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 2 of 18 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 176

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

  1. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    09-18-12 @ 08:07 AM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    3,245

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

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    Except the banks profit from that debt-fueled hedonism. Remember, it was the lending institutions who pushed for sub-prime loans. Nobody did anything about it because there were too many people making too much money.
    What profit are you talking about?

    The sub-prime loans went bust. The reason the government had to bail them out is because Fannie and Freddie were the insurance for mortgage backed securities.

  2. #12
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Disputatious71 View Post
    This thread is not discussing problems with these market systems only whether or not the problem companies should be nationalized.
    And it's a good thing we can talk about individual issues brought up in a thread to engage in thoughtful discussion and debate.
    Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.

  3. #13
    Sage
    Disputatious71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    16,747
    Blog Entries
    3

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

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    And it's a good thing we can talk about individual issues brought up in a thread to engage in thoughtful discussion and debate.
    If relevant I enjoy such discourse.
    The question is more important than the answer!

  4. #14
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Daktoria View Post
    What profit are you talking about?

    The sub-prime loans went bust. The reason the government had to bail them out is because Fannie and Freddie were the insurance for mortgage backed securities.
    Well, banks profit from debt-fueled hedonism in general. Sub-prime loans were the worst because it allowed people with extremely low income to get mortgages that could be paid to the banks. So sub-prime loans were just a way for banks to get money from people who were poorer and poorer.

    Credit cards are another part of this. Why wait 6 months to buy a $5,000 entertainment system when you can put it on your credit card and buy it at the price of $6,000 that you can pay back by the end of the year?
    Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.

  5. #15
    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?

    No private company should EVER be nationalized in America.

    Additionally, no private company should EVER be bailed out again.

  6. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    09-18-12 @ 08:07 AM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    3,245

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

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    Well, banks profit from debt-fueled hedonism in general. Sub-prime loans were the worst because it allowed people with extremely low income to get mortgages that could be paid to the banks. So sub-prime loans were just a way for banks to get money from people who were poorer and poorer.

    Credit cards are another part of this. Why wait 6 months to buy a $5,000 entertainment system when you can put it on your credit card and buy it at the price of $6,000 that you can pay back by the end of the year?
    Right, I completely agree.

    If we didn't live in a world where people consumed on debt so much though, there would be more investment opportunities because people would be committed to self-development and using their time wisely.

    Instead, they splurge and get stuck working menial jobs that provide no fulfillment whatsoever.

    There's a reason social and fiscal conservatism go hand in hand.

  7. #17
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Daktoria View Post
    Right, I completely agree.

    If we didn't live in a world where people consumed on debt so much though, there would be more investment opportunities because people would be committed to self-development and using their time wisely.

    Instead, they splurge and get stuck working menial jobs that provide no fulfillment whatsoever.

    There's a reason social and fiscal conservatism go hand in hand.
    Yes, but there's a problem with that that conservatives refuse to address.

    Yes, many people use credit cards for hedonistic purposes, but there are a lot of people who have used credit cards to purchase necessities.

    What's been happening is that the price of goods have gone up steadily over the past 30 years - however, wages have remained relatively stagnant. So when prices go up but income remains static people have less purchasing power and can buy less.

    And when this happens, I think it further fuels rises in price, such as the housing bubble.

    People were getting mortgages on houses that were pegged at higher and higher prices. As credit got easier to get, the prices of these houses were rising higher and higher in order to get more money from those mortgages as people competed for housing.

    Then people realized how much money they were spending on credit to get a house and the bubble burst.

    Now, people have paid a tremendous amount of money on homes that are no longer worth the money they paid for it.

    It's not that these houses lost in value, exactly - rather, the amount of money that people are willing to pay for these homes fell so much. And there's a difference between those two things.

    And that's why I'm worried about people who want the housing market to rise again. They want the housing market to rise so they can sell their homes at a price better on par with what they paid for it. But I'm afraid that what that will mean is that the housing market will have to get inflated again somehow for that to happen.

    So what conservatives really need to do is to find some kind of way for people with lower income to afford such necessities or that their wages increase much more on par with increases in prices to address the foundation of this issue.
    Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.

  8. #18
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,576

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Daktoria View Post
    What profit are you talking about?

    The sub-prime loans went bust. The reason the government had to bail them out is because Fannie and Freddie were the insurance for mortgage backed securities.
    True. That was largely the case, with a few other politically touchy situations (union pension fund deficits) added in for good measure. The gov't (actually the taxpayers) was on the hook either way; rather than admit that the 'troubling' bank activity was not only legal, but mandated by the gov't, the congress chose to use bank "bailouts", rather than let many (most?) of these 'troubled' assets be "called in" using the gov't mortgage insurance that secured them. IMHO, this 'bailout" was political expediency gone wild, to make the congress (president?) look like heros saving the people from "greedy bankers", that were not doing anything wrong (note that NO charges of wrongdoing were ever attempted), it just looked better to say that, than to have allowed the taxpayers to know that they (through their gov't representatives) had "guaranteed" to pay the mortgages on behalf of people that had no business being given a mortgage loan in the first place. These "troubled" assets were mostly just paperwork that gave away houses to people that had no way to pay a mortgage, much less maintain the property, that they were "buying", but many real estate agents, bankers, appraisers and gov't inspectors made lots of money with these "pretend they will work", relaxed lending rules also known as, "sub-prime" mortgages. Once the "music stopped", those holding these gems, could no longer trade this trash for (as?) cash, even buy "bundling them" with some good mortgage paper.
    Last edited by ttwtt78640; 06-03-12 at 09:48 AM.
    “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. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    09-18-12 @ 08:07 AM
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    3,245

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

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    Yes, but there's a problem with that that conservatives refuse to address.

    Yes, many people use credit cards for hedonistic purposes, but there are a lot of people who have used credit cards to purchase necessities.

    What's been happening is that the price of goods have gone up steadily over the past 30 years - however, wages have remained relatively stagnant. So when prices go up but income remains static people have less purchasing power and can buy less.

    And when this happens, I think it further fuels rises in price, such as the housing bubble.

    People were getting mortgages on houses that were pegged at higher and higher prices. As credit got easier to get, the prices of these houses were rising higher and higher in order to get more money from those mortgages as people competed for housing.

    Then people realized how much money they were spending on credit to get a house and the bubble burst.

    Now, people have paid a tremendous amount of money on homes that are no longer worth the money they paid for it.

    It's not that these houses lost in value, exactly - rather, the amount of money that people are willing to pay for these homes fell so much. And there's a difference between those two things.

    And that's why I'm worried about people who want the housing market to rise again. They want the housing market to rise so they can sell their homes at a price better on par with what they paid for it. But I'm afraid that what that will mean is that the housing market will have to get inflated again somehow for that to happen.

    So what conservatives really need to do is to find some kind of way for people with lower income to afford such necessities or that their wages increase much more on par with increases in prices to address the foundation of this issue.
    Inflation is a self-fulfilling prophecy with debt:

    Demand-pull inflation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    When credit becomes more available, that increases the money supply.

    Ergo, prices go up.

  10. #20
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    True. That was largely the case, with a few other politically touchy situations (union pension fund deficits) added in for good measure. The gov't (actually the taxpayers) was on the hook either way; rather than admit that the 'troubling' bank activity was not only legal, but mandated by the gov't, the congress chose to use bank "bailouts", rather than let many (most?) of these 'troubled' assets be "called in" using the gov't mortgage insurance that secured them. IMHO, this 'bailout" was political expediency gone wild, to make the congress (president?) look like heros saving the people from "greedy bankers", that were not doing anything wrong (note that NO charges of wrongdoing were ever attempted), it just looked better to say that, than to have allowed the taxpayers to know that they (through their gov't representatives) had "guaranteed" to pay the mortgages on behalf of people that had no business being given a mortgage loan in the first place. These "troubled" assets were mostly just paperwork that gave away houses to people that had no way to pay a mortgage, must less maintain the property that they were "buying", but many real estate agents, bankers, appraisers and gov't inspectors made lots of money with these "pretend they will work" relaxed lending rules known as "sub-prime" mortgages. Once the "music stopped", those holding these gems, could no longer trade this trash for cash, even buy "bundling them" with some good mortgage paper.
    Can I just point out that if we could get quality banking reform for regulations we would neither have banks doing shady business practices nor require bailouts to save them and the shareholders of these institutions?
    Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.

Page 2 of 18 FirstFirst 123412 ... 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
  •