I did not lose it.

The markets never actually "recovered". They reinflated with massive socialist infusions by the Fed.

Capitalism!!

This is Capitalism 2.0 now: The Federal Reserve as a primary component of the economy, there to save our ass when capitalism fails.

I think all of you are greatly over estimating what effect the Federal Reserve has on anything.

Capitalism never failed either. A bank failing, is not Capitalism failing. Besides that, it was government involvement that caused those failures to begin with.

Under capitalism, where socialists don't dictate what loans banks have to make, no sub-prime loans would ever have been made, and thus no economic crash would have ever happened.

The Meltdown was far less about government than it was about Wall Street's Wild West show, starring the banks, insane unregulated leverage, the mortgage companies, insurance companies, CDO's, CMO's, swaps, synthentics and corruption at the ratings services. Even Alan "the markets will self correct" Greenspan admitted that. And the Fed had to save our ass. AND, he ignored the CLTC's Brooksley Borns when she PUBLICLY BEGGED him for regulation.

Then in 2019, short term credit markets froze again, and the NY Fed had to save our ass again. $1.5T.

Now in 2020, the Fed is saving our ass yet again by buying TRILLIONS in corporate bonds, junk bonds and even EQUITIES.

No, the Fed is all in now. It's our shiny new toy that we'll almost certainly over-use. Capitalism 2.0.

No, that's not true. Facts over opinion. Sub-prime loans have existed for decades. Yet the sub-prime mortgage market was a niche market until 1997, when it dramatically changed into a large portion of loans.

Why did it remain a tiny niche market for decades on decades? Because they were risky. And risky loans lose money.

So what happened in 1997 to 1998 that dramatically changed the entire market? Two things. First, government sued banks to force them to make sub-prime loans.



This is well documented. Cuomo proudly sued banks to make them make bad loans, that he himself in the video openly admits, yeah they didn't qualify for loans, and the default rate will be higher on these loans. That part for certain was true.

The second things government did, was guarantee sub-prime loans. Again well documented that in 1997 Freddie Mac, signed a contract with First Union, which later became Wachovia, and Bear Stearns, both of which were huge failures during the crash.

Bear Stearns, the CRA, and Freddie Mac - Cafe Hayek

I keep hearing that the subprime crisis was caused by people willing to buy stuff they couldn't evaluate. Why would smart people do that? One answer is that they were stupid. In an era of rising home prices, it's hard...

cafehayek.com

Press release from First Union in 1997.

​

Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a​

$384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment​

Act (CRA) loans – marking the industry’s first public securitization of​

CRA loans.​

​

The affordable mortgages were originated or acquired by First Union​

Corporation and subsidiaries. Customers will experience no impact –​

they will continue to make payments to and be serviced by First Union​

Mortgage Corp. CRA loans are loans targeted to low and moderate income​

borrowers and neighborhoods under the Community Reinvestment Act of​

1977.​

​

"The securitization of these affordable mortgages allows us to redeploy​

capital back into our communities and to expand our ability to provide​

credit to low and moderate income individuals," said Jane Henderson,​

managing director of First Union’s Community Reinvestment and Fair​

Lending Programs. "First Union is committed to promoting home ownership​

in traditionally underserved markets through a comprehensive line of​

competitive and flexible affordable mortgage products. This transaction​

enables us to continue to aggressively serve those markets."​

​

The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and​

have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the​

investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation.​

So when you consider that government gave bad loans a AAA rating, guaranteed the loans through Bear Stearns and First Union, and when you consider the government was suing banks to make these loans....

this is what caused the dramatic increase in sub-prime loans, and that caused the increase in housing prices which started in 1997, and eventually led to the crash in 2008.

It was government, from start to finish. Without government, banks would not have given loans to people who did not qualify for loans. Without government, Freddie Mac would not have guaranteed those loans. Without government those mortgage backed securities would never have been given a "AAA" rating.

Without government none of any of this would have happened.

As an impetus, fine. And Clinton opened the floodgates when he let Rubin and Summers talk him into getting rid of Glass Steagall.

But all the crap that happened afterwards - the derivatives, the AAA ratings, the leverage, the CDSs with zero reserve requirements, the banks shorting the very shit they were selling, on and on and on -- that was the free market run amok. Those were the elements of the meltdown, and government had nothing to do with them.

Nothing about Glass Steagall had anything at all to do with the sub-prime crash.

The repeal that you are talking about, happened in 1999. The sub-prime and housing price bubble started in 1999. The two things are not connected.

Additionally, most of the rest of the world, never had the Glass Steagall regulations. Lending requirements are lower in Canada, than in the US. And most of your Europe for that matter.

Moreover, if that 1999 repeal had never happened.... almost none of the banks that failed would have been under that regulation. Countrywide, nope. Indymac, nope. Bear Stearns, nope. Wachovia, nope. Only a very tiny few banks would have been impacted, like CitiGroup.

Even then, while the Glass Steagall regulations may have prevented the merger of Travelers Group, and CitiCorp, the fact is Travelers Group was spun off in 2002, years before the crash, and thus even then, would have had no impact whatsoever on the sub-prime crash in 2008.

So, no... Regulations, or deregulation, had nothing NOTHING to do with the sub-prime crash. Glass Steagall would not have prevented the crash. Deregulation did not cause the crash. And no amount regulations would have stopped the crash.

The crash was caused by government pushing sub-prime loans, and suing banks to make sub-prime loans. Government involvement in the housing market cashed the economy.

Holy crap.

This was Wall Street -- my industry -- behaving badly. Greenspan admitted it. Born admitted it. Paulsen admitted it. Dimon admitted it. Blankfein admitted it.

I'll side with them. Easily.

And with Guggenhem CIO Scott Minerd, who agrees with me about the Fed:

I clearly remember Greenspan saying that he just would not allow him self to believe that people could be that dishonest & greedy.

Yes, and trust is at the core of markets correcting themselves. CLTC Chairwoman Brooksley Born publicly BEGGED Greenspan to regulate these flaming piles of shit derivatives and he simply refused. He made a massive and incorrect assumption - that markets will correct themselves. But that can only happen if everyone is playing by the rules.

That's certainly one of the primary dangers of naivete inherent in libertarian economics.

 

[pknopp]

The left bitch and complain about corporations...while investing trillions of their own pension money in the same corporations.

And losing $2.4T of said retirement investments when BushCo crashed the economy.

First, Bush didn't crash the economy. The origins of the sub-prime housing boom started in 1997. Housing prices started rising to bubble levels in 1997, just like sub-prime mortgages started in 1997.

So unless you think Bush passed a policy that warped back into time to 1997, Bush cannot be blamed for the sub-prime crash.

Second, people did not lose $2.4 Trillion in retirement, unless you were stupid enough to sell when the price was low. I started buying stocks in 2008, specifically because prices were low. I didn't lose even a penny, because I simply didn't sell the stock. The market recovered, and I earned money, I did not lose it.

The markets never actually "recovered". They reinflated with massive socialist infusions by the Fed.

Capitalism!!

This is Capitalism 2.0 now: The Federal Reserve as a primary component of the economy, there to save our ass when capitalism fails.

I think all of you are greatly over estimating what effect the Federal Reserve has on anything.

Capitalism never failed either. A bank failing, is not Capitalism failing. Besides that, it was government involvement that caused those failures to begin with.

Under capitalism, where socialists don't dictate what loans banks have to make, no sub-prime loans would ever have been made, and thus no economic crash would have ever happened.

The Meltdown was far less about government than it was about Wall Street's Wild West show, starring the banks, insane unregulated leverage, the mortgage companies, insurance companies, CDO's, CMO's, swaps, synthentics and corruption at the ratings services. Even Alan "the markets will self correct" Greenspan admitted that. And the Fed had to save our ass. AND, he ignored the CLTC's Brooksley Borns when she PUBLICLY BEGGED him for regulation.

Then in 2019, short term credit markets froze again, and the NY Fed had to save our ass again. $1.5T.

Now in 2020, the Fed is saving our ass yet again by buying TRILLIONS in corporate bonds, junk bonds and even EQUITIES.

No, the Fed is all in now. It's our shiny new toy that we'll almost certainly over-use. Capitalism 2.0.

No, that's not true. Facts over opinion. Sub-prime loans have existed for decades. Yet the sub-prime mortgage market was a niche market until 1997, when it dramatically changed into a large portion of loans.

Why did it remain a tiny niche market for decades on decades? Because they were risky. And risky loans lose money.

So what happened in 1997 to 1998 that dramatically changed the entire market? Two things. First, government sued banks to force them to make sub-prime loans.



This is well documented. Cuomo proudly sued banks to make them make bad loans, that he himself in the video openly admits, yeah they didn't qualify for loans, and the default rate will be higher on these loans. That part for certain was true.

The second things government did, was guarantee sub-prime loans. Again well documented that in 1997 Freddie Mac, signed a contract with First Union, which later became Wachovia, and Bear Stearns, both of which were huge failures during the crash.

Bear Stearns, the CRA, and Freddie Mac - Cafe Hayek

I keep hearing that the subprime crisis was caused by people willing to buy stuff they couldn't evaluate. Why would smart people do that? One answer is that they were stupid. In an era of rising home prices, it's hard...

cafehayek.com

Press release from First Union in 1997.

​

Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a​

$384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment​

Act (CRA) loans – marking the industry’s first public securitization of​

CRA loans.​

​

The affordable mortgages were originated or acquired by First Union​

Corporation and subsidiaries. Customers will experience no impact –​

they will continue to make payments to and be serviced by First Union​

Mortgage Corp. CRA loans are loans targeted to low and moderate income​

borrowers and neighborhoods under the Community Reinvestment Act of​

1977.​

​

"The securitization of these affordable mortgages allows us to redeploy​

capital back into our communities and to expand our ability to provide​

credit to low and moderate income individuals," said Jane Henderson,​

managing director of First Union’s Community Reinvestment and Fair​

Lending Programs. "First Union is committed to promoting home ownership​

in traditionally underserved markets through a comprehensive line of​

competitive and flexible affordable mortgage products. This transaction​

enables us to continue to aggressively serve those markets."​

​

The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and​

have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the​

investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation.​

So when you consider that government gave bad loans a AAA rating, guaranteed the loans through Bear Stearns and First Union, and when you consider the government was suing banks to make these loans....

this is what caused the dramatic increase in sub-prime loans, and that caused the increase in housing prices which started in 1997, and eventually led to the crash in 2008.

It was government, from start to finish. Without government, banks would not have given loans to people who did not qualify for loans. Without government, Freddie Mac would not have guaranteed those loans. Without government those mortgage backed securities would never have been given a "AAA" rating.

Without government none of any of this would have happened.

As an impetus, fine. And Clinton opened the floodgates when he let Rubin and Summers talk him into getting rid of Glass Steagall.

But all the crap that happened afterwards - the derivatives, the AAA ratings, the leverage, the CDSs with zero reserve requirements, the banks shorting the very shit they were selling, on and on and on -- that was the free market run amok. Those were the elements of the meltdown, and government had nothing to do with them.

Nothing about Glass Steagall had anything at all to do with the sub-prime crash.

The repeal that you are talking about, happened in 1999. The sub-prime and housing price bubble started in 1999. The two things are not connected.

Additionally, most of the rest of the world, never had the Glass Steagall regulations. Lending requirements are lower in Canada, than in the US. And most of your Europe for that matter.

Moreover, if that 1999 repeal had never happened.... almost none of the banks that failed would have been under that regulation. Countrywide, nope. Indymac, nope. Bear Stearns, nope. Wachovia, nope. Only a very tiny few banks would have been impacted, like CitiGroup.

Even then, while the Glass Steagall regulations may have prevented the merger of Travelers Group, and CitiCorp, the fact is Travelers Group was spun off in 2002, years before the crash, and thus even then, would have had no impact whatsoever on the sub-prime crash in 2008.

So, no... Regulations, or deregulation, had nothing NOTHING to do with the sub-prime crash. Glass Steagall would not have prevented the crash. Deregulation did not cause the crash. And no amount regulations would have stopped the crash.

The crash was caused by government pushing sub-prime loans, and suing banks to make sub-prime loans. Government involvement in the housing market cashed the economy.

Holy crap.

This was Wall Street -- my industry -- behaving badly. Greenspan admitted it. Born admitted it. Paulsen admitted it. Dimon admitted it. Blankfein admitted it.

I'll side with them. Easily.

And with Guggenhem CIO Scott Minerd, who agrees with me about the Fed:

I clearly remember Greenspan saying that he just would not allow him self to believe that people could be that dishonest & greedy.

Yes he did.....then had to admit he was wrong.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The left bitch and complain about corporations...while investing trillions of their own pension money in the same corporations.

And losing $2.4T of said retirement investments when BushCo crashed the economy.

First, Bush didn't crash the economy. The origins of the sub-prime housing boom started in 1997. Housing prices started rising to bubble levels in 1997, just like sub-prime mortgages started in 1997.

So unless you think Bush passed a policy that warped back into time to 1997, Bush cannot be blamed for the sub-prime crash.

Second, people did not lose $2.4 Trillion in retirement, unless you were stupid enough to sell when the price was low. I started buying stocks in 2008, specifically because prices were low. I didn't lose even a penny, because I simply didn't sell the stock. The market recovered, and I earned money, I did not lose it.

The markets never actually "recovered". They reinflated with massive socialist infusions by the Fed.

Capitalism!!

This is Capitalism 2.0 now: The Federal Reserve as a primary component of the economy, there to save our ass when capitalism fails.

I think all of you are greatly over estimating what effect the Federal Reserve has on anything.

Capitalism never failed either. A bank failing, is not Capitalism failing. Besides that, it was government involvement that caused those failures to begin with.

Under capitalism, where socialists don't dictate what loans banks have to make, no sub-prime loans would ever have been made, and thus no economic crash would have ever happened.

The Meltdown was far less about government than it was about Wall Street's Wild West show, starring the banks, insane unregulated leverage, the mortgage companies, insurance companies, CDO's, CMO's, swaps, synthentics and corruption at the ratings services. Even Alan "the markets will self correct" Greenspan admitted that. And the Fed had to save our ass. AND, he ignored the CLTC's Brooksley Borns when she PUBLICLY BEGGED him for regulation.

Then in 2019, short term credit markets froze again, and the NY Fed had to save our ass again. $1.5T.

Now in 2020, the Fed is saving our ass yet again by buying TRILLIONS in corporate bonds, junk bonds and even EQUITIES.

No, the Fed is all in now. It's our shiny new toy that we'll almost certainly over-use. Capitalism 2.0.

No, that's not true. Facts over opinion. Sub-prime loans have existed for decades. Yet the sub-prime mortgage market was a niche market until 1997, when it dramatically changed into a large portion of loans.

Why did it remain a tiny niche market for decades on decades? Because they were risky. And risky loans lose money.

So what happened in 1997 to 1998 that dramatically changed the entire market? Two things. First, government sued banks to force them to make sub-prime loans.



This is well documented. Cuomo proudly sued banks to make them make bad loans, that he himself in the video openly admits, yeah they didn't qualify for loans, and the default rate will be higher on these loans. That part for certain was true.

The second things government did, was guarantee sub-prime loans. Again well documented that in 1997 Freddie Mac, signed a contract with First Union, which later became Wachovia, and Bear Stearns, both of which were huge failures during the crash.

Bear Stearns, the CRA, and Freddie Mac - Cafe Hayek

I keep hearing that the subprime crisis was caused by people willing to buy stuff they couldn't evaluate. Why would smart people do that? One answer is that they were stupid. In an era of rising home prices, it's hard...

cafehayek.com

Press release from First Union in 1997.

​

Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a​

$384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment​

Act (CRA) loans – marking the industry’s first public securitization of​

CRA loans.​

​

The affordable mortgages were originated or acquired by First Union​

Corporation and subsidiaries. Customers will experience no impact –​

they will continue to make payments to and be serviced by First Union​

Mortgage Corp. CRA loans are loans targeted to low and moderate income​

borrowers and neighborhoods under the Community Reinvestment Act of​

1977.​

​

"The securitization of these affordable mortgages allows us to redeploy​

capital back into our communities and to expand our ability to provide​

credit to low and moderate income individuals," said Jane Henderson,​

managing director of First Union’s Community Reinvestment and Fair​

Lending Programs. "First Union is committed to promoting home ownership​

in traditionally underserved markets through a comprehensive line of​

competitive and flexible affordable mortgage products. This transaction​

enables us to continue to aggressively serve those markets."​

​

The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and​

have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the​

investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation.​

So when you consider that government gave bad loans a AAA rating, guaranteed the loans through Bear Stearns and First Union, and when you consider the government was suing banks to make these loans....

this is what caused the dramatic increase in sub-prime loans, and that caused the increase in housing prices which started in 1997, and eventually led to the crash in 2008.

It was government, from start to finish. Without government, banks would not have given loans to people who did not qualify for loans. Without government, Freddie Mac would not have guaranteed those loans. Without government those mortgage backed securities would never have been given a "AAA" rating.

Without government none of any of this would have happened.

As an impetus, fine. And Clinton opened the floodgates when he let Rubin and Summers talk him into getting rid of Glass Steagall.

But all the crap that happened afterwards - the derivatives, the AAA ratings, the leverage, the CDSs with zero reserve requirements, the banks shorting the very shit they were selling, on and on and on -- that was the free market run amok. Those were the elements of the meltdown, and government had nothing to do with them.

Nothing about Glass Steagall had anything at all to do with the sub-prime crash.

The repeal that you are talking about, happened in 1999. The sub-prime and housing price bubble started in 1999. The two things are not connected.

Additionally, most of the rest of the world, never had the Glass Steagall regulations. Lending requirements are lower in Canada, than in the US. And most of your Europe for that matter.

Moreover, if that 1999 repeal had never happened.... almost none of the banks that failed would have been under that regulation. Countrywide, nope. Indymac, nope. Bear Stearns, nope. Wachovia, nope. Only a very tiny few banks would have been impacted, like CitiGroup.

Even then, while the Glass Steagall regulations may have prevented the merger of Travelers Group, and CitiCorp, the fact is Travelers Group was spun off in 2002, years before the crash, and thus even then, would have had no impact whatsoever on the sub-prime crash in 2008.

So, no... Regulations, or deregulation, had nothing NOTHING to do with the sub-prime crash. Glass Steagall would not have prevented the crash. Deregulation did not cause the crash. And no amount regulations would have stopped the crash.

The crash was caused by government pushing sub-prime loans, and suing banks to make sub-prime loans. Government involvement in the housing market cashed the economy.

Holy crap.

This was Wall Street -- my industry -- behaving badly. Greenspan admitted it. Born admitted it. Paulsen admitted it. Dimon admitted it. Blankfein admitted it.

I'll side with them. Easily.

And with Guggenhem CIO Scott Minerd, who agrees with me about the Fed:

I clearly remember Greenspan saying that he just would not allow him self to believe that people could be that dishonest & greedy.

Yes, and trust is at the core of markets correcting themselves. CLTC Chairwoman Brooksley Born publicly BEGGED Greenspan to regulate these flaming piles of shit derivatives and he simply refused. He made a massive and incorrect assumption - that markets will correct themselves. But that can only happen if everyone is playing by the rules.

That's certainly one of the primary dangers of naivete inherent in libertarian economics.

I disagree.

Too many monkey wrenches have stifled true free markets.

Too many "protections" have eliminated caution/fear to balance out "greed" and risk-taking.

Give us an REAL free market and let some people get spanked a few times for making reckless decisions, and it WILL work correctly.