Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 81

Thread: U.S. 'Pretty ****ed' - Former TARP Inspector

  1. #51
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,734

    Re: U.S. 'Pretty ****ed' - Former TARP Inspector

    Quote Originally Posted by Middleground View Post
    The banking deregulation that begun under Reagan and continued until Dubya.
    It began under Carter and Glass Stegal was passed under Clinton. CRA has been expanded under every President since Carter. If you are going to toss blame around can the partisan bull**** talking points to foist it all off on the mean, evil Republicans.

  2. #52
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,734

    Re: U.S. 'Pretty ****ed' - Former TARP Inspector

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Foley View Post
    So you should be for the GM bailout, right? For the greater good.
    Against. I didnt argue for it, I just pointed out the blind eye government tends to turn to the consequences of what it does. I was against all the bailouts and TARP.

  3. #53
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,089

    Re: U.S. 'Pretty ****ed' - Former TARP Inspector

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Yes it most certainly does. Defend your position that it does not. Capitalism is self-regulation.
    On paper yes, in reality no. We have seen it time and time again, where capitalism has failed to regulate it self. Take a look at the crisis we are in now, it is a failure of self regulation in the private sub-prime mortgage market that is the root cause of the crisis. Does government regulation "screw things up"? Sure, but in an imperfect world it is our only way to quickly fix the failures of capitalism.

    The only place capitalism probably fails to self-regulate is environmentally. It is possible for capitalism to lead to tragedies of the commons that don't self-correct very quickly or peacefully. But then again I'm not sure any other economic model is terribly concerned with the environmental impacts of our pro-growth policies.
    Capitalism does nothing for the environment or workers. That is its primary problem which has lead to new forms of ideology.. socialism, communism, enviormentalism and so on. Capitalism has one goal.. profit at any cost and with that power and this is what leads it to its own downfall if not regulated (self or government). And since self regulation goes out the window as one of the first in a lazzie-faire regulatory system, then well...

    Not really. You end up with an quasi-socialist oligarchy that learns how to disguise itself as a capitalist republic. Capitalism may bring about ****ty scenarios now and then, but that is a very necessary aspect of the self-regulatory nature of capitalism. When government step in and interfere, they're destroying that self-regulatory mechanism and turning the system into something other than a free market.
    More horse**** based on a text book. In the real world, no amount of self regulation would have stopped using children in mines or factories. The capitalists were earning millions doing it, so why change it? Just because a few children died, so what.. they are replaceable. It was only when government came in and said on behalf of all people... no using children is wrong, that the capitalists changed their tunes. And that was not because they wanted too, but they were forced to do so because of changing political ideologies that threatened their whole business.. aka communism and socialism. There is nothing like a revolution and riots that can "regulate" a capitalist society... but do we really have to go that far to change things for the better?

    Listen, capitalism is by far the superior method of doing things. However like everything in life it is far from perfect, and having a lazzie-fair attitude when it comes to regulating it, only spells doom. Time and time again we have seen this, because there is two major flaws in most human beings... power and greed. And if a person can via the lazzie-fair capitalism gain more money and power by doing bad things, then that person will do so. Now you can say that the opposition in capitalism will prevent that (self-regulation), but often the opposition is out of business or/and dead and the power of the one left behind is so huge that people are afraid of him/her. Standard Oil comes to mind. Walmart comes to mind now days in certain geographic areas. Microsoft comes to mind back in the day. Apple comes to mind today.

    Lets put this in perspective. Capitalism is like a teenager. Now we can have a lazzie-fair attitude to raising said teenager, and let "society" and "experience" form the teenager over time. Or we can go by the control aspect and ban a teenager for doing things, keep watch and so on. Which one is the best method or is it a mix of the two? But ultimately the parent can and does step in an take control if the teenager gets out of line... those families where parents dont act like parents, we get what... criminals and problem teenagers in larger numbers than families where parents act like parents.

    It is no different in the overall economy... let the business run amok in a self regulating environment with no boundaries... and watch that eventually implode. Go the totally opposite way and regulate everything, and you are asking for hurt as well as no one likes to be told what to do all the time. Hence a mix of the two, and often the regulation is brought out of need to fix a problem rather than a preventive measure. So basically.. if it had not been for the abuses and flaws of capitalism, then there was no need for government regulation.

    Problem of course comes when corporations own the regulatory arm of government and the regulation is made to prevent competition... it is still capitalism,.. you cant deny that.. but it is a flawed version.
    PeteEU

  4. #54
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,734

    Re: U.S. 'Pretty ****ed' - Former TARP Inspector

    Quote Originally Posted by lordnate View Post
    That's pretty much right. I'm not really an expert on Glass-Steagal, but that's pretty much what it did from my understanding. However, it doesn't prevent a lending crisis, as Glass-Steagal was active during the Carter Administration where we had another lending meltdown.

    The biggest issue is that we have this bad habit of always thinking things will continue in the way they have been going. If the economy is good, then it will remain good. In bubble markets you have what's called the "Greater Fool Theory." That is, that bubbles will continue to grow as long as there is a greater fool. If you over pay for a house, but the next person over pays even more, you are a fool, but the person that followed is a greater fool. The last person to buy in a bubble is called the greatest fool. No one should buy just before the market goes down unless they absolutely have to for some reason, but there always seems to be a few fools willing to join in. This is just a negative aspect of capitalism, but there are ways to prevent this or at least limit the problem.

    One of the big issues that I learned from an online course I took for work on the housing market crash, is that in some states they were lending 120% LTV loans. That's where the loan is 20% greater than the appraised value. Basically, the house was underwater the day it was bought. The idea was, that people who had credit card debt could buy a home and use the remaining loan to wipe out the credit card debt. Since mortgages have a lower interest rate than credit cards, it would be a very affordable option. The only issue is that when you have people that have a tendency to have bad credit card debt, once their credit cards are no longer maxed out, they start using them again.

    Basically, what needs to be done is that the LTV of a loan needs to be set at a rate lower than the value of the house, requiring a down payment. This would prevent the housing market from inflating too fast and give some insurance for when housing markets go down. I think we could get away with giving out 90% LTV loans, but if we really wanted to be safe they would have a maximum of 80%.
    Correct a return of 10% plus down and no LTV plus 20 loans ensures some form of equity.

    Something that has not been investigated or is being investigated very quietly is that Standard and Poor and Moodys were neck deep in evaluating derivatives and were constantly evaluating them entirely too high for investors to know what they were getting into. Similar to the LIBOR issue, the valuers of the derivatives were hand in hand with the sellers creating misleading valuations.

  5. #55
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,734

    Re: U.S. 'Pretty ****ed' - Former TARP Inspector

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    On paper yes, in reality no. We have seen it time and time again, where capitalism has failed to regulate it self. Take a look at the crisis we are in now, it is a failure of self regulation in the private sub-prime mortgage market that is the root cause of the crisis. Does government regulation "screw things up"? Sure, but in an imperfect world it is our only way to quickly fix the failures of capitalism.



    Capitalism does nothing for the environment or workers. That is its primary problem which has lead to new forms of ideology.. socialism, communism, enviormentalism and so on. Capitalism has one goal.. profit at any cost and with that power and this is what leads it to its own downfall if not regulated (self or government). And since self regulation goes out the window as one of the first in a lazzie-faire regulatory system, then well...



    More horse**** based on a text book. In the real world, no amount of self regulation would have stopped using children in mines or factories. The capitalists were earning millions doing it, so why change it? Just because a few children died, so what.. they are replaceable. It was only when government came in and said on behalf of all people... no using children is wrong, that the capitalists changed their tunes. And that was not because they wanted too, but they were forced to do so because of changing political ideologies that threatened their whole business.. aka communism and socialism. There is nothing like a revolution and riots that can "regulate" a capitalist society... but do we really have to go that far to change things for the better?

    Listen, capitalism is by far the superior method of doing things. However like everything in life it is far from perfect, and having a lazzie-fair attitude when it comes to regulating it, only spells doom. Time and time again we have seen this, because there is two major flaws in most human beings... power and greed. And if a person can via the lazzie-fair capitalism gain more money and power by doing bad things, then that person will do so. Now you can say that the opposition in capitalism will prevent that (self-regulation), but often the opposition is out of business or/and dead and the power of the one left behind is so huge that people are afraid of him/her. Standard Oil comes to mind. Walmart comes to mind now days in certain geographic areas. Microsoft comes to mind back in the day. Apple comes to mind today.

    Lets put this in perspective. Capitalism is like a teenager. Now we can have a lazzie-fair attitude to raising said teenager, and let "society" and "experience" form the teenager over time. Or we can go by the control aspect and ban a teenager for doing things, keep watch and so on. Which one is the best method or is it a mix of the two? But ultimately the parent can and does step in an take control if the teenager gets out of line... those families where parents dont act like parents, we get what... criminals and problem teenagers in larger numbers than families where parents act like parents.

    It is no different in the overall economy... let the business run amok in a self regulating environment with no boundaries... and watch that eventually implode. Go the totally opposite way and regulate everything, and you are asking for hurt as well as no one likes to be told what to do all the time. Hence a mix of the two, and often the regulation is brought out of need to fix a problem rather than a preventive measure. So basically.. if it had not been for the abuses and flaws of capitalism, then there was no need for government regulation.

    Problem of course comes when corporations own the regulatory arm of government and the regulation is made to prevent competition... it is still capitalism,.. you cant deny that.. but it is a flawed version.
    Capitalism is the basis of what we use for one reason only. It works better than anything we have used so far.

    Regulation is a fine line. Too much and it enriches government too much (usually in terms of power), too little and it enriches business too much. Ostensibly government should regulate just enough to allow business to grow without trampling the rights of individuals, consumers and employees. That should be the goal. That doesnt appear to be the goal on either side lately. So I dunno.

  6. #56
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,089

    Re: U.S. 'Pretty ****ed' - Former TARP Inspector

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    Capitalism is the basis of what we use for one reason only. It works better than anything we have used so far.

    Regulation is a fine line. Too much and it enriches government too much (usually in terms of power), too little and it enriches business too much. Ostensibly government should regulate just enough to allow business to grow without trampling the rights of individuals, consumers and employees. That should be the goal. That doesnt appear to be the goal on either side lately. So I dunno.
    You forget the part where regulation is dictated by business via the government. That is the dangerous one, and that is the one happening in the US and other countries. When business and politics mix, capitalism goes out the window.

    Else I agree. My motto is always... we only need the regulation that is needed, no more, no less.
    PeteEU

  7. #57
    Tavern Bartender
    Pussy Grabbin' Beaver
    Middleground's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Canada's Capital
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    22,453
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: U.S. 'Pretty ****ed' - Former TARP Inspector

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    It began under Carter and Glass Stegal was passed under Clinton. CRA has been expanded under every President since Carter. If you are going to toss blame around can the partisan bull**** talking points to foist it all off on the mean, evil Republicans.
    I can't believe you need a Canadian to inform you of this, but Clinton was between the two Presidents I named. So how can my quote be partisan, when I also blamed him?

    And no, deregulation started under Reagan.
    No men are anywhere, and Im allowed to go in, because Im the owner of the pageant and therefore Im inspecting it, Trump said... Is everyone OK? You know, theyre standing there with no clothes. Is everybody OK? And you see these incredible looking women, and so I sort of get away with things like that.

  8. #58
    User
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    08-18-12 @ 06:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7

    Re: U.S. 'Pretty ****ed' - Former TARP Inspector

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    On paper yes, in reality no. We have seen it time and time again, where capitalism has failed to regulate it self. Take a look at the crisis we are in now, it is a failure of self regulation in the private sub-prime mortgage market that is the root cause of the crisis. Does government regulation "screw things up"? Sure, but in an imperfect world it is our only way to quickly fix the failures of capitalism.



    Capitalism does nothing for the environment or workers. That is its primary problem which has lead to new forms of ideology.. socialism, communism, enviormentalism and so on. Capitalism has one goal.. profit at any cost and with that power and this is what leads it to its own downfall if not regulated (self or government). And since self regulation goes out the window as one of the first in a lazzie-faire regulatory system, then well...



    More horse**** based on a text book. In the real world, no amount of self regulation would have stopped using children in mines or factories. The capitalists were earning millions doing it, so why change it? Just because a few children died, so what.. they are replaceable. It was only when government came in and said on behalf of all people... no using children is wrong, that the capitalists changed their tunes. And that was not because they wanted too, but they were forced to do so because of changing political ideologies that threatened their whole business.. aka communism and socialism. There is nothing like a revolution and riots that can "regulate" a capitalist society... but do we really have to go that far to change things for the better?

    Listen, capitalism is by far the superior method of doing things. However like everything in life it is far from perfect, and having a lazzie-fair attitude when it comes to regulating it, only spells doom. Time and time again we have seen this, because there is two major flaws in most human beings... power and greed. And if a person can via the lazzie-fair capitalism gain more money and power by doing bad things, then that person will do so. Now you can say that the opposition in capitalism will prevent that (self-regulation), but often the opposition is out of business or/and dead and the power of the one left behind is so huge that people are afraid of him/her. Standard Oil comes to mind. Walmart comes to mind now days in certain geographic areas. Microsoft comes to mind back in the day. Apple comes to mind today.

    Lets put this in perspective. Capitalism is like a teenager. Now we can have a lazzie-fair attitude to raising said teenager, and let "society" and "experience" form the teenager over time. Or we can go by the control aspect and ban a teenager for doing things, keep watch and so on. Which one is the best method or is it a mix of the two? But ultimately the parent can and does step in an take control if the teenager gets out of line... those families where parents dont act like parents, we get what... criminals and problem teenagers in larger numbers than families where parents act like parents.

    It is no different in the overall economy... let the business run amok in a self regulating environment with no boundaries... and watch that eventually implode. Go the totally opposite way and regulate everything, and you are asking for hurt as well as no one likes to be told what to do all the time. Hence a mix of the two, and often the regulation is brought out of need to fix a problem rather than a preventive measure. So basically.. if it had not been for the abuses and flaws of capitalism, then there was no need for government regulation.

    Problem of course comes when corporations own the regulatory arm of government and the regulation is made to prevent competition... it is still capitalism,.. you cant deny that.. but it is a flawed version.
    It goes both ways. Government intervention in business affairs for political gains can also hurt the economy. The issue is that the federal government is allowed to make laws the are entirely too specific. Why do some businesses get tax breaks that others do not? Why are some businesses subsidized and others not? When different industries and business get to play by different rules, the economy stops producing that which it can profit most efficiently. Capitalism is simple. Where there is a demand, there is a market. In this way, capitalism can provide for the needs of everyone, except the poor. And when I say except the poor, I do not mean only the wealthy. It can very well provide for all the needs for the middle class too. A few things the government needs to do for balance, but typically capitalism works best with a small set of simple rules.

    If the government was prevented from subsidizing or creating specific taxes, it would be impossible for companies to get an advantage by having a hand in the government. Heavy government regulation will ensure that a few major corporations will run the country and not the citizens, because they will be the ones throwing the money at politicians making sure the regulations favor them. Further, government spending on an industry can help the specific industry, but it creates an imbalance in the markets. It may appear like its helping the economy because the sector that the government is spending in gets larger, but where is that money coming from? Its coming from the sectors that are doing much better. In this way, it causes the public to invest in things that have a low return or in some cases a negative return. Because of that, government intervention almost always limits the economy.

    The government had a hand in many of the aspects of this current recession. Fannie Mae was originally a creation of the Federal Government back in 1938. About 90% of all mortgages sold on the secondary market are sold to Fannie Mae. Fannie Mae therefore sets the standards in the lending industry. If Fannie Mae accepts high risk loans, then the banks will make high risk loans knowing that Fannie Mae will buy them. The banks don't care how risky the loan is since they aren't the ones that will suffer the consequences. They just care that the loan meets the standards set by Fannie Mae so they can sell it. If Fannie Mae sets the standard, and the standard they set is good, then there shouldn't be a lending crisis. A few banks that take their own risks might fail, but the industry as a whole should be fine.

    As far as your comment on child working, that can be implemented as a general law that covers all industries. So I'm not against child labor laws. There are plenty of good laws that the government can come up with. They just shouldn't be making laws that favor certain individuals or industries.
    Last edited by lordnate; 08-15-12 at 08:08 AM.

  9. #59
    User
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    08-18-12 @ 06:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7

    Re: U.S. 'Pretty ****ed' - Former TARP Inspector

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    Correct a return of 10% plus down and no LTV plus 20 loans ensures some form of equity.

    Something that has not been investigated or is being investigated very quietly is that Standard and Poor and Moodys were neck deep in evaluating derivatives and were constantly evaluating them entirely too high for investors to know what they were getting into. Similar to the LIBOR issue, the valuers of the derivatives were hand in hand with the sellers creating misleading valuations.
    I'm not really a finance expert, but it seems to reason if there was a better standard for lending, like the one I stated, and there were no exceptions, the value of mortgage backed securities would be easier to determine. The problem, is that you have subprime loans and loans with all different kinds of payment rules and LTVs. If the standards were more universal, the investors wouldn't have to rely on so heavily on Moody's or Standard and Poor's ratings. The whole problem is that its way too confusing for most investors to figure it out.

  10. #60
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,734

    Re: U.S. 'Pretty ****ed' - Former TARP Inspector

    Quote Originally Posted by Middleground View Post
    I can't believe you need a Canadian to inform you of this, but Clinton was between the two Presidents I named. So how can my quote be partisan, when I also blamed him?

    And no, deregulation started under Reagan.
    You committed a lie of ommision. When you mention only some entities and make sure both of them are republicans you frame the conversation to those two rather than both parties.

    As to "starting" under Reagan, no. Jimmy Carter: Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 Remarks on Signing H.R. 4986 Into Law.


    I dont care if youre Egyptian,Finnish or Swiss but stop with false narratives and talking points.

Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... 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
  •