See above. I constructed a logical argument from your claim. Simply because you do not understand the subject does not make me wrong.You constructed an argument you CLAIM I have made
Do you reject that you posted the following earlier in the thread?
Did DC dictate to S&P and Moody's how to rate securities? While S&P and Moody's are not banks per se, you clearly meant that the problem was DC dictating policy. You may correct me if you think that the problems of AIG and investment banks (whose problems stem from related issues) were not related to regulation.It had nothing to do with "lack of regulation" and everything to do with DC dicatating business practices to banks
Let's recap:and as usual for you is a super narrow "what exact law made this happen" sort of thing. Knowing full well I have never implied there was a law that forced those groups to behave in any manner
1) You claimed the financial crisis was due to regulation.
2) Part of the crisis was due to fraudulent ratings
3) Simply because you do not understand point 2 does not mean it does not exist
4) Applying point 1 to point 2, we logically see your argument concluding that regulation required ranting agencies to rate at grades that were not true.
Not quite. If you wanted to have a mature discussion, you'd first understand the subject. While that obviously is not going to happen, it does not invalidate that multiple factors caused this mess. One of those factors was bad ratings. As you have explicitly stated the problem was regulation. Thus, as I repeat myself for the third (?) time, your argument logically concludes that ratings agencies were legally required by regulation to rate at grades higher then was accurate.IF you want to have a mature discussion, an honest one, let's keep the discussion to things said, not OC's demands for answers to questions no one but OC created.
And I showed that the majority of the subprimes that went bad were from banks not covered by the CRA, a point you still refuse to acknowledge. Furthermore, I also showed that we should have seen this mess well before now. While I do not contest that Fanny/Freddie did incentivize non-CRA banks to make bad loans, it does not invalidate the point I am making here.I all ready showed that companies were forced to give loans they otherwise would not have as per the Clinton Justice Department as part of the "anti-redlining" bs
See my fourth paragraph. As they say in Law, ignorance is no excuse.But don't bother answering if all you are going to do is stay on the faux demand you have for the faux question I never asked, implied or mentioned.