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.
actually, I look for interaction when I debate, and you haven't shown the ability to do that. You keep ignoring facts or answering direct questions. Makes you worthless to a discussion thread. And, stop telling me what I'm avoiding. Answer my post directly rather than in blah blah blah land. Just answer or counterpoint with facts. FAIL!!!!JC, your response is a classic case of avoiding the real issue by focusing on minutiae. The fact that you’re dismissing the analogy and the broader context I provided shows that you’re either unwilling or unable to engage with the actual arguments. The financial crisis wasn’t just about individual regulations or specific bad loans it was about a systemic failure that was deliberately engineered by those in power to maximize their profits, even if it meant risking the entire economy. This isn’t "nonsense"; it’s the core of why the 2008 collapse happened and why it will happen again under the same conditions.
You keep demanding answers to narrow questions, but those questions are designed to distract from the bigger picture. The financial industry lobbied for the repeal of Glass-Steagall and other protective regulations because they knew it would allow them to engage in riskier behavior with greater potential rewards, all while passing the risk onto the public. When that gamble failed, it wasn’t capitalism that saved the day it was a government bailout, essentially a socialist intervention, that prevented a complete collapse. So, if you want to talk about who’s really deflecting, take a look in the mirror. The truth is, a more socialist system would have prevented the crisis in the first place by keeping the financial industry accountable to the public, not to profit margins.
how so? Explain how it does? post the data from my link.It confirms the OP.
blah, blah, blah, wash rinse repeat, need something of substance please.JC and Todd, the fact that the financial industry lobbied so hard to repeal Glass-Steagall shows how much they cared about those regulations. If these regulations were irrelevant or unnecessary, why would the industry invest so much effort and money to get rid of them? The truth is, the banks knew exactly what they stood to gain from the repeal: the ability to engage in much riskier, profit-driven behavior without the constraints that Glass-Steagall imposed.
Glass-Steagall kept a clear line between commercial banking and investment banking, preventing banks from using depositor funds to engage in speculative activities. By lobbying for its repeal, the financial industry was essentially asking for a green light to use those funds for high-stakes gambling in the securities market, knowing full well that if their bets failed, the public would bear the brunt of the losses. This wasn’t about creating opportunities for borrowers or expanding credit—it was about maximizing profits for the banks while offloading risk onto the broader economy.
The 2008 crisis happened because, without the safeguards that Glass-Steagall provided, banks were able to bundle risky loans into toxic financial products, sell them off as safe investments, and make a killing in the short term. When the house of cards inevitably collapsed, it wasn’t the banks that suffered the most—it was the ordinary people who lost their homes, their jobs, and their savings. So, when you argue that Glass-Steagall wouldn’t have made a difference, you’re ignoring the fact that its repeal directly enabled the kind of reckless behavior that led to the crisis. The banks cared deeply about getting rid of these regulations because they knew it would open the door to massive profits, all while leaving the public to pick up the pieces when things went wrong.
how so? Explain how it does? post the data from my link.
they are what I found as the top article. Tell them to update their records.Your links are 2 years old and have nothing to do with what I posted. Try your diversions elsewhere.
they are what I found as the top article. Tell them to update their records.
I'm not responding to your disingenuous claptrap posts to convince you of anything anyway. I wrote for others, not you.blah, blah, blah, wash rinse repeat, need something of substance please.
Your points aren't facts, you just don't like the answers.actually, I look for interaction when I debate, and you haven't shown the ability to do that. You keep ignoring facts or answering direct questions. Makes you worthless to a discussion thread. And, stop telling me what I'm avoiding. Answer my post directly rather than in blah blah blah land. Just answer or counterpoint with facts. FAIL!!!!
If the repeal of Glass-Steagall wasn’t important to the financial industry, and they weren’t planning to exploit subprime mortgages, then why did they lobby Congress so hard to get it repealed? If these regulations didn’t matter, why would they invest so much in getting rid of them? The fact that they pushed so aggressively for its repeal suggests they knew exactly what they stood to gain from it, and that was the ability to engage in the kind of risky, profit-driven behavior that ultimately led to the 2008 crisis. I’m curious to hear your thoughts on this.blah, blah, blah, wash rinse repeat, need something of substance please.
Todd asked you to explain how it impacted the industry and you just keep posting this. Answer the question.If the repeal of Glass-Steagall wasn’t important to the financial industry, and they weren’t planning to exploit subprime mortgages, then why did they lobby Congress so hard to get it repealed? If these regulations didn’t matter, why would they invest so much in getting rid of them? The fact that they pushed so aggressively for its repeal suggests they knew exactly what they stood to gain from it, and that was the ability to engage in the kind of risky, profit-driven behavior that ultimately led to the 2008 crisis. I’m curious to hear your thoughts on this.
I gave you a link to a company that looked into it. Backed everything Todd and I said about subprime mortgages and their weight that started the crisis. I haven't seen you post a counter linkYour points aren't facts, you just don't like the answers.
Todd asked you to explain how it impacted the industry and you just keep posting this. Answer the question.
This isn't a link war. You're saying I don't know how to interact or debate on an online forum, but you're apparently the one unable to properly debate.I gave you a link to a company that looked into it. Backed everything Todd and I said about subprime mortgages and their weight that started the crisis. I haven't seen you post a counter link
Do you actually think that's going to change with Trump? The cost of living has been skyrocketing and wages have been stagnant, for most working-class Americans, for decades.Retired men and women are back in the job hunt so they can survive...
That is how bad the economy is today...
well it is a debate and in a debate there is a point and a counter point. Each is expected to be followed up with evidence. I still haven't seen yours. You haven't shown how anything you say is pertinent to the subject bad loans. I did!!! Oh, and sure, here's the link again, all you had to do was a search in the thread. I supposed you can't do that either. Post 1150 was the post I first posted it. BTW, you responded with nonsense after that link was provided. Now twice.This isn't a link war. You're saying I don't know how to interact or debate on an online forum, but you're apparently the one unable to properly debate.
Articles and videos only serve to supplement one's written arguments.
They merely support the talking points, the propositions, that you present in writing, You'll never see me post a link or a video, without me first writing an argument, with talking points that you can rebut and maybe even debunk. You don't need to visit the links or watch the videos that I embed in my posts, in order to refute me.
Present me with the link again, and I will do you the favor of extracting the talking points from the article and then I will critique it, point by point. I don't have to do that, but I'm doing it to help you out.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/worried-couple-reading-agreement-after-moving-to-new-home-964215820-27c7cbbf3f5f450295c32d64d8f43298.jpg)
