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

[Andylusion]

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?

So you are right now supporting giving tax money to billionaires.

Thanks. You proved my point. End of story.

By the way, that isn't true. In the 1990s, we kicked people off Food stamps, and shockingly they simply earned money, and bought food.

This idea that because you are stupid enough to give people money, means those people will die without the money you give.. not true. People can work for their food. We saw that in the 1990s. They got off food stamps, got a job, earned money, and bought their own food.

Regardless, you just made my entire point. You right here, right now, support the top 1%, getting your tax money. Congrats. You are a good little pawn of the rich.

 

[georgephillip]

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

Aside from the last half-century of college and professional athletics, when have US blacks been allowed to compete in a fair, competitive system?

 

[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:

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.

None of the things you listed, had anything to do with the crash.

The crash was caused by mortgage backed securities, that had sub-prime loans rolled into them, and those loans defaulted, causing the MBS with those loans to lose value. That loss of value, caused banks which had those MBS on their books to have margin calls.

A margin call, is when the value of the asset is reduced below the required backing of the borrowed money. Meaning, you borrow $100, and the asset is worth $100, but over time that asset declines in value (say to $80), so that there is a margin between the borrowed amount ($100), and the value of the asset backing that loan ($80), and that margin call, forces the bank to pay the difference.

What happens there, is that it forces you tell sell the asset ($80), to pay the loan ($100), which of course is impossible. So you have to sell something else to pay the missing $20.

But if all your assets are short... then you end up in a death spiral, where you sell more assets, to pay more loans, and the debt you own gets deeper and deeper until you are bankrupt.

Now, what of the things you listed would have prevented any of that?

• Banks levered up to 30 and 40 to 1 (nope)
• No regulation on CMO's (nope)
• No regulation on CDO's (nope)
• No regulation on synthetics (nope)
• No regulation on internal CDO/CMO fees (nope)
• No reserve requirements for credit default swaps (wtf) (nope)
• No regulation on shorting securities you're selling to "clients" (nope)

So out of everything you listed, none of those there, would have had any impact whatsoever on the crash.

Would a regulation on CDO fees, have stopped Sub-prime mortgages being made, bundled into MBSs? Would a reserve requirement on CDS, have stopped those sub-prime mortgages from defaulting, and crashing banks with them? NO. None of that would have stopped anything.

The only ones you listed that would have had an impact are these:

• No regulation on the shit mortgages that were sold into CMO's
• No standards for the ratings agencies, letting them sell AAA ratings on shit securities
• No regulation on mortgage company requirements

Here's the problem with all of those. We do have regulations on them, and it was government that created the problem with all three.

Government gave sub-prime loans a AAA rating because Freddie Mac gave them a AAA rating.

Again, I posted the press release from 1997, where it said SPECIFICALLY... that Freddie Mac gave sub-prime loans a AAA rating.

We did have regulations on mortgage companies, and on what mortgages could be bundled into MBS, in that we only accepted prime rate mortgages. That in fact, is why the Prime-Rate mortgages existed to begin with.

That's why until 1997, sub-prime loans were a niche market. You couldn't bundle those mortgages into MBSs and sell them.

Freddie Mac changed that. Again, I gave you the press release from 1997 that SPECIFICALLY said as much.

Government did this. It was not a lack of regulation.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Aside from the last half-century of college and professional athletics, when have US blacks been allowed to compete in a fair, competitive system?

Every year since slavery was abolished.

 

[Andylusion]

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

Aside from the last half-century of college and professional athletics, when have US blacks been allowed to compete in a fair, competitive system?

Every single day, to the present.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Those are all lies, of course. Your idea of "no regulations" mean the regulations you wanted weren't imposed. There are thousands of regulations on all these things.

 

[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:

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.

Those are all lies, of course. Your idea of "no regulations" mean the regulations you wanted weren't imposed. There are thousands of regulations on all these things.

DEAD ON RIGHT.
I am so sick of people saying "there were no regulation!" BULL CRAP.
We have more regulations on every aspect of banking, than any other country IN THE WORLD. Literally anywhere else in the world, has less regulations than we do.
Insane statement.

 

[georgephillip]

Every single day, to the present.

If blacks have been allowed to compete in a fair, competitive system "every single day to the present," how do you explain this:

Nine Charts about Wealth Inequality in America (Updated)

 

[georgephillip]

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.

And what did you do to earn that value?
Stock buybacks make no contribution to the productive capabilities of the firm. In fact, such distributions to shareholders which often come on top of dividends disrupt growth dynamics that link productivity and pay to productive employees of the firm. IOW, for all your whining about others wanting "free stuff", you're just another parasite sponging off the labor of others.

 

[georgephillip]

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.

Stock buybacks are a key component to today's high profit, low wage economy. Buybacks extract value from corporations rather than investing in a cycle of continuous productivity growth, benefiting workers, consumers, and society as a whole.

https://rooseveltinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/RI_Buybacks-FAQ_022019-final.pdf

"The scope and frequency of stock buybacks—also known as open-market share repurchases—have risen steadily over the last 30 years, a trend accelerated by the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) in 2017 (Palladino 2018).

"J.P. Morgan estimates that buyback spending increased from $530 billion in 2017 to more than $800 billion by the end of 2018 (Linnane 2018).2 n

"This substantial sum of money is flowing to a small minority of wealthy shareholders instead of being spent on workers, productive investments such as research and development (R&D), and other corporate spending that generates value in our economy.

"Banning or curbing stock buybacks would be an important step in restructuring corporate behavior in service of broad-based economic growth."

 

[Grumblenuts]

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 ?

Just FYI: "democrats" in your title - "left voters" in your OP above. While "Democrat" may imply Left, it certainly does not equal Left. I am Left. No way I'm a fucking Democrat or Republican. Both now way, way too far Right for me. Beyond that, simply throwing shit at people like above invites no serious response.

 

[Dragonlady]

no

then you need to take a close look at the people you support .

REALLY?? I’m amazed that anyone who supports Donald J. Trump thinks that intone could be worse for the country.

 

[georgephillip]

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

Mortgage back securities were invented by Lew Ranieri.

As usual. you conflate "government" with those whose money corrupts that institution:

25 People to Blame for the Financial Crisis - TIME.

"Meet the father of mortgage-backed bonds.

"In the late 1970s, the college dropout and Salomon trader coined the term securitization to name a tidy bit of financial alchemy in which home loans were packaged together by Wall Street firms and sold to institutional investors.

"In 1984 Ranieri boasted that his mortgage-trading desk 'made more money than all the rest of Wall Street combined.'

"The good times rolled: as homeownership exploded in the early '00s, the mortgage-bond business inflated Wall Street's bottom line. So the firms placed even bigger bets on these securities.

"But when subprime borrowers started missing payments, the mortgage market stalled and bond prices collapsed.

"Investment banks, overexposed to the toxic assets, closed their doors. Investors lost fortunes."

Do you blame government or Wall Street for all those lost fortunes?

 

[georgephillip]

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.

FIRE sector speculators inflate rental prices as easily as any other asset class and that was before Trump's MAGA Virus took its toll:

It’s Not Just You: 5 Signs Rent Is Totally Out of Control

"Median Rent Has Doubled in 20 Years

"Thanks to inflation, we can expect rent and other expenses to rise over the years.

"But rental rate increases in the U.S. have been outpacing inflation for decades.

"In the first quarter of 2017, the median asking rent for a vacant apartment or home in the U.S. was $864, according to the Census Bureau.

"By comparison, median rent was around $500 at the turn of the millennium, and it rose to $700 during the Great Recession and topped $800 for the first time in 2015.

" Without adjusting for inflation, today’s median rent is roughly double that of 1995, when it was around $425."

In my neighborhood, apartments that rented for $375 a month in 1995 currently have a market-rate rental of $1250 monthly.

 

[georgephillip]

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?

Should he wear a mask in public?
Should he provide for greater testing?
Should he stop lying?

Trump’s death cult presidency - The Boston Globe

"So far, largely as a result of Trump’s willful negligence, inept leadership, and sociopathic narcissism, nearly 100,000 people nationwide are dead from COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus.

"He continues to recklessly encourage Americans to race back to life as usual."

 

[pknopp]

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.

And what did you do to earn that value?
Stock buybacks make no contribution to the productive capabilities of the firm. In fact, such distributions to shareholders which often come on top of dividends disrupt growth dynamics that link productivity and pay to productive employees of the firm. IOW, for all your whining about others wanting "free stuff", you're just another parasite sponging off the labor of others.

Every time the markets go south "investors" scream for more incentives to boost the market. That is indeed sponging off of others.

Trillions for the markets but a raise in the minimum wage? That's evil.

 

[bripat9643]

Every single day, to the present.

If blacks have been allowed to compete in a fair, competitive system "every single day to the present," how do you explain this:

Nine Charts about Wealth Inequality in America (Updated)

Urban Institute? That explains it. It's propaganda.

 

[georgephillip]

Urban Institute? That explains it. It's propaganda.

Point out any inaccuracies if you can.

Nine Charts about Wealth Inequality in America (Updated)

"The federal government spends over $400 billion to support asset development, but those subsidies primarily benefited higher-income families—exacerbating wealth inequality and racial wealth disparities."

 

[Andylusion]

Every single day, to the present.

If blacks have been allowed to compete in a fair, competitive system "every single day to the present," how do you explain this:

Nine Charts about Wealth Inequality in America (Updated)

That's not hard to explain.

Thomas Sowell talks about how blacks that have high achievement in school, are shunned and often bullied by their peers.

So that is one reason right there.

Look at some of the Blacks that have succeeded in life, and see how they are treated by other blacks. Larry Elder, Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, and the list goes on and on. All of them that have worked extremely hard, and been very successful are shunned and attacked by unsuccessful blacks, as being "Uncle Toms" and other slurs.

Well... use your brain.... what does that do to a culture, when you promote people who have never worked an honest days work at a real job in their entire lives (Obama), and you attack everyone that worked hard and succeeded in life?

Another reason, is that there is a direct connection between life success and having an intact family.

This is true in any other group. White people, Latin people, Native people, Indian people, Asian people. All people.

Having an intact family is critical to success. Kids that grow up in single parent, or broken homes, end up with drug problems, anger problems, crime problems, and educational problem. It is one of the highest predictors of success.

Also another major factor in the lack of wealth, is dependence on government assistance.

This is also HUGE. The more you depend on government programs, the less likely you are to ever be successful. Nothing is a larger factor that prevents you from succeeding, than being on government assistance. Poverty programs, for the most part, keep people in poverty.

Lastly, being wise with money. Massive problem in the Black community. If you are wise with money, you'll become wealthy, no matter how much or little you make. If you are terrible with money, you'll be poor, no matter how much or how little you make.

Just look at all the actors that ended up bankrupt, even though they make millions per movie. Take a look at Michael Jackson who made an estimated Billion dollars in his life time, and at the end of his life was on the verge of bankruptcy. Take a look at the pro athletes that end up in poverty after making millions on millions in the NBA and NFL.

A janitor secretly amassed an $8 million fortune and left most of it to his library and hospital

A one-time janitor and gas station attendant demonstrated that you can become a multimillionaire with a modest salary.

www.cnbc.com

Janitor.... $8 Million dollars. You know those quarter million income that Janitors make? Right? 6-figure incomes for Janitors?

He didn't become wealthy because he was white, or because he was paid tons of money to clean toilets. He became wealthy because he was wise with money.

The reason wealthy people are wealthy, is because they do things, and act in ways that make them wealthy.

The reason poor people are poor, is because they do things, and act in ways that make them poor.

If you doubt that, then consider that anyone who does those things better... will end up with better results.

Perfect example.... Asians. Asians as a group, are more educations, more wealthy, and have less crime, than White Americans.

Why is that? Because of all the things I listed above. Asians avoid living off the government. Asians have a high view of being educated. Asians hate criminals. Asians have an extremely high view of staying married, and hate divorce. Very big on family values. And Asians are wise with money, and live frugally and invest wisely.

If racism is the problem, then why are Asians doing better than white Americans as a group?

I'll give you two short stories as examples.

Met a couple from Laos. They escaped socialism in Laos and fled to the US. Here they did not know English. So they together, as a married couple, learned English. They then got GEDs. They then learned how to do CNC machining. They both earned $60,000 each. Now they own a house, and both drive SUVs.

How can they come here knowing nothing, and end up in the fourth highest income Quintiles?

Second example, had a roommate from Bangladesh. Got a masters degree in programming. Came to the US, got a contract job earning $90,000 a year. He rented out my spare bed room, for $400 a month.

Now why would a guy making $90K rent a room? Because he wanted to save the money, so he could buy a house when his wife came to the US, without taking out a mortgage.

Wise with money. He's going to be super wealthy, because he is saving and investing money wisely.

This is why blacks are poor, and others are not.

 

[Andylusion]

Urban Institute? That explains it. It's propaganda.

Point out any inaccuracies if you can.

Nine Charts about Wealth Inequality in America (Updated)

"The federal government spends over $400 billion to support asset development, but those subsidies primarily benefited higher-income families—exacerbating wealth inequality and racial wealth disparities."

First, I agree that Federal programs do not benefit people. Then why is it when we try and cut those programs that don't help, do left-wingers scream and rage against it?

Second, there is nothing inaccurate about the charts on those pages. I agree with them all.

What we disagree with, is where the blame is.

The blame is on the people who don't get an education or learn a skill, and go make money.
The blame is on the people who refuse to work hard, and earn a living.
The blame in on the people who spend everything they have, and refuse to save for retirement.

It's not racism. If you show up at my bank, with black skin, and deposit $10,000 into a retirement account... the bank isn't going to..... What? What do you think the bank is going to do? You think they are going to say "Oh sorry, we don't take money from people like you"? Really? Show me that.

If you are black, and you open an investment IRA account, the bank is going to be MORE THAN HAPPY to take your cash and earn profit for both of you.

More than happy. Guarantee it.

The reason blacks don't have wealth, is because they don't put the money in the account.

The reason blacks don't earn as much, is because they don't get jobs that pay more.

Go get a job that pays more. Learn to be an electrician, and make $25/hour. Learn to install windows for Andersons. $20/hour to start.

Anyone can succeed in this country. ANYONE. A drunk guy, whittling duck callers, ends up running a multimillion dollar company, Duck Commander. An immigrant from Mexico, without a work permit, started a Drone building company, and is now a multi-millionaire.

Anyone can be successful. Its up to you to do it.

All those factoids on that link you posted, all accurate. But the problem is, you want to pretend it has something to do with racism, or capitalism, or some other -ism you want to blame. All of your conclusions are false. The facts are true. The conclusion is false.

People make choices. Those choices are why some are rich, and some are poor.