View Poll Results: Should the "too big to fail" be nationalised?

Voters
42. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    9 21.43%
  • No

    33 78.57%
  • Dunno

    0 0%
  • I don't care

    0 0%
Page 10 of 18 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 176

Thread: Should the "too big to fail" be nationalised?

  1. #91
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Should the "too big to fail" be nationalised?

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Wikipedia "sub-prime mortgage crisis" is the most comprehensive and least politically biased link that I can offer (for now). ;-)
    Everything I see in there is how I remember it - nothing new for me. I have no clue what kind of "sub-prime legislation" you are talking about and I've read quite a bit of stuff surrounding this issue. It would take a full-time job to read it all, so I'm no "expert", but I've never read anything about these "sub-prime mortgage lending laws" you've been yakking about ---- so cough up with the links because Wiki isn't backing up your claim. In fact ...

    Although a number of politicians, pundits, and financial industry-funded think tanks have claimed that government policies designed to promote affordable housing were an important cause of the financial crisis, detailed analyses of mortgage data by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, Federal Reserve Economists, and independent academic researchers suggest that this claim is probably not correct. Community Reinvestment Act loans outperformed other "subprime" mortgages, and GSE mortgages performed better than private label securitizations.
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 06-04-12 at 03:02 PM.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  2. #92
    Guru
    cAPSLOCK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,928
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Should the "too big to fail" be nationalised?

    [x] They should be allowed to fail.

  3. #93
    Professor

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    MI and AZ
    Last Seen
    03-15-15 @ 01:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,581

    Re: Should the "too big to fail" be nationalised?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lokiate View Post
    I can agree with that. My whole thing is, if the government doesn't entangle itself where it shouldn't be in the first place, **** like these bailouts wouldn't become a necessity.
    The bailouts were not a necessity, we could have suffered through it much more without the bailouts. The reward systems in business operate much faster than the screw-ups become apparent. We can operate in a 'natural' unregulated environment that oscillates significantly, or we can try to regulate to reduce the magnitude of of the oscillations. Note that with the unnatural introduction of computers and the internet we have a system that has a feedback loop time that beats the physical world. Building is faster but slower than what computers are allowing. New regulation is very slow.

  4. #94
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Should the "too big to fail" be nationalised?

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    There is a significant federal regulatory system already in place for banks and investment houses. Has been since the beginning of our nation. Every time the government builds a mouse trap, the mouse gets smarter and figures his way out, leading the government to design and build an improved mouse trap, rinse, repeat.

    A series of politicians wanted to make it easier for Americans to own their own homes. Surprise, they went overboard and opened the flood gates a little too far. The housing bubble was as a result of some (good intentioned? greedy?) politicians who mis-designed the regulatory environment to allow more homes for the people. At the very least, they all should have been fired on the spot and replaced, as it is, we're trying to fix the problem with the same crop of fools who created the problem.
    That system had been in place and working just fine for 30 years under three different presidents before GB and his "let the banks govern themselves" policy came on the scene. Let business run itself and it's like a stampede - this time right over a cliff.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  5. #95
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,688

    Re: Should the "too big to fail" be nationalised?

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    Everything I see in there is how I remember it - nothing new for me. I have no clue what kind of "sub-prime legislation" you are talking about and I've read quite a bit of stuff surrounding this issue. It would take a full-time job to read it all, so I'm no "expert", but I've never read anything about these "sub-prime mortgage lending laws" you've been yakking about ---- so cough up with the links because Wiki isn't backing up your claim. In fact ...
    Surprise of all surprises, the gov't claims that the gov't is not at fault, and can prove it using gov't data. LOL.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  6. #96
    versus the world
    Surtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    The greatest planet in the world.
    Last Seen
    06-10-14 @ 03:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,017

    Re: Should the "too big to fail" be nationalised?

    Quote Originally Posted by OhIsee.Then View Post
    The bailouts were not a necessity, we could have suffered through it much more without the bailouts. The reward systems in business operate much faster than the screw-ups become apparent. We can operate in a 'natural' unregulated environment that oscillates significantly, or we can try to regulate to reduce the magnitude of of the oscillations. Note that with the unnatural introduction of computers and the internet we have a system that has a feedback loop time that beats the physical world. Building is faster but slower than what computers are allowing. New regulation is very slow.
    I meant perceived necessity. I forget that vocal tone doesn't translate well with text.
    I love the NSA. It's like having a secret fan-base you will never see, but they're there, watching everything you write and it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that I may be some person's only form of unconstitutional entertainment one night.

  7. #97
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Should the "too big to fail" be nationalised?

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Surprise of all surprises, the gov't claims that the gov't is not at fault, and can prove it using gov't data. LOL.
    If you don't trust government financial data - and I mean BLS, IRS, etc type data - then you're completely gone as far as talking about ANYTHING financial in this country. Everyone trusts the government numbers because in most cases the government is the only entity that collects that kind of data.


    But, hey, you don't have to take my word for it. I got that from YOUR link, not mine. I asked for YOUR link and you provided one. Don't cry to me about it being bias, wrong, or anything else - it was YOUR link!
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  8. #98
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

    Re: Should the "too big to fail" be nationalised?

    Quote Originally Posted by cAPSLOCK View Post
    [x] They should be allowed to fail.
    An entire 10 page thread and only one person with serious common sense (ok - there were a few more)

    But the notion that they're *too big to fail* is merely a myth conjured by said CEOs, politicians, and the unfortunate individauls who were laid off. But *why* were they believed to be 'too big to fail'

    It's not that they were *too big to fail* - it's that thet grew *so big like a fat vine on a tree that they had no where else to go but down when they folded a smidge* . . . like a house of cards.

    Why did 'they fail' - was it because they weren't capable of supporting theirselves? No - regardless of what people say, that's not it. Most businesses that folded or risked folding had grown to this enormous size BECAUSE They were quite capable - and then that's when they got full of theirselves and topheavy.

    1) Poor management - instead of providing a cusion for ails in the future - they padded the pockets of their CEO's
    2) Instead of staying reasonably-sized and relatively controlled - they grew to match a fat, prosperous market - so when the market slimmed (coupled with the previous issue) they sort of doomed theirselves.
    3) Too many towns relied on one single source of revenue to support them - towns and counties can encourage varied growth in many ways; failure to do so leaves a small town solely reliant on one source.

    These are the three real main factors. . . the overall source of the problem. . . .everything else is sidelined - completely unrelated - or in and of itself it's own 3-point issue (politics, government, etc)

    Businesses fold all the time = when a furniture store closes another business will pick up some of those few remaining customers and benefit. . . meanwhile = being out 5 employees, no one's really thinking that they were *that important* . . . size matters in this issue - and too big = will fail if handled improperly.
    Last edited by Aunt Spiker; 06-04-12 at 03:21 PM.
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  9. #99
    Irremovable Intelligence
    Removable Mind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    23,557

    Re: Should the "too big to fail" be nationalised?

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    Everything I see in there is how I remember it - nothing new for me. I have no clue what kind of "sub-prime legislation" you are talking about and I've read quite a bit of stuff surrounding this issue. It would take a full-time job to read it all, so I'm no "expert", but I've never read anything about these "sub-prime mortgage lending laws" you've been yakking about ---- so cough up with the links because Wiki isn't backing up your claim. In fact ...
    The Communities Reinvestment Act didn't really have that much effect on the Mortgage Bubble. It allowed Clinton to put the pressure on lenders to make more loans to minorities and individuals who were marginally qualified, but there were 2 bills enacted, which actually caused the crash.

    1. The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act ------ Basically the law that stipped the Glass Steagall Act, which was enacted as a result of banking, market practices that led to the Great Depression

    And another Bill Sponsored by Gramm

    2. The Commodities and Futures Modernization Act of 2000 ------ This law virtually wiped out all regulations on the Derivatives markets. As of now its estimated to be somewhere in the neighborhood of $500 Trillion (world-wide) in shaky derivatives.

    And these laws are still very active and all that happened to cause the crash is in the process of happening again. Why? Because the banking, market, and insurance industries now own our government. If they didn't then the crash wouldn't have occurred. And if when they crash again...we'll be forced to pick up the tab again. It's called Corporate Welfare.

  10. #100
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,688

    Re: Should the "too big to fail" be nationalised?

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    Everything I see in there is how I remember it - nothing new for me. I have no clue what kind of "sub-prime legislation" you are talking about and I've read quite a bit of stuff surrounding this issue. It would take a full-time job to read it all, so I'm no "expert", but I've never read anything about these "sub-prime mortgage lending laws" you've been yakking about ---- so cough up with the links because Wiki isn't backing up your claim. In fact ...

    Your reading was rather selective then, since the paragraph IMMEDIATELY preceeding your quote gave you the answer. Here is MORE of the SAME "causes" section (from MY source) that you cleverly "cherry picked" your quote from the middle of:

    In 1982, Congress passed the Alternative Mortgage Transactions Parity Act (AMTPA), which allowed non-federally chartered housing creditors to write adjustable-rate mortgages. Among the new mortgage loan types created and gaining in popularity in the early 1980s were adjustable-rate, option adjustable-rate, balloon-payment and interest-only mortgages. These new loan types are credited with replacing the long standing practice of banks making conventional fixed-rate, amortizing mortgages. Among the criticisms of banking industry deregulation that contributed to the savings and loan crisis was that Congress failed to enact regulations that would have prevented exploitations by these loan types. Subsequent widespread abuses of predatory lending occurred with the use of adjustable-rate mortgages.[44][120] Approximately 90% of subprime mortgages issued in 2006 were adjustable-rate mortgages.[3]

    Although a number of politicians, pundits, and financial industry-funded think tanks have claimed that government policies designed to promote affordable housing were an important cause of the financial crisis, detailed analyses of mortgage data by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, Federal Reserve Economists, and independent academic researchers suggest that this claim is probably not correct.[1] [121] Community Reinvestment Act loans outperformed other "subprime" mortgages, and GSE mortgages performed better than private label securitizations.

    Increasing home ownership has been the goal of several presidents including Roosevelt, Reagan, Clinton and George W. Bush.[122] In 1995, the GSEs like Fannie Mae began receiving government tax incentives for purchasing mortgage backed securities which included loans to low income borrowers.[123] In 1996, HUD set a goal for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that at least 42% of the mortgages they purchase be issued to borrowers whose household income was below the median in their area. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005.[124]

    From 2002 to 2006, as the U.S. subprime market grew 292% over previous years, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac combined purchases of subprime securities rose from $38 billion to around $175 billion per year before dropping to $90 billion per year, which included $350 billion of Alt-A securities. Fannie Mae had stopped buying Alt-A products in the early 1990s because of the high risk of default. By 2008, the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac owned, either directly or through mortgage pools they sponsored, $5.1 trillion in residential mortgages, about half the total U.S. mortgage market.[125]
    Last edited by ttwtt78640; 06-04-12 at 03:36 PM.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

Page 10 of 18 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... 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
  •