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?
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.