You are unemployed and want a new job, under a Democratic president you have a better chance of getting one!

[Toddsterpatriot]

The repeal allowed these investment banks to take on even greater risks without the same level of regulation that commercial banks had before. Now, you claim it’s all about subprime mortgages—then prove it. Where’s your evidence that these firms wouldn’t have collapsed without the deregulation that allowed them to gamble on risky financial products? And why were they so heavily involved in these products post-Glass-Steagall if it didn’t matter?

if repealing Glass-Steagall was inconsequential, why did the banking industry invest so much money in lobbying for its repeal? The answer is simple: they saw an opportunity to remove barriers that prevented them from engaging in more profitable but riskier financial activities. By merging commercial and investment banking, they could leverage customer deposits for speculative investments, maximizing profits while offloading risks. T

The repeal allowed these investment banks to take on even greater risks without the same level of regulation that commercial banks had before.

Investment banks didn't have the same regulation under Glass-Steagall as commercial banks.

Where’s your evidence that these firms wouldn’t have collapsed without the deregulation that allowed them to gamble on risky financial products?

Bear Stearns and Lehman were always allowed to own mortgages.

 

[TruthNotBS]

The repeal allowed these investment banks to take on even greater risks without the same level of regulation that commercial banks had before.

Investment banks didn't have the same regulation under Glass-Steagall as commercial banks.

Where’s your evidence that these firms wouldn’t have collapsed without the deregulation that allowed them to gamble on risky financial products?

Bear Stearns and Lehman were always allowed to own mortgages.

You're trying to sidestep the issue by focusing on technicalities, but the core point remains: the repeal of Glass-Steagall allowed banks to engage in riskier behaviors by merging commercial and investment activities. While investment banks like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers could technically hold mortgages before the repeal, the deregulation enabled them to take on far greater risks with far less oversight, which directly contributed to their collapse.

Where's your evidence that their speculative practices would have been as extreme without the deregulation? Also, why did these banks invest heavily in lobbying for the repeal if they had nothing to gain?

Provide some evidence for your claims and answer these questions if you're going to challenge the facts. Your current line of argumentation reminds me of your denial of the fact that the USSR had the second largest economy in the world by 1970. You insist that practically all of the economists and institutions that recognize that are wrong. All of the data, even the World Bank, a Western capitalist-run institution recognizes that the USSR had the second largest economy in the world and you're like "nope". OK, Todd, you believe that. Have fun in your Libertarian, Atlas Shrugged fantasy world.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're trying to sidestep the issue by focusing on technicalities, but the core point remains: the repeal of Glass-Steagall allowed banks to engage in riskier behaviors by merging commercial and investment activities. While investment banks like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers could technically hold mortgages before the repeal, the deregulation enabled them to take on far greater risks with far less oversight, which directly contributed to their collapse.

Where's your evidence that their speculative practices would have been as extreme without the deregulation? Also, why did these banks invest heavily in lobbying for the repeal if they had nothing to gain?

Provide some evidence for your claims and answer these questions if you're going to challenge the facts. Your current line of argumentation reminds me of your denial of the fact that the USSR had the second largest economy in the world by 1970. You insist that practically all of the economists and institutions that recognize that are wrong. All of the data, even the World Bank, a Western capitalist-run institution recognizes that the USSR had the second largest economy in the world and you're like "nope". OK, Todd, you believe that. Have fun in your Libertarian, Atlas Shrugged fantasy world.

You're trying to sidestep the issue by focusing on technicalities, but the core point remains: the repeal of Glass-Steagall allowed banks to engage in riskier behaviors by merging commercial and investment activities.

You still haven't shown any that engaged in riskier behavior and failed because of it.

While investment banks like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers could technically hold mortgages before the repeal,


Nothing technical about it. Under Glass-Steagall, they could hold as many mortgages as they wanted, post Glass-Steagall, they could hold as many mortgages as they wanted.


the deregulation enabled them to take on far greater risks with far less oversight, which directly contributed to their collapse.


What oversight was reduced for them?


Where's your evidence that their speculative practices would have been as extreme without the deregulation?


I have no evidence that repealing Glass-Steagall caused them to be more extreme. Do you?

Your current line of argumentation reminds me of your denial of the fact that the USSR had the second largest economy in the world by 1970.

We pretend to work, they pretend to pay us. Why do you pretend that the USSR produced as much as they claimed they did? Is it because they were so truthful about everything else?

 

[TruthNotBS]

You're trying to sidestep the issue by focusing on technicalities, but the core point remains: the repeal of Glass-Steagall allowed banks to engage in riskier behaviors by merging commercial and investment activities.

You still haven't shown any that engaged in riskier behavior and failed because of it.

While investment banks like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers could technically hold mortgages before the repeal,


Nothing technical about it. Under Glass-Steagall, they could hold as many mortgages as they wanted, post Glass-Steagall, they could hold as many mortgages as they wanted.


the deregulation enabled them to take on far greater risks with far less oversight, which directly contributed to their collapse.


What oversight was reduced for them?


Where's your evidence that their speculative practices would have been as extreme without the deregulation?


I have no evidence that repealing Glass-Steagall caused them to be more extreme. Do you?

Your current line of argumentation reminds me of your denial of the fact that the USSR had the second largest economy in the world by 1970.

We pretend to work, they pretend to pay us. Why do you pretend that the USSR produced as much as they claimed they did? Is it because they were so truthful about everything else?

Your repeated attempts to dodge the main issue by focusing on technicalities won't work here. Let's be clear: the repeal of Glass-Steagall allowed financial institutions to merge commercial and investment banking, which led to riskier and less regulated activities. While Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers could hold mortgages before the repeal, the removal of the regulatory barriers let them amplify their risky practices through leveraging and complex financial instruments. This directly contributed to their downfall.

If you believe otherwise, where’s your evidence that their speculative practices were not exacerbated by the deregulation? Also, if the repeal was so inconsequential, why did the financial industry invest heavily in lobbying for it? You keep asking for evidence—let’s see yours.

Finally, your assertion that the USSR didn’t have the second-largest economy in the world is blatantly contradicted by extensive data from credible sources like the World Bank, IMF, and UN. These organizations, along with Western academics and specialists who had access to the USSR, consistently ranked it as the second-largest economy globally. The West had numerous ways to verify these facts, so your blanket dismissal based on the notion that the USSR was inherently untruthful doesn’t hold up. Where is your evidence to counter this broad consensus? Without it, your claims against the well-recognized facts, remain baseless.

I'm going to give you one more chance to make a coherent argument, on these issues, before I direct my attention and energy to something more interesting and productive.

 

[beagle9]

NINJA loans were a reckless and egregious example of irresponsible lending, but the crisis wasn’t solely about these loans existing. It was about how banks bundled these risky loans into mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and sold them off as safe investments globally. The real issue lies in the deregulated environment that allowed banks to take these risks without proper oversight. They weren’t forced by the CRA to make bad loans; they chose to exploit these opportunities for massive short-term profits, and that's what led to the collapse. The crisis was a systemic failure fueled by greed and deregulation, not simply the existence of risky loans.

let's not forget the role of the banking industry's intense lobbying efforts to repeal Glass-Steagall. They spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the years to get this law repealed because it was crucial for them to engage in riskier activities like bundling subprime loans into MBS. If this repeal wasn’t significant, they wouldn’t have invested so heavily. According to a report by the Center for Responsive Politics, the financial sector spent over $5 billion on lobbying from 1998 to 2008. Citigroup, for example, was a major player in these efforts, benefiting directly from the ability to merge commercial and investment banking activities.

For detailed evidence, you can look into “All the Devils Are Here” by Bethany McLean and Joe Nocera, which outlines the lobbying efforts leading to the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Additionally, "The Big Short" by Michael Lewis provides insights into how these deregulated practices led to the crisis. The banking industry’s lobbying is well-documented in sources like these, revealing how crucial the repeal was to their strategy of maximizing profits, regardless of the broader economic consequences.

The only way that the banks could have ever surmised, contemplated and then put into motion these thing's that you speak of, was because a Democrat government was inadvertently in on the entire debacle by the policies it spoke of, and due to the promises it was making. The markets and banks are reactive to what the political winds are blowing or stirring up within the 4 year bubbles.

 

[jc456]

Your repeated attempts to dodge the main issue by focusing on technicalities won't work here. Let's be clear: the repeal of Glass-Steagall allowed financial institutions to merge commercial and investment banking, which led to riskier and less regulated activities. While Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers could hold mortgages before the repeal, the removal of the regulatory barriers let them amplify their risky practices through leveraging and complex financial instruments. This directly contributed to their downfall.

If you believe otherwise, where’s your evidence that their speculative practices were not exacerbated by the deregulation? Also, if the repeal was so inconsequential, why did the financial industry invest heavily in lobbying for it? You keep asking for evidence—let’s see yours.

Finally, your assertion that the USSR didn’t have the second-largest economy in the world is blatantly contradicted by extensive data from credible sources like the World Bank, IMF, and UN. These organizations, along with Western academics and specialists who had access to the USSR, consistently ranked it as the second-largest economy globally. The West had numerous ways to verify these facts, so your blanket dismissal based on the notion that the USSR was inherently untruthful doesn’t hold up. Where is your evidence to counter this broad consensus? Without it, your claims against the well-recognized facts, remain baseless.

I'm going to give you one more chance to make a coherent argument, on these issues, before I direct my attention and energy to something more interesting and productive.

See, more blah, blah, blah wash rinse repeat.

NINJA loans! Fking PERIOD!

You can blah, blah blah till your fking eyes fall out! I don’t give a fk about anything else!!!

Willfully ignorant is all you are. There’s no rationale in your position!

 

[TruthNotBS]

The only way that the banks could have ever surmised, contemplated and then put into motion these thing's that you speak of, was because a Democrat government was inadvertently in on the entire debacle by the policies it spoke of, and due to the promises it was making. The markets and banks are reactive to what the political winds are blowing or stirring up within the 4 year bubbles.

Beagle9, your response is nothing but a deflection from the core issues. You claim that the banks were merely reacting to "Democrat government" policies, but you ignore the fact that these same banks spent billions lobbying for the repeal of Glass-Steagall to engage in riskier financial activities. They weren’t just responding to political winds, they were actively shaping them to their advantage.

Your logic is flawed when you suggest that the government somehow "inadvertently" caused the crisis. The truth is, that the financial industry knew exactly what it was doing. They lobbied hard to remove regulations that protected the economy from the very kind of meltdown that occurred. And when it all went south, it wasn’t capitalism that saved the day—it was socialism in the form of massive government bailouts that kept the system from completely collapsing.

If you're going to argue that the markets are reactive, then admit that capitalism is inherently unstable, requiring constant intervention to prevent disaster. Without these bailouts—socialist measures to protect a failing capitalist system—the economy would have tanked even harder. So let's not pretend this was just about following the political winds. This was about greed, deregulation, and a capitalist system that repeatedly fails and then expects socialism to pick up the pieces.

 

[TruthNotBS]

See, more blah, blah, blah wash rinse repeat.

NINJA loans! Fking PERIOD!

You can blah, blah blah till your fking eyes fall out! I don’t give a fk about anything else!!!

Willfully ignorant is all you are. There’s no rationale in your position!

It’s clear your entire argument boils down to "NINJA loans! Fking PERIOD!" like some kind of magic phrase that explains everything. Newsflash: yelling about NINJA loans doesn't magically make the rest of the context disappear. You're clinging to one part of the problem like a lifeline while willfully ignoring the broader systemic issues that actually led to the 2008 meltdown.

It’s not about just NINJA loans, it's about the greed-fueled practices that banks exploited in a deregulated environment to bundle those loans into ticking time bombs. If you’re too stubborn to see beyond your one-dimensional take, then enjoy your echo chamber.