Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
i think the question is a bit more complicated than simple politics and who butters the bread. I'll be the first to lineup any Wall Street folks who committed fraud or violated the public trust.
However...if the complaint is that firms sold worthless MBS's and CDO's to other firms, that in-and-of itself is not illegal by any means. It would only be a problem if they sold assets without proper disclosure. We don't have laws to protect Wall Street firms from their own stupidity.
I, personally, lost money due to the mortgage meltdown.
I blame no one but myself. I invested with the hopes my money would make easy money for me. If I had won the gamble, I would say "good call"....and if I lost, I would say "bad call"
Bad call.
And I again say...the real law breakers were the ones who lied on their mortgage applications. When you sign an app there is a disclaimer that says when you sign it you are attesting to the validity of the information to the best opf your knowledge.
The NINJA loans opened the door to the consumer to act illegally and unethically....if anyone actually broke a law...it was the ones that lied when they signed the affidavit.
I believe the people offering the loans and the people who signed them are equally culpable but...
The people offering the loans had a financial incentive in convincing applicants that they could lie on the application - and some clearly did so (and a few of those mortgage folks are where they belong, in jail.)
NY AG Investigation: Why Haven't Wall Streeters Gone to Jail? - Yahoo! News
For investigators looking for smoking guns that show Wall Street bankers at the height of the bubble knew the mortgage bonds they were pushing on clients were worthless junk, these emails seem about as good as you can get. And yet, nearly five years later after these emails were written, and months after they became public this year as part of case brought by mortgage insurer Ambac against Bear and J.P. Morgan Chase nothing has happened. Neither Lind nor Smith have been charged with any wrong-doing over the deal, nor has anyone else at Bear, or elsewhere for that matter. It's nearly three years after the financial crisis, and not a single Wall Streeter has been sent to jail for charges related to the mortgage bonds and other financial products that caused hundreds of billions of dollars in loses and nearly brought down the U.S. economy.
Well rightwingers, why do you still bow down and kiss the feet of Wall Streeters?
What does being a "rightwinger" have to do with it, Flay?
The self-proclaiming conservatives on this board are no less victimized by this ongoing crime than you or I are.
And in some cases I don't doubt they were actually much more aggreieved since many of these people play the market.
i think the question is a bit more complicated than simple politics and who butters the bread. I'll be the first to lineup any Wall Street folks who committed fraud or violated the public trust.
However...if the complaint is that firms sold worthless MBS's and CDO's to other firms, that in-and-of itself is not illegal by any means. It would only be a problem if they sold assets without proper disclosure. We don't have laws to protect Wall Street firms from their own stupidity.
I think there WAS FRAUD in many cases...mostly having to do with risk accessment and bonds ratings.
No, banks gave subprime loans to people with bad credit which isn't the same as giving loans to people who can't afford them you dickhead and its still on lenders. The housing bubble debacle is proof that supply side economics is bullshit.
You are wrong.
They denied loans to those with bad credit.
Bullshit, they gave people subprime loans if they had bad credit because they were greedy and thought about the interest they could make.
You need to understand how it works to debate this topic. The banks do not approve ones credit...the underwriter does. Besides, what good is the interest if the person has bad credit and doesnt pay his bills?They gave loans to people who were unable to afford them. They lowered the income standards for loans and they also lowered the "backgoruind check" standards...not asking for proof of income.
Nobody can force a bank to give anyone a bad loan or a loan at all, more bullshit.
I didnt say they were forced to. I said they lowered their standards.
It was believed by all that they will be able to afford the low ARM rate offered...and when the prime+ rate kicked in, they would be able to refinance.
Correction they changed their rates from what was signed and agreed upon to make more money, greed.
I, personally, lost money due to the mortgage meltdown.
I blame no one but myself. I invested with the hopes my money would make easy money for me. If I had won the gamble, I would say "good call"....and if I lost, I would say "bad call"
Bad call.
And I again say...the real law breakers were the ones who lied on their mortgage applications. When you sign an app there is a disclaimer that says when you sign it you are attesting to the validity of the information to the best opf your knowledge.
The NINJA loans opened the door to the consumer to act illegally and unethically....if anyone actually broke a law...it was the ones that lied when they signed the affidavit.
I believe the people offering the loans and the people who signed them are equally culpable but...
The people offering the loans had a financial incentive in convincing applicants that they could lie on the application - and some clearly did so (and a few of those mortgage folks are where they belong, in jail.)
If someone convinces me to steal, and I steal...and I am caught...I am the only one at fault.
The one who convinced me? Unethical...not a friend...not one I would ever want to listen to again.....a lesson learned for me....but he did nothing illegal....I did.
I believe the people offering the loans and the people who signed them are equally culpable but...
The people offering the loans had a financial incentive in convincing applicants that they could lie on the application - and some clearly did so (and a few of those mortgage folks are where they belong, in jail.)
If someone convinces me to steal, and I steal...and I am caught...I am the only one at fault.
The one who convinced me? Unethical...not a friend...not one I would ever want to listen to again.....a lesson learned for me....but he did nothing illegal....I did.
But if someone convinces you that what you're doing isn't stealing, they are at fault.
I disagree. If someone convinces me that taking something that is not mine and I did not pay for and is not labelled "take one" is not stealing, then I am at fault. They are dicks, yes...but I am at fault.
And if someone offers you a product based on information they know to be false, they are at fault.
In my opinion, no one offered anything they knew to be false. They offered mortagges...they are contracts...the terms are laid out. No one has been accused of putting in terms that were arbitrarily changed AFTER they were sigend.
The drive to sell mortgages was not a demand-side phenomena. There was not some endogenous increase in demand for homes. The pressure was supply-side: Firms needed mortgages to repackage, split into MBS's, and sell upstream for profit. As the supply-side pressure increased, the scrutiny on those requesting loans decreased -to the point where people are in jail for purposefully misleading individuals about their loans.
I think most people misunderstand the origin of this mess when they start from the premise that the increased demand was from consumers. The increased demand was from Wall Street.
I disagree. The impetus were very low interest rates and a chance for people to get cash out on a re-fi...the demand skyrocketed. The interest rates were not industry controilled...they were world wide market controlled.....truth is...only a fool paying 7.75% would not re-fi at 4.85%......it was most certainly driven by the demand of the consumer.
Why hasn't the A.G. gone to jail? I'm talking about Eric Holder. About fifteen years ago the hypocrites in the democrat party authorized Holder to release the most notorious corporate pirate in history in exchange for a million dollar donation to Clinton's sleazy library. Holder gave the OK for the screwball ATF to ship illegal weapons to Mexico in a stupid plan to trace them to drug cartels and they ended up being used to kill Americans.
If someone convinces me to steal, and I steal...and I am caught...I am the only one at fault.
The one who convinced me? Unethical...not a friend...not one I would ever want to listen to again.....a lesson learned for me....but he did nothing illegal....I did.
But if someone convinces you that what you're doing isn't stealing, they are at fault.
I disagree. If someone convinces me that taking something that is not mine and I did not pay for and is not labelled "take one" is not stealing, then I am at fault. They are dicks, yes...but I am at fault.
And if someone offers you a product based on information they know to be false, they are at fault.
In my opinion, no one offered anything they knew to be false. They offered mortagges...they are contracts...the terms are laid out. No one has been accused of putting in terms that were arbitrarily changed AFTER they were sigend.
The drive to sell mortgages was not a demand-side phenomena. There was not some endogenous increase in demand for homes. The pressure was supply-side: Firms needed mortgages to repackage, split into MBS's, and sell upstream for profit. As the supply-side pressure increased, the scrutiny on those requesting loans decreased -to the point where people are in jail for purposefully misleading individuals about their loans.
I think most people misunderstand the origin of this mess when they start from the premise that the increased demand was from consumers. The increased demand was from Wall Street.
I disagree. The impetus were very low interest rates and a chance for people to get cash out on a re-fi...the demand skyrocketed. The interest rates were not industry controilled...they were world wide market controlled.....truth is...only a fool paying 7.75% would not re-fi at 4.85%......it was most certainly driven by the demand of the consumer.
Of course...in my opinion...and how I see it.
But if someone convinces you that what you're doing isn't stealing, they are at fault.
I disagree. If someone convinces me that taking something that is not mine and I did not pay for and is not labelled "take one" is not stealing, then I am at fault. They are dicks, yes...but I am at fault.
And if someone offers you a product based on information they know to be false, they are at fault.
In my opinion, no one offered anything they knew to be false. They offered mortagges...they are contracts...the terms are laid out. No one has been accused of putting in terms that were arbitrarily changed AFTER they were sigend.
The drive to sell mortgages was not a demand-side phenomena. There was not some endogenous increase in demand for homes. The pressure was supply-side: Firms needed mortgages to repackage, split into MBS's, and sell upstream for profit. As the supply-side pressure increased, the scrutiny on those requesting loans decreased -to the point where people are in jail for purposefully misleading individuals about their loans.
I think most people misunderstand the origin of this mess when they start from the premise that the increased demand was from consumers. The increased demand was from Wall Street.
I disagree. The impetus were very low interest rates and a chance for people to get cash out on a re-fi...the demand skyrocketed. The interest rates were not industry controilled...they were world wide market controlled.....truth is...only a fool paying 7.75% would not re-fi at 4.85%......it was most certainly driven by the demand of the consumer.
Of course...in my opinion...and how I see it.
But how did interest rates get so low? How did the treasury-mortgage spread get so low? Increased demand for mortgages should drive up interest rate spreads as more people are competing for the same money.
instead, interest rates were driven down because firms needed to increase the supply of mortgages feeding securitization.
No, banks gave subprime loans to people with bad credit which isn't the same as giving loans to people who can't afford them you dickhead and its still on lenders. The housing bubble debacle is proof that supply side economics is bullshit.
The Housing Bubble Crisis was proof of heavy Government Regulation, failed policies, and corruption, best to leave it at that.
This argument about Free Market being bad is bullshit. I'll take trading in paper over trading in bullets and Tyranny any day.Nice spin though Comrade.
Fucking strawman, I never said the free market is bad I said supply side, trickle down economic is bad if and when retards don't properly monitor the market with regards to demand and supply. Its total bullshit that too much govt regulation caused the housing bubble, failed policies and corruption I agree with.
The real question is why havent Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and the others who created the financial crisis gone to jail?
Oh yeah. I forgot, They are Democrats. So rather than be held responsible for the financial crisis they created, they get to write legislation to "fix" the crisis they created. Which oddly enough hasnt fixed anything but has given government more control. Shocking there.
They determine the rates at which they loan and more importantly, they determine interest rate spreads - which were at historic lows.Of course...in my opinion...and how I see it.
But how did interest rates get so low? How did the treasury-mortgage spread get so low? Increased demand for mortgages should drive up interest rate spreads as more people are competing for the same money.
instead, interest rates were driven down because firms needed to increase the supply of mortgages feeding securitization.
Domestic banks do not dictate interest rates.
The real question is why havent Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and the others who created the financial crisis gone to jail?
Oh yeah. I forgot, They are Democrats. So rather than be held responsible for the financial crisis they created, they get to write legislation to "fix" the crisis they created. Which oddly enough hasnt fixed anything but has given government more control. Shocking there.
It's a fair point. But i would also ask why haven't the Politicians who helped them commit their crimes gone to jail either? The Wall Street Bailout was a terrible crime against the American Taxpayer. Yet no one has gone to jail. It is pretty bizarre.
It's a fair point. But i would also ask why haven't the Politicians who helped them commit their crimes gone to jail either? The Wall Street Bailout was a terrible crime against the American Taxpayer. Yet no one has gone to jail. It is pretty bizarre.
you think Hank Paulson should go to jail?
