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 12 of 18 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 176

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

  1. #111
    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
    See the last paragraph of the post that we reference for a clue. The Fannie/Freddie crew backed 1/2 of the mortgages at the time of the bailouts. The taxpayers were on the hook EITHER way, by taking a bail-out hit or by allowing the banks to collect on the gov't backed mortgage insurance paper. The bail-out was actually far cheaper as many banks got far less than the REAL insured value that they could have taken. This allowed congress to better share the blame with the banks and cost the taxpayers far less as well. The bottom line is that congress loosened the lending rules far too much and many got burned by that gamble. All was well as long as a foreclosure got the bank at least their money back, by simply reselling the property, but when forclosure meant the bank was recovering a property worth far less than the note value, the jig was up, the paper was nearly worthless and the house of cards collapsed. Expect a very similar deal with all of that student loan paper out there soon, as much of it is backed by gov't insurance as well. Once interest rates are allowed to return to "normal" this will likely occur, since the taxpayers will soon tire of paying to keep them at 1/2 the real market rate.
    And who do you think told them to do that?!?

    "Congress loosened the lending rules"? Which bill was that??? You said this once before and didn't back it up. That's getting old. Cite your source; which Bill(s) are you talking about? If you're talking about the ones that worked for 20+ years then that brick isn't going to fly.



    Ed:
    You can talk until you're blue in the face but none of this would have happened if the 2000 legislation wasn't enacted merging the banks. It all comes back to that, which is what I said four posts ago.
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 06-04-12 at 04:32 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. #112
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,656

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    And who do you think told them to do that?!?

    "Congress loosened the lending rules"? Which bill was that??? You said this once before and didn't back it up. That's getting old. Cite your source, which Bill(s) are you talking about?
    That too is included in that first and last paragraph, first by congress (AMTPA) then by HUD exeuctive orders, or Clinton/Bush, that ordered that Freddie/Fannie "help". I suppose Bush was simply hoping to make it out the door before the big collapse happened (by increasing gov't guarantees), and he darn near made it. I am NOT trying to blame one party or one individual, it took a whole lot of gov't fools to make this mess. I am simply saying that "greedy bankers" acting illegally was not the cause, it was gov't bending to outside pressure (from banks AND social justice types) and wanting to "do good things" that made the mess. We give these morons in DC far too much power and credit them with imaginary magical powers to "do the right thing". They are mostly just greedy lying fools that happen to get to represent us, not the wise all knowing sages that some wish that they were. If we give them enough rope they will surely hang us with it. ;-)
    Last edited by ttwtt78640; 06-04-12 at 04:42 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

  3. #113
    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
    It came down to how derivatives and "special instruments" were allowed and then to run amok while the SEC sat on it's hands (through a couple administrations) and let it happen. It was a regulatory failure, partially the SEC and partially the fault of the administrations that ordered the SEC to stand down because, though there was an obvious problem, people were getting into houses and all was still peachy.

    Of course, when you borrow from Peter to pay Paul, Peter eventually comes calling.
    That was part of it, too.
    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

  4. #114
    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
    That too is included in that paragraph, it was by HUD exeuctive order, or Bush, that ordered that. I suppose Bush was simply hoping to make it out the door before the big collapse happened, and he darn near made it. I am NOT trying to blame one party or one individual, it took a whole lot of gov't fools to make this mess. I am simply saying that "greedy bankers" acting illegally was not the cause, it was gov't bending to outside pressure (from banks AND social justice types) and wanting to "do good things" that made the mess. We give these morons in DC far too much power and credit them with imaginary magical powers to "do the right thing". They are mostly just greedy lying fools that happen to get to represent us, not the wise all knowing sages that some wish that they were. If we give them enough rope they will surely hang us with it. ;-)
    There was no social justice in this at all. It was a scheme where the banks ended up with all the aces and face cards.
    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. #115
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,656

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    There was no social justice in this at all. It was a scheme where the banks ended up with all the aces and face cards.
    But the stated INTENT was to help "disadvantaged" (minority?) folks get into the housing market by making "sub-prime" loans that LOOKED affordable (based on rosy assumptions and good intentions) but turned out to not work at all once the actual time to pay any priciple rolled around. Many things came together to make it all collapse at once, but gov't sowed the seeds. Sure the bankers outsmarted the politicians in the end, but was that the fault of smart bankers or dumb politicians?
    Last edited by ttwtt78640; 06-04-12 at 05:07 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

  6. #116
    Electrician
    Bob Blaylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    North 38°28′ West 121°26′
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,745

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Sig View Post
    Presumably, the government would take control long before the company began to fail, while it was still healthy and functional. This would be the point.
    Sort of like suggesting that government should arrest and jail “criminals” before there's any reason to believe that they are going to commit any actual crimes.

    Anyway, the point is, government has no business ever, under any circumstances, taking over a private company. And if there ever was any justification for government to do such a thing, it would surely have to depend on there being an actual problem for which government control is claimed to be the solution, and not on speculation that a problem might occur in the future.
    The five great lies of the Left Wrong:
    We can be Godless and free. • “Social justice” through forced redistribution of wealth. • Silencing religious opinions counts as “diversity”. • Freedom without moral and personal responsibility. • Civilization can survive the intentional undermining of the family.

  7. #117
    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 Bob Blaylock View Post
    Sort of like suggesting that government should arrest and jail “criminals” before there's any reason to believe that they are going to commit any actual crimes.

    Anyway, the point is, government has no business ever, under any circumstances, taking over a private company. And if there ever was any justification for government to do such a thing, it would surely have to depend on there being an actual problem for which government control is claimed to be the solution, and not on speculation that a problem might occur in the future.
    Indeed!

    They need to focus on what they're *suppose* to be doing.
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  8. #118
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,656

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Aunt Spiker View Post
    Indeed!

    They need to focus on what they're *suppose* to be doing.
    If you mean stick to the constitutionally limitted powers granted to the federal gov't, then you are at least 50 years too late. It is now time to try to get that toothpaste back into the tube. ;-)
    “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

  9. #119
    Phonetic Mnemonic ©
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:29 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,417

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

    Some corporations that are now "too big to fail" became so through government-approved mergers and acquisitions of corporations that were formed 100-ish years ago when "too big" monopolies were broken up to begin with. We never learn, do we?
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

  10. #120
    Professor

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    08-19-14 @ 02:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,824

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    But the stated INTENT was to help "disadvantaged" (minority?) folks get into the housing market by making "sub-prime" loans that LOOKED affordable (based on rosy assumtions and good intentions) but turned out to not work at all once the actual time to pay any priciple rolled around. Many things came together to make it all collapse at once, but gov't sowed the seeds. Sure the bankers outsmarted the politicians in the end, but was that the fault of smart bankers or dumb politicians?
    This sub-prime crime was not a racial giveaway scheme but a flipper-loan scam. The banks wanted temporary homeowners who would default. Taking advantage of the way the property-market bubble was expanding, the con artists plotted to pile up rat-trap properties in entire neighborhoods by intentionally creating bad risks, then tear down the neighborhoods after the inevitable defaults and replace them with high-priced upscale properties. Proof is that the government was under total control of the soft-on-bankers Republicans for 6 years. Those collaborators would have repealed the sub-prime crime immediately if it had really been a racial giveaway scheme putting bankers or taxpayers at risk. It was a greedhead gamble that paid off for a long time. There were probably many greedheads who saw the bubble about to burst and got out with their loot intact and in time.
    Last edited by PrometheusBound; 06-04-12 at 05:11 PM.
    On the outside, trickling down on the insiders.
    We won't live free until the 1% live in fear.
    Hey, richboys! Imagine the boot of democracy stomping on your faces, forever.

Page 12 of 18 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... 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
  •