Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 75 of 75

Thread: House, Senate leaders finalize details of sweeping financial overhaul

  1. #71
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: House, Senate leaders finalize details of sweeping financial overhaul

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    When did I claim Moody's or S&P to do anything.
    You claimed that this mess was due to regulation. Part of this mess was due to effectively fraudulent ratings given to securitized mortgages that were grade C but Moody's and S&P rated as A. Since this mess was due to regulation as you have repetitively stated and fraudulent ratings were partially the cause, it logically deems that your argument argues that regulation required ratings agencies to rate securities higher then they really were.

    You constructed an argument you CLAIM I have made
    See above. I constructed a logical argument from your claim. Simply because you do not understand the subject does not make me wrong.

    Do you reject that you posted the following earlier in the thread?

    It had nothing to do with "lack of regulation" and everything to do with DC dicatating business practices to banks
    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.

    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
    Let's recap:
    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.

    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.
    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.

    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
    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.

    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.
    See my fourth paragraph. As they say in Law, ignorance is no excuse.
    Last edited by obvious Child; 06-28-10 at 04:10 AM.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  2. #72
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: House, Senate leaders finalize details of sweeping financial overhaul

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    You claimed that this mess was due to regulation. Part of this mess was due to effectively fraudulent ratings given to securitized mortgages that were grade C but Moody's and S&P rated as A. Since this mess was due to regulation as you have repetitively stated and fraudulent ratings were partially the cause, it logically deems that your argument argues that regulation required ratings agencies to rate securities higher then they really were.
    It seems more logical that you make leaps for other people and then attack them for things they never said or implied. Wait, that's not logical, that's factual. The whole mess WAS started by Gov't regulation. The Gov't, in order to promote politically beneficial "Affordable Housing" goals, pushed financial institutions into making financially unwise decisions. Granted, some banks and institutions went from being prodded into it, to being full time partners reaping massive, if false profits, that doesn't really matter. They wouldn't have had the Gov't not decided that it was in the best interest of politicians that people that shouldn't own homes, could.

    What you want to draw from that, into super specific cases of X, Y or Z are all on you OC. I'm gonna stay on topic and with what people say, not go off into the realm of assumed positions to attack just to make myself look good to me. You have that covered.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    See above. I constructed a logical argument from your claim. Simply because you do not understand the subject does not make me wrong.
    I understand the subject far better then you deem willing to credit me with, and thus you toss in the passive aggressive implication that I am stupid or ignorant because I fail to agree with you.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Do you reject that you posted the following earlier in the thread?
    I posted it. Why did you bold this part? You're again creating arguments never made. A bad habit you should work on breaking.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    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.
    Again, you are making a general discussion, which I am engaged in, into a hyper specific case of certain companies and how they were or were not affected by Gov't actions. Since I never brought them into the discussion, nor have I stated a belief why do you insist on pretending that I have. This is not the "Land of Make Believe" it's a debate forum. Please keep your questions to comments and positions I have stated, not ones you have extrapolated for yourself.


    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Let's recap:
    1) You claimed the financial crisis was due to regulation.
    It was.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    2) Part of the crisis was due to fraudulent ratings
    Please quote where I have said this.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    3) Simply because you do not understand point 2 does not mean it does not exist
    I have asked that you stop the personal insults and attacks. JUST BECAUSE ONE DOES NOT AGREE WITH YOU DOES NOT MAKE THEM STUPID OR IGNORANT.
    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    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.
    Since Point 2 was never one I personally made, rather one you assigned to me, I am forced to admit that your conclusion, crafted for yourself shows tht you say I am wrong. I will leave the decision on how wrong you think I am to you, and reality to the rest of us.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    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.
    /Translating:
    "You are too ****ing stupid to get this, I am far superior to you, and now you must answer why you took this position I have laid out that you have taken or else you must admit you are as stupid as I claim you are".




    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    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.
    Sub-Prime Loans became a hot money making, fast buck system. When Banks A, B and C, covered by the CRA were forced into this, and then figured how to make money off it, others followed. That's the market at work. I'm merely pointing on the situation and how it all ties together, not cherry picking minutia to try and trap you with.


    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    See my fourth paragraph. As they say in Law, ignorance is no excuse.
    See the rules, personal insults aren't welcome here.
    Last edited by Renae; 06-28-10 at 05:13 AM.
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



  3. #73
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: House, Senate leaders finalize details of sweeping financial overhaul

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    It seems more logical that you make leaps for other people and then attack them for things they never said or implied. Wait, that's not logical, that's factual. The whole mess WAS started by Gov't regulation. The Gov't, in order to promote politically beneficial "Affordable Housing" goals, pushed financial institutions into making financially unwise decisions. Granted, some banks and institutions went from being prodded into it, to being full time partners reaping massive, if false profits, that doesn't really matter. They wouldn't have had the Gov't not decided that it was in the best interest of politicians that people that shouldn't own homes, could.
    Still you ignore the functioning basis of credit markets; even if the government incentivized specific banks to make loans, who was responsible for the rating of junk debt at AAA levels? Why was junk allowed to run rampid through our financial system? The answer is lack of regulation. At best, you can argue government incentives played a role in "popping" the proverbial housing bubble. The real culprit is the part that facilitated this bubble, because overvaluation requires the necessary financing, and as OC pointed out, sub prime mortgages do not make up the majority of our real estate market (nominally). Unless of course you can point me out some CRA "prodded" banks that made $750,000 loans to people with low incomes.

    Again, you are making a general discussion, which I am engaged in, into a hyper specific case of certain companies and how they were or were not affected by Gov't actions. Since I never brought them into the discussion, nor have I stated a belief why do you insist on pretending that I have. This is not the "Land of Make Believe" it's a debate forum. Please keep your questions to comments and positions I have stated, not ones you have extrapolated for yourself.
    Then go ahead and explain to all of us how the government forced banks to make loans (the penalties, maybe the aftermath of banks who did not comply), why banks were compelled to make home equity loans (in 2005, $750 billion was taken out in equity loans), why ratings agencies rated much of this toxic debt AAA, and why it was allowed to move away (thereby removing of the risk) - in an unprecedented fashion - from the banks that originated the loans?

    It was.
    Hate to break it to you, your argument has more holes than two year aged swiss.

    Sub-Prime Loans became a hot money making, fast buck system.
    Can you clarify? How did they become a hot money making, fast buck system? What were the mechanics behind it?

    When Banks A, B and C, covered by the CRA were forced into this, and then figured how to make money off it, others followed. That's the market at work.
    Do you have any figures that can show in terms of nominal value, what the percentage make up of the entire US housing market was made up of sub prime paper? Ill throw out a gimmie as to why some home prices increased rapidly; some people who took out equity loans actually remodeled and expanded their homes thereby creating value. How is a $2,000,000 property worth $3.8 million in ten years?
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  4. #74
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: House, Senate leaders finalize details of sweeping financial overhaul

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post

    Then go ahead and explain to all of us how the government forced banks to make loans (the penalties, maybe the aftermath of banks who did not comply), why banks were compelled to make home equity loans (in 2005, $750 billion was taken out in equity loans), why ratings agencies rated much of this toxic debt AAA, and why it was allowed to move away (thereby removing of the risk) - in an unprecedented fashion - from the banks that originated the loans?
    Maybe audio and moving pictures will help.


    And some words for you.

    Under the Clinton administration, federal regulators began using the act to combat “red-lining,” a practice by which banks loaned money to some communities but not to others, based on economic status. “No loan is exempt, no bank is immune,” warned then-Attorney General Janet Reno. “For those who thumb their nose at us, I promise vigorous enforcement.”

    The Clinton-Reno threat of “vigorous enforcement” pushed banks to make the now infamous loans that many blame for the current meltdown, Richman said. “Banks, in order to not get in trouble with the regulators, had to make loans to people who shouldn’t have been getting mortgage loans.”

    This threat combined with the government backing of Fannie and Freddie set the stage for the current uncertainty, because the “banks could just sell the loans off to Fannie or Freddie,” who could buy them with little regard for negative financial outcomes, Richman said.


    CNSNews.com - Financial Meltdown: Where Does the Buck Stop?

    Does any of this help you?
    Last edited by Renae; 06-28-10 at 12:29 PM.
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



  5. #75
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: House, Senate leaders finalize details of sweeping financial overhaul

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    It seems more logical that you make leaps for other people and then attack them for things they never said or implied. Wait, that's not logical, that's factual.
    Which is generally a claim made by those who do not understand the subject. Hence why you are making it.

    The whole mess WAS started by Gov't regulation.
    You mean back in the 1970s and the two decades of no problems with the CRA? Oh wait.

    The Gov't, in order to promote politically beneficial "Affordable Housing" goals, pushed financial institutions into making financially unwise decisions.
    Like the non-CRA covered banks that did the majority of the bad lending? Oh wait.

    [quote]Granted, some banks and institutions went from being prodded into it, to being full time partners reaping massive, if false profits, that doesn't really matter.[/quote\

    More like they saw profits and ran with it. You keep ignoring that the vast majority of bad subprimes came from non-CRA mortgage companies. Well, I can't expect you to ever admit you're wrong on anything.

    They wouldn't have had the Gov't not decided that it was in the best interest of politicians that people that shouldn't own homes, could.
    Since you think regulation caused this mess, tell me, how did the repeal of regulation, namely the Glass–Steagall act actually make regulation that started this mess? Let me make a prediction here. You won't answer that.

    What you want to draw from that, into super specific cases of X, Y or Z are all on you OC. I'm gonna stay on topic and with what people say, not go off into the realm of assumed positions to attack just to make myself look good to me. You have that covered.
    Again, that's because you don't understand the subject. You blame regulation, but you demonstrate you don't get it. Mortgages alone represent effectively an immaterial portion of the economy. If every subprime went bad and wasn't securitized and bought by leverage, we absolutely would not be in this mess. Harping that this mess was caused by regulation on the housing sector ignores where the real problems started. Hence why I bring in the actual doozies of this crisis.

    I understand the subject far better then you deem willing to credit me with
    See above. And I doubt you do. Residential mortgages should not affect interbank commercial lending, much less commercial lending and investment banking. But they did. But not for the reasons you claim. You seem to operate under this notion that a tiny portion of our economy that does not deal with much of the lending lubricating the business world brought this mess down. That does not make sense nor does it demonstrate you understand the subject.

    and thus you toss in the passive aggressive implication that I am stupid or ignorant because I fail to agree with you
    Which is little more then an excuse for why you do not understand.

    I posted it. Why did you bold this part? You're again creating arguments never made. A bad habit you should work on breaking.
    So you do not reject that your argument is that the problem was that DC was dictating policy and thus caused this mess. Therefore, based on your argument, you think that problems such as fraudulent ratings were because DC dictated policy. If you do not like your argument's logic, abandon it. But don't attack me for utilizing it to show the weaknesses in your claims.

    Again, you are making a general discussion, which I am engaged in, into a hyper specific case of certain companies and how they were or were not affected by Gov't actions.
    Indeed. I'm pointing out that your general argument is worthless because it does not deal with specifics, furthermore, it explicitly ignores the real causes of this crisis. I'm still laughing how you think less then 1% of our economy caused the near collapse of it. Subprime lending itself is insignificant to our economy. But your argument is indeed that DC dictated policy to force lending that represented less then 1% of our economy which crashed it. It's like saying that the CEO should be fired because his tiny pet project which represented effectively nothing in the company nearly caused bankruptcy. It just does not make sense.

    Since I never brought them into the discussion, nor have I stated a belief why do you insist on pretending that I have. This is not the "Land of Make Believe" it's a debate forum. Please keep your questions to comments and positions I have stated, not ones you have extrapolated for yourself.
    Let's recap:
    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.

    Huh. Still not getting it?

    It was.
    Good. Now you certainly cannot back away from that.

    Please quote where I have said this.
    Please show me where I said you did. What I actually said was that your argument, as you have now twice explicitly argued was that regulation caused this crisis. Part of this crisis was due to fraud ratings. Therefore, the logic of your argument dictates that the fraudulent ratings were caused by regulation. This is little more then transitive logic. Again, if you do not like the logic of your argument, change it or abandon it. But don't get all fussy when someone uses your logic against you.

    I have asked that you stop the personal insults and attacks. JUST BECAUSE ONE DOES NOT AGREE WITH YOU DOES NOT MAKE THEM STUPID OR IGNORANT.
    But not understanding the crisis and then saying ratings aren't a part does make one ignorant in the same fashion as saying guns are the problem but not understanding that majority of gun crimes involve stolen firearms.

    Do you think that the ratings given by the rating agencies played no role at all in the crisis? A simple yes or no will suffice.

    Since Point 2 was never one I personally made
    Irrelevant. I don't care if you personally stated it. Your argument as you have twice explicitly stated on record was that regulation caused this mess, not lack of regulation. I am now pointing to an area that helped cause this mess due to its complete lack of regulation. According to your argument that "regulation caused this mess" as you have explicitly stated, your argument deems fraud ratings as a form of regulation. Again, if you don't like your argument's logic, change it. But don't throw a hissy fit when someone uses it against you.

    rather one you assigned to me, I am forced to admit that your conclusion, crafted for yourself shows tht you say I am wrong. I will leave the decision on how wrong you think I am to you, and reality to the rest of us.
    Apparently your "reality" includes the notion that fraudulent ratings weren't part of the crisis. Good luck finding knowledgeable people who buy that.

    Translating:
    "You are too ****ing stupid to get this, I am far superior to you, and now you must answer why you took this position I have laid out that you have taken or else you must admit you are as stupid as I claim you are".
    Do you disagree that you have explicitly stated that regulation caused this mess and not lack of regulation?

    I'll make it real simple:

    Your argument is "Regulation caused this mess" (which you have explicitly stated twice if not more)
    Part of the cause was fraud ratings.
    As fraud ratings were part of the cause, therefore they were a form of regulation.

    See how easy that is? Just because you don't like your logic doesn't mean I'm wrong.

    Sub-Prime Loans became a hot money making, fast buck system. When Banks A, B and C, covered by the CRA were forced into this, and then figured how to make money off it, others followed.
    Come again? CRA loans were profitable since 1977. What do you mean "figured out how to make money off it?" What changed was securitization of subprime along with fraud ratings (Among other things). And you are again ignoring how the majority of subprime abuse was not due to CRA. No one forced non-CRA mortgage firms to lend. No one forced them to do anything. How is that REGULATION when no one forced the banks that issued the worst of the lot?

    That's the market at work.
    Okay. So apparently you think that non-CRA mortgage companies who were not forced to do subprime lending was actually regulation and is really the free market. I can't even begin to sort that mess out.

    Choice = Regulation = Free Market.

    Okay then.

    I'm merely pointing on the situation and how it all ties together, not cherry picking minutia to try and trap you with.
    I think I'm going to need a veteran pathfinder to sort that mess out.

    See the rules, personal insults aren't welcome here.
    Me pointing out the obvious lack of knowledge on your part is hardly an insult.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678

Posting Permissions

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