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 14 of 18 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 176

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

  1. #131
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    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.
    That is definitely wrong.

    Just because people have little alternative to government numbers - that doesn't mean they trust them.

    I do not for one second 'trust' the government numbers.

  2. #132
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    EUSSR
    Last Seen
    03-24-14 @ 01:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,851

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

    Quote Originally Posted by OhIsee.Then View Post
    So I'm posting on a poll that I haven't voted on. "Should the "too big to fail" be nationalised?" Doesn't give me a choice. They need regulation and it has to be suported by people that think functional regulation is a good thing.
    Yeah, but fussing around when the patient is in comma is not a good thing. If things come to a bailout again, what would be the best solution - bailout, failure or nationalisation?

  3. #133
    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 DA60 View Post
    That is definitely wrong.

    Just because people have little alternative to government numbers - that doesn't mean they trust them.

    I do not for one second 'trust' the government numbers.
    I can understand not trusting the government conclusions, that's called prudence, but not trusting the raw data? Well, there's a Conspiracy Theory section just down the hall ...
    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. #134
    Sage
    lpast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fla
    Last Seen
    05-21-16 @ 10:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,565

    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 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?

    No it wasnt....this was all a scheme by wall street. No one can tell me that banks whos business is taking risks by lending didnt know if you give someone thats been on a job 6 months and whose earning is 10% or less of his housing cost alone cant possibly pay for that house.
    There was a master scheme behind this housing crisis...lenders knew the loans they were handing out like candy could not be repaid.
    WE the taxpayers paid for those loans in bailouts....
    When I applied for a mortgage on my first house...I had been on my job 4 yrs, it was known steady employment...I had the full 20% downpayment and I WAS TURNED DOWN...because my earnings wasnt 40% of my housing cost. They wanted another 10% down and I provided it and got the loan...How did we fall from those kind of requirements, to on a job 6months no downpayment on a 150,000 house. How can you tell me the banks didnt KNOW what was going to happen..
    Last edited by lpast; 06-05-12 at 09:44 AM.

  5. #135
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,667

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

    Quote Originally Posted by lpast View Post
    No it wasnt....this was all a scheme by wall street. No one can tell me that banks whos business is taking risks by lending didnt know if you give someone thats been on a job 6 months and whose earning is 10% or less of his housing cost alone cant possibly pay for that house.
    There was a master scheme behind this housing crisis...lenders knew the loans they were handing out like candy could not be repaid.
    WE the taxpayers paid for those loans in bailouts....
    When I applied for a mortgage on my first house...I had been on my job 4 yrs, it was known steady employment...I had the full 20% downpayment and I WAS TURNED DOWN...because my earnings wasnt 40% of my housing cost. They wanted another 10% down and I provided it and got the loan...How did we fall from those kind of requirements, to on a job 6months no downpayment on a 150,000 house. How can you tell me the banks didnt KNOW what was going to happen..
    I never said that the banks did not know, only that the gov't ALLOWED this mess, by changing the lending laws in 1982. Like I said, all was rosy if foreclosure resulted in a small gain or wash for the banks, but once the housing bubble burst the jig was up.
    “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. #136
    Sage
    lpast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fla
    Last Seen
    05-21-16 @ 10:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,565

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    I never said that the banks did not know, only that the gov't ALLOWED this mess, by changing the lending laws in 1982. Like I said, all was rosy if foreclosure resulted in a small gain or wash for the banks, but once the housing bubble burst the jig was up.
    Ok I can agree with that...but this master plan was by wall street and if it was allowed by govt say hello to GWBush...you cant blame obama for this...this was all in play before he was even in the primary for president.
    I remember well the Savings and Loan fiasco that cost taxpayers untold sums of cash to BAIL out banks...and here we do it again....
    They have no risk anymore...Taxpayers take all the risks now for the rich...and they still want to take whats left off us.

  7. #137
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    I can understand not trusting the government conclusions, that's called prudence, but not trusting the raw data? Well, there's a Conspiracy Theory section just down the hall ...
    Would you call the CPI 'raw data'? The unemployment rate?

    That is what I was referring to.


    Anyone that completely 'trusts' the government with anything is a fool, imo.

    I take every single thing the government produces/says with a grain of salt.

    Some I believe more then others. But NONE of it do I believe with no doubt whatsoever.

  8. #138
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,667

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

    Quote Originally Posted by lpast View Post
    Ok I can agree with that...but this master plan was by wall street and if it was allowed by govt say hello to GWBush...you cant blame obama for this...this was all in play before he was even in the primary for president.
    I remember well the Savings and Loan fiasco that cost taxpayers untold sums of cash to BAIL out banks...and here we do it again....
    They have no risk anymore...Taxpayers take all the risks now for the rich...and they still want to take whats left off us.
    Then tighten up the law and refuse future bailouts and gov't loan guarantees. Simple really.
    “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. #139
    Phonetic Mnemonic ©
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:16 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,423

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    I can understand not trusting the government conclusions, that's called prudence, but not trusting the raw data? Well, there's a Conspiracy Theory section just down the hall ...
    I would be skeptical. How they categorize the numbers could have great impact, and could easily be manipulated... either consciously or subconsciously.
    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. #140
    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 lpast View Post
    No it wasnt....this was all a scheme by wall street. No one can tell me that banks whos business is taking risks by lending didnt know if you give someone thats been on a job 6 months and whose earning is 10% or less of his housing cost alone cant possibly pay for that house.
    There was a master scheme behind this housing crisis...lenders knew the loans they were handing out like candy could not be repaid.
    WE the taxpayers paid for those loans in bailouts.......
    What is not understood by most is that the time base for rewards in business, including banks and the ilk, is much shorter than the time it takes for things to go to wrong. And businesses, banks for example, will ask for the rules, regulations, to be changed that will allow for short term performance improvement. A CEO's performance is judged at least as often as quarterly. Marketing and sales staff more often than quarterly. The minimum time it takes for montages to go bad and be 'registered' as bad is a few years. This is the root of the problem with a lot of business and government stuff. Even voters judge the performance of politicians on a time base that is generally shorter that what the systems allow them to operate with.

    It's my engineering background, system feedback control etc., that allows me to observe features in systems that cause problems.
    Last edited by OhIsee.Then; 06-05-12 at 01:29 PM.

Page 14 of 18 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... 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
  •