Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 57

Thread: Obama to Propose Limits on Risks Taken by Banks

  1. #41
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,322

    Re: Obama to Propose Limits on Risks Taken by Banks

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Any president that cared at all about the country would've done the same thing. It would have been unbelievably irresponsible to let the entire financial sector collapse.That's exactly why these reforms are necessary. To prevent this from happening again, where the banks put us in a position where we HAVE to bail them out.

    So, in your opinion it was these banks that screwed the pooch so to speak, with NO outside pressure to do these things from oh, say congress, ACORN, and alike? Nah, I don't buy it. And what is the unintended consequence to this would you say?


    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  2. #42
    User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    01-25-10 @ 10:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    50

    Re: Obama to Propose Limits on Risks Taken by Banks

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Any president that cared at all about the country would've done the same thing. It would have been unbelievably irresponsible to let the entire financial sector collapse.That's exactly why these reforms are necessary. To prevent this from happening again, where the banks put us in a position where we HAVE to bail them out.
    the whole system wouldn't have collapsed, we do have laws and methods of dealing with insolvency even on a massive scale

    plus nothing has been stopped or fixed instead it has just been delayed for awhile at massive expense to the tax payer and it can still collapse quite easily, ponzi schemes are unstable as it is part of their nature

  3. #43
    User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    01-25-10 @ 10:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    50

    Re: Obama to Propose Limits on Risks Taken by Banks

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    So, in your opinion it was these banks that screwed the pooch so to speak, with NO outside pressure to do these things from oh, say congress, ACORN, and alike? Nah, I don't buy it. And what is the unintended consequence to this would you say?


    j-mac
    would you borrow 60-100 times your yearly salary? would you loan someone else 60-100 times their yearly salary?

    the banks did and did so of their own free will no prompting or coercion needed, and why not the money was free and no consequences for failure

  4. #44
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,322

    Re: Obama to Propose Limits on Risks Taken by Banks

    Quote Originally Posted by elbatrop View Post
    would you borrow 60-100 times your yearly salary? would you loan someone else 60-100 times their yearly salary?

    the banks did and did so of their own free will no prompting or coercion needed, and why not the money was free and no consequences for failure

    Not true.....I suggest reading up on the history of the CRA.


    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  5. #45
    Guru
    nonpareil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    07-04-15 @ 10:36 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,108

    Re: Obama to Propose Limits on Risks Taken by Banks

    Quote Originally Posted by washunut View Post
    Not sure what the first comment refers to.
    It refers to your comment that the administration thinks that the economy should shrink.

    Capital will flow to whereever it is allowed to earn the best return. So if regulation creates a difference in regulation between London and America, yes capital will flow there. No one has to completely leave town like you mention, they shift the work, profit, employment, taxes paid to government ( which is never mentioned) to another part of the world.

    This is an international world, we should have learned that over the last 15 years as our manufacturing base has been hollowed out by foreign competition. Those factories in China are there because they get a greater return than building one in Ohio.
    Capital already flows where they think the returns is biggest, from England to Iceland via the deposits schemes, from Germany to America via investment securities, from Japan and US to Australia via the carry trade. Yet through out all that time, the standing of financial centres like the City, Frankfurt, Tokyo, or New York, were not lessened. What will change? You know they said the same thing when Sarbanes-Oxley was passed, and yet New York is still a world financial centre. The people in the City is grumbling about the new tax on bonuses, I can bet you that a decade from now the City will still be the financial centre of the world. It is where the contacts are, where the money gathers. You can relocate factories, but it's harder to relocate a well entrenched industry/connections like the City.

    I am in favor of finding ways to not contaminate the the money guarenteed by FDIC from more speculative trades. Although almost everyone will concede that is not the reason for the banking problems.

    This is another political gimmick so that the administrative can turn the pitchforks against bankers. It is Obama being a politician which he is.

    Not change we can believe in. But we were the dopes who bought that snake oil in 2008.
    You agree with the measure, but because Obama is the one who push the legislation, it's a "political gimmick so that the administrative can turn the pitchforks against bankers"?

    But I don't care about what it is to the politicians, I care about the merits of the proposal. I think it does two good things: one is to limit the amount of risks the bank can take by limiting the amount of capital available for those activities. Second, it lessens the government's implied support for the banks, though not far enough.

  6. #46
    User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    01-25-10 @ 10:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    50

    Re: Obama to Propose Limits on Risks Taken by Banks

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Not true.....I suggest reading up on the history of the CRA.


    j-mac
    I have and the volume of loans you are talking about is PUNY.

    please explain why prime loans are defaulting at a rate north of 5%, and that btw puts most banks out of business if they follow the reserve requirements

    Fact is the banks over leveraged and gambled and did it on their own free will and when crunch time came they got burned and this has happened many many times in history. They assumed the ponzi scheme of securitization would hold up under pressure and it didn't and here we are.

    oh ya and while I am here, take a look at some of the failed banks foreclosed on by the FDIC in 2009, yes they levered up in some cases to as high as 60:1 and the losses show it and most had no CRA involvement AT ALL
    Last edited by elbatrop; 01-22-10 at 01:31 PM.

  7. #47
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,322

    Re: Obama to Propose Limits on Risks Taken by Banks

    Quote Originally Posted by elbatrop View Post
    I have and the volume of loans you are talking about is PUNY.

    please explain why prime loans are defaulting at a rate north of 5%, and that btw puts most banks out of business if they follow the reserve requirements

    Fact is the banks over leveraged and gambled and did it on their own free will and when crunch time came they got burned and this has happened many many times in history. They assumed the ponzi scheme of securitization would hold up under pressure and it didn't and here we are.

    I am not totally disagreeing with you here. But, I have to say that had not the pressure from demo's and progressive repubs been put on these banks to get people into homes, and make loans they couldn't afford, then we would be looking at a totally different scenario right now. To punish one side of the equation is not being genuine.


    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  8. #48
    User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    01-25-10 @ 10:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    50

    Re: Obama to Propose Limits on Risks Taken by Banks

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    I am not totally disagreeing with you here. But, I have to say that had not the pressure from demo's and progressive repubs been put on these banks to get people into homes, and make loans they couldn't afford, then we would be looking at a totally different scenario right now. To punish one side of the equation is not being genuine.


    j-mac
    contract law j-mac, two parties are involved both are expected to act in their best interests and follow the law

    banks have reserve requirements they ignored, mortgage underwriters have standards they ignored, and citizens that knew better borrowed money they couldn't repay and they all deserve the appropriate punishments that is why we have laws to deal with all of it

    banks have no excuses at all, they create money from nothing and have no excuse at all to screw that up, they got greedy and now they are insolvent

  9. #49
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    8,358

    Re: Obama to Propose Limits on Risks Taken by Banks

    Quote Originally Posted by nonpareil View Post
    It refers to your comment that the administration thinks that the economy should shrink.



    Capital already flows where they think the returns is biggest, from England to Iceland via the deposits schemes, from Germany to America via investment securities, from Japan and US to Australia via the carry trade. Yet through out all that time, the standing of financial centres like the City, Frankfurt, Tokyo, or New York, were not lessened. What will change? You know they said the same thing when Sarbanes-Oxley was passed, and yet New York is still a world financial centre. The people in the City is grumbling about the new tax on bonuses, I can bet you that a decade from now the City will still be the financial centre of the world. It is where the contacts are, where the money gathers. You can relocate factories, but it's harder to relocate a well entrenched industry/connections like the City.



    You agree with the measure, but because Obama is the one who push the legislation, it's a "political gimmick so that the administrative can turn the pitchforks against bankers"?

    But I don't care about what it is to the politicians, I care about the merits of the proposal. I think it does two good things: one is to limit the amount of risks the bank can take by limiting the amount of capital available for those activities. Second, it lessens the government's implied support for the banks, though not far enough.

    On the first point, I think the administration was clear in saying that we had to move past an economy based on consumerism and get back to making things and living within our means. I agree with that it is how we get there that counts as well.

    Next, if companies have to disconnect their trading from pure banking this will be a competitive disadvantage against European entities that have one shop banking. Over time the relationships you rightly point out are essential will erode as large corporations will find banking partners who can handle all of their needs. One won't forever go to one bank for a loan and another to hedge your currency positions.

    On the last point, I am a lifelong democrat. So it isn't because it is Obama I am against these policies. I can be and am for some type of reform as I mentioned with better regulation, enforcing Chinese walls etc. I am not for the method expressed by the President yesterday.

  10. #50
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Obama to Propose Limits on Risks Taken by Banks

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    So, in your opinion it was these banks that screwed the pooch so to speak, with NO outside pressure to do these things from oh, say congress, ACORN, and alike?
    I wouldn't say the banks had no help, but it's mostly their fault. Congress certainly helped "screw the pooch" by repealing Glass-Steagall in the 1990s. Obama's latest proposal is basically a variant on McCain/Cantwell's idea to reinstate Glass-Steagall, and would be an excellent idea.

    ACORN? Uhh no. A nonprofit organization did not cause a financial meltdown.

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac
    Nah, I don't buy it. And what is the unintended consequence to this would you say?
    The unintended consequence was putting our government in a situation where it was faced with the choice of allowing the entire financial system to collapse or bailing out the banks with taxpayer money. It did the responsible thing and chose the latter. Some regulatory reforms are necessary to minimize the risk of it happening again, and to eliminate the moral hazard of banks taking big risks knowing that Congress will bail them out.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 01-22-10 at 06:10 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •