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

[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, 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.

One thing.....you can look at the removal of regulations as Libertarian. The thing is, Libertarians wouldn't have bailed them out when they failed though.

Would they have learned? Maybe not. They most certainly didn't by the taxpayers bailing them out.

 

[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.

One thing.....you can look at the removal of regulations as Libertarian. The thing is, Libertarians wouldn't have bailed them out when they failed though.

Would they have learned? Maybe not. They most certainly didn't by the taxpayers bailing them out.

Exactly. The libertarian ideal is to let people be as stupid with their own money as they choose.

Don' t bail people out when they fuck up and take too big of risks.

 

[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, 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.

One thing.....you can look at the removal of regulations as Libertarian. The thing is, Libertarians wouldn't have bailed them out when they failed though.

Would they have learned? Maybe not. They most certainly didn't by the taxpayers bailing them out.

Exactly. The libertarian ideal is to let people be as stupid with their own money as they choose.

Don' t bail people out when they fuck up and take too big of risks.

It makes for a good discussion at the very least.

 

[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.

One thing.....you can look at the removal of regulations as Libertarian. The thing is, Libertarians wouldn't have bailed them out when they failed though.

Would they have learned? Maybe not. They most certainly didn't by the taxpayers bailing them out.

Sure. Look at areas where a lack of regulations exacerbated the mechanics of the Meltdown:

• Banks levered up to 30 and 40 to 1
• No regulation on CMO's
• No regulation on CDO's
• No regulation on synthetics
• No regulation on mortgage company requirements
• No regulation on internal CDO/CMO fees
• No regulation on the shit mortgages that were sold into CMO's
• No reserve requirements for credit default swaps (wtf)
• No standards for the ratings agencies, letting them sell AAA ratings on shit securities
• No regulation on shorting securities you're selling to "clients"

What the fuck. What did we expect?

One of my brothers was CFO at a bank in Southern California at the time. They saw the money in CDO's and charged him with putting together some proprietary bonds. He went back to them and told them how far he'd have to bottom-feed to put those things together and they told him to never mind.

This was, and is, a farce.

 

[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, 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.

One thing.....you can look at the removal of regulations as Libertarian. The thing is, Libertarians wouldn't have bailed them out when they failed though.

Would they have learned? Maybe not. They most certainly didn't by the taxpayers bailing them out.

Sure. Look at areas where a lack of regulations exacerbated the mechanics of the Meltdown:

• Banks levered up to 30 and 40 to 1
• No regulation on CMO's
• No regulation on CDO's
• No regulation on synthetics
• No regulation on mortgage company requirements
• No regulation on internal CDO/CMO fees
• No regulation on the shit mortgages that were sold into CMO's
• No reserve requirements for credit default swaps (wtf)
• No standards for the ratings agencies, letting them sell AAA ratings on shit securities
• No regulation on shorting securities you're selling to "clients"

What the fuck. What did we expect?

One of my brothers was CFO at a bank in Southern California at the time. They saw the money in CDO's and charged him with putting together some proprietary bonds. He went back to them and told them how far he'd have to bottom-feed to put those things together and they told him to never mind.

This was, and is, a farce.

I'm going to land on the side of regulations. I'm taking the Libertarian argument over the (R) and (D)'s though.

 

[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.

One thing.....you can look at the removal of regulations as Libertarian. The thing is, Libertarians wouldn't have bailed them out when they failed though.

Would they have learned? Maybe not. They most certainly didn't by the taxpayers bailing them out.

Sure. Look at areas where a lack of regulations exacerbated the mechanics of the Meltdown:

• Banks levered up to 30 and 40 to 1
• No regulation on CMO's
• No regulation on CDO's
• No regulation on synthetics
• No regulation on mortgage company requirements
• No regulation on internal CDO/CMO fees
• No regulation on the shit mortgages that were sold into CMO's
• No reserve requirements for credit default swaps (wtf)
• No standards for the ratings agencies, letting them sell AAA ratings on shit securities
• No regulation on shorting securities you're selling to "clients"

What the fuck. What did we expect?

One of my brothers was CFO at a bank in Southern California at the time. They saw the money in CDO's and charged him with putting together some proprietary bonds. He went back to them and told them how far he'd have to bottom-feed to put those things together and they told him to never mind.

This was, and is, a farce.

I'm going to land on the side of regulations. I'm taking the Libertarian argument over the (R) and (D)'s though.

Well, the R's have developed this silly and simplistic "government is always wrong" meme, and the Democrats confuse more regulation with better regulation.

This is a great example of how tribalism is killing us. The two ends need to work together to find a reasonable equilibrium between the two. But they're not allowed to act like adults.

 

[basquebromance]

Republicans are trying to get away with murder, actually — the murder of George Floyd

 

[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, 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.

One thing.....you can look at the removal of regulations as Libertarian. The thing is, Libertarians wouldn't have bailed them out when they failed though.

Would they have learned? Maybe not. They most certainly didn't by the taxpayers bailing them out.

Sure. Look at areas where a lack of regulations exacerbated the mechanics of the Meltdown:

• Banks levered up to 30 and 40 to 1
• No regulation on CMO's
• No regulation on CDO's
• No regulation on synthetics
• No regulation on mortgage company requirements
• No regulation on internal CDO/CMO fees
• No regulation on the shit mortgages that were sold into CMO's
• No reserve requirements for credit default swaps (wtf)
• No standards for the ratings agencies, letting them sell AAA ratings on shit securities
• No regulation on shorting securities you're selling to "clients"

What the fuck. What did we expect?

One of my brothers was CFO at a bank in Southern California at the time. They saw the money in CDO's and charged him with putting together some proprietary bonds. He went back to them and told them how far he'd have to bottom-feed to put those things together and they told him to never mind.

This was, and is, a farce.

I'm going to land on the side of regulations. I'm taking the Libertarian argument over the (R) and (D)'s though.

Well, the R's have developed this silly and simplistic "government is always wrong" meme, and the Democrats confuse more regulation with better regulation.

This is a great example of how tribalism is killing us. The two ends need to work together to find a reasonable equilibrium between the two. But they're not allowed to act like adults.

I'm not sure many of them even can.

 

[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.

One thing.....you can look at the removal of regulations as Libertarian. The thing is, Libertarians wouldn't have bailed them out when they failed though.

Would they have learned? Maybe not. They most certainly didn't by the taxpayers bailing them out.

Sure. Look at areas where a lack of regulations exacerbated the mechanics of the Meltdown:

• Banks levered up to 30 and 40 to 1
• No regulation on CMO's
• No regulation on CDO's
• No regulation on synthetics
• No regulation on mortgage company requirements
• No regulation on internal CDO/CMO fees
• No regulation on the shit mortgages that were sold into CMO's
• No reserve requirements for credit default swaps (wtf)
• No standards for the ratings agencies, letting them sell AAA ratings on shit securities
• No regulation on shorting securities you're selling to "clients"

What the fuck. What did we expect?

One of my brothers was CFO at a bank in Southern California at the time. They saw the money in CDO's and charged him with putting together some proprietary bonds. He went back to them and told them how far he'd have to bottom-feed to put those things together and they told him to never mind.

This was, and is, a farce.

I'm going to land on the side of regulations. I'm taking the Libertarian argument over the (R) and (D)'s though.

Well, the R's have developed this silly and simplistic "government is always wrong" meme, and the Democrats confuse more regulation with better regulation.

This is a great example of how tribalism is killing us. The two ends need to work together to find a reasonable equilibrium between the two. But they're not allowed to act like adults.

I'm not sure many of them even can.

Speaking of that, I saw something a year or two ago that scared the shit out me.

A guy wondered out loud if it has been so long since we communicated like adults that we've literally lost the skill. Like a muscle that has atrophied -- use it or lose it.

Holy crap.

 

[sartre play]

Both party's are a unbelievable mess, I use to spend hours looking at voting records, where money was spent. try and pick the best people regardless of party. now its the party that has a few less older than dirt inflexible people, & tiny amount of less flat out nuts. So sad

 

[georgephillip]

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.

SNAP feeds forty million Americans who would be left without an adequate supply of food. Why are conservatives indifferent to that fact?

 

[georgephillip]

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....

Rich people control government.
That reality has little to do with the exercise of political authority of a political unit and a great deal to do with how capitalism concentrates wealth (and political influence) into fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation.

BlackRock is another example of how rich capitalists loot society by bribing government for the legal ability to do so:

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

"BlackRock was founded in 1988 in partnership with the Blackstone Group, a multinational private equity management firm that would become notorious after the 2008-09 banking crisis for snatching up foreclosed homes at firesale prices and renting them at inflated prices.

"BlackRock first grew its balance sheet in the 1990s and 2000s by promoting the mortgage-backed securities (MBS) that brought down the economy in 2008.

"Knowing the MBS business from the inside, it was then put in charge of the Federal Reserve’s 'Maiden Lane' facilities.

"Called 'special purpose vehicles,' these were used to buy 'toxic' assets (largely unmarketable MBS) from Bear Stearns and American Insurance Group (AIG), something the Fed was not legally allowed to do itself."

 

[georgephillip]

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.

Bill Gates is another parasite all conservatives hope to mimic.
Can you imagine a free computer OS?

 

[anynameyouwish]

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 ?

"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 ?"


no, capitalism is NOT INHERENTLY racist in favor of whites.

American Capitalism (rigged in favor of the rich and powerful by law)
favors whites because whites control it. NOT because it is racist.


Only five black billionaires in United States

Jay-Z: $1 billion.
Michael Jordan: $1.9 billion.
Oprah Winfrey: $2.7 billion.
David Steward: $3.5 billion.
Robert Smith: $5 billion.

List of wealthiest Americans by net worth - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As of October 2019, there were 621 billionaires--a record high--in the United States"


One (you perhaps) might argue "this proves they (blacks) are inferior"

I would laugh at that and state my belief that it reflects a systemic racism in the USA


"what economic system do they believe would be better or more importantly to their ideology fairer"

American Capitalism, fettered, UNrigged, that paid every working person a LIVABLE WAGE and granted AFFORDABLE EDUCATION and HEALTH CARE to all citizens.

If every working person/family had at least a little DISPOSABLE INCOME they would use it to keep the economy humming along; pizza, take out, movies....


MORE money in FEWER hands is not so good for the economy.


and if we want to MAGA and KAGA then we need to educate future generations with the best education

 

[georgephillip]

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.

They engage in stock buybacks which were illegal prior to Reagan. How does that affect unemployment and the cost of living for 90% of Americans?

 

[Andylusion]

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.

They engage in stock buybacks which were illegal prior to Reagan. How does that affect unemployment and the cost of living for 90% of Americans?

It doesn't? Lets say that you own 50 shares of Apple Computer. I own shares of Apple computer.

If Apple does a stock buy back, all that does is raise the value of outstanding shares.

So me, being a common man that earned $30K last year, my stocks increase in value.

Stock buy backs have no effect on cost of living.
Stock buy backs have no effect on unemployment.

At the very best, a stock buyback, will reduce unemployment, and lower the cost of living. That is a fairly liberal and generous interpretation, but if anything... it would lower the cost of living and reduce unemployment in the long term.

The loose logic here, is that at some level buying back the stock will reduce the cost of dividend payments to shareholders. That would allow them to increase investment into research, design, expanding operations, and of course hiring people and increasing wages.

R&D of course leads to reduced costs for better products, which reduces cost of living.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

Bill Gates is another parasite all conservatives hope to mimic.
Can you imagine a free computer OS?

Free sucks. If I've learned anything, it's that free sucks.

I run linux. Trying to get linux to do everything you need, is like pulling teeth, using a pair channel locks designed for a locomotive.

So why do I run linux? Because I have a entertainment center connected to a projector. Linux can handle playing video from streaming services just fine.

But if you think Linux is the same as Mac OS, or Windows, no... it isn't.

 

[georgephillip]

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

You still haven't answered my question: How do you assess Trump's "leadership" on the Covid-19 crisis?

Begging you to mask up ● Too broken to fight COVID-19 ● Organize and win | The Stand

 

[Andylusion]

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....

Rich people control government.
That reality has little to do with the exercise of political authority of a political unit and a great deal to do with how capitalism concentrates wealth (and political influence) into fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation.

BlackRock is another example of how rich capitalists loot society by bribing government for the legal ability to do so:

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

"BlackRock was founded in 1988 in partnership with the Blackstone Group, a multinational private equity management firm that would become notorious after the 2008-09 banking crisis for snatching up foreclosed homes at firesale prices and renting them at inflated prices.

"BlackRock first grew its balance sheet in the 1990s and 2000s by promoting the mortgage-backed securities (MBS) that brought down the economy in 2008.

"Knowing the MBS business from the inside, it was then put in charge of the Federal Reserve’s 'Maiden Lane' facilities.

"Called 'special purpose vehicles,' these were used to buy 'toxic' assets (largely unmarketable MBS) from Bear Stearns and American Insurance Group (AIG), something the Fed was not legally allowed to do itself."

First, mortgage backed securities were created by the government. Go look it up. The first MBS was from Freddie Mac in 1971.

Second, it wasn't MBS that crashed the economy. Since 1971, the entire housing market is built on MBSs. Even to this day.

The only MBS that crashed, were ones with Sub-prime loans bundled with them. Sub-prime loans crashed the economy. Mortgage backed securities that had no sub-prime loans, did not have a problem.

Third, there is nothing wrong with buying houses that are on sale. I bought my Condo for a fraction of it's value, because the owners wanted to get rid of it fast. I made an offer, they accepted that offer.

Fourth, you can't rent a house at 'inflated prices'. If you offer a rental for $1,500 a month, when all the other rentals in the city are going for $800 a month, no one will rent your house. If someone is willing to pay the rental price, then it isn't an inflated rental price.

Lastly, I somewhat agree about the buying up of so-called "toxic assets". But that isn't BlackRocks fault. It's governments fault. They should never have been involved.

They should have simply allowed Bear Stearns to fail, they would have gone into bankruptcy court, the court would have auctioned off the assets. Someone would have bought those assets for pennies on the dollar, and life would have continued on.

That system would have been far better than handing off lucrative deals to favored investment groups, at tax payer expense.

But you putting the blame in the wrong place. BlackRock didn't set that up. The Government did. If the government had refused to intervene in Bear Stearns, is there anything BlackRock could have done? No. BlackRock had no power to do anything.

It was government that used your tax money, to pretend that Government saved you from a great depression. Government used your money, to fool you into thinking that they saved you.

You can complain about BlackRock until the end of time. Doesn't change anything. If BlackRock didn't exist, the government would have found another to take it's place, and help them fool you into thinking they saved you.

The problem is government. Stop voting for socialists that think they make the world go around.

 

[Andylusion]

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

You still haven't answered my question: How do you assess Trump's "leadership" on the Covid-19 crisis?

Begging you to mask up ● Too broken to fight COVID-19 ● Organize and win | The Stand

Because I have no problem with his leadership.

Only an idiot thinks Trump, or government, can save you from Corona. What exactly do you think Trump is going to do, to stop an illness? Run around the country with wet wipes?

Trump has nothing to do with it. It doesn't matter who was in office, Corona would be exactly as it is.