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 7 of 18 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 176

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

  1. #61
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,635

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

    Interesting spin on TARP, 'the crash', sub-prime, Unions, corporations, government...

    We tried letting the chip fall where they may many times before, read up on the crashes we routinely had till 1929.

    There is no such thing as a free market, unless total anarchy is the goal.

    Competition in Capitalism leads to monopolies and that never favors the citizen.

    Government didn't force banks to make bad loans, banks rewrote banking laws to mine deeper and deeper into the mountain until they unleashed forces they couldn't control but we tax payers backed them up so to the banker's minds the risks were low and the competition fierce to mine that last loan dollar.

    Too big to fail means to big to walk amongst us. We broke up monopolies before, corporations have burrowed themselves in deep and thanks to the Supreme Court, can pour millions into picking political leaders.

    Perhaps the outcome will be corporations running for office, they are people too if you ask the Supreme Court or Willard.

  2. #62
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,695

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

    Quote Originally Posted by grip View Post
    The government repealed the Glass-Steagall Act through the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999 by President Bill Clinton and allows commercial banks to gamble and speculate with depositors money like the investment banks. With the blessing and help of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by taking on more risk moving into the subprime mortgage market. The government encouraged all this lending, not because they're altruistic and wanted everyone to have homes but because increased sales from credit improves revenue by stimulating the economy giving them more money to spend. The SEC allowed the Credit Rating Agencies (Moody's, Standard & Poor and Fitch) to give AAA+ ratings to securities that were junk mixed 50/50, so that banks could sell the repackaged mortgages to investors knowing that 1/2 would default. Those securities as is custom were insured by companies like A.I.G. to the tune of trillions and even the insurance policies were sold as investments. When the inevitable occurred and markers were called in on foreclosures there was a liquidity crisis causing a chain effect that rippled thru the markets threatening to crash the worlds economies. If the US government had not stepped up with the bailouts there would of have been a collapse of the financial system as we know it. All those future sales on homes and other items (cars, ATV's, boats, motorcycles, RV's, jet ski's, snow mobiles, etc) from easy credit created a ton of toxic paper, wealth that evaporated over night from over valuating the markets and their assets.

    The credit bubble has run the economy for over a decade now and had to be re-propped up but it's starting to sink again because it's a flawed concept.
    Exactly. It is not if, but when, this will be "needed" again, perhaps the massive increase in student loans, state/city pension "unfunded" obligations or the national debt itself (as interest rates rise) will be the next "trigger" for it. We can not, as a nation, continue to spend more that we "earn" and expect some future economic "miracle" to occur to balance the books.
    “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. #63
    Pontificator
    iliveonramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 05:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    9,213

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

    Government didn't force banks to make bad loans, banks rewrote banking laws to mine deeper and deeper into the mountain until they unleashed forces they couldn't control but we tax payers backed them up so to the banker's minds the risks were low and the competition fierce to mine that last loan dollar.
    This is actually so true. 50 years of stable banking after Great Depression era regulations where insituted. After the 80's and the beginning of deregulation we get the Savings and Loan failures and now the worst downturn since the Great Depression. What we hear NOW is that when we deregulate banks and allow them to "innovate" the problem is we don't let them fail.
    So now we're going to let major insitutions fail like domino's. If you wanted to end capitalism and the market system that's a great ideology to follow.
    Last edited by iliveonramen; 06-04-12 at 12:30 PM.
    “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” John Maynard Keynes

  4. #64
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,695

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

    Quote Originally Posted by iliveonramen View Post
    This is actually so true. 50 years of stable banking after Great Depression era regulations where insituted. After the 80's and the beginning of deregulation we get the Savings and Loan failures and now the worst downturn since the Great Depression. What we hear NOW is that when we deregulate banks and allow them to "innovate" the problem is we don't let them fail.
    So now we're going to let major insitutions fail like domino's. If you wanted to end capitalism and the market system that's a great ideology to follow.
    NONSENSE. Banks did not rewrite ANY banking laws, congress did. Pretending any different is insane. Banks had tremendous political pressure to relax "discriminatory" lending practices and thus made "sub-prime" loans WITH gov't backed blessing, in the form of Freddie/Fannie mortagage insurance, that ALL knew was unsustainable. Name the banking law that you allege that banks, not the congress wrote, voted into law and was then signed by the president. Crickets...
    Last edited by ttwtt78640; 06-04-12 at 12:41 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

  5. #65
    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 ttwtt78640 View Post
    Exactly. It is not if, but when, this will be "needed" again, perhaps the massive increase in student loans, state/city pension "unfunded" obligations or the national debt itself (as interest rates rise) will be the next "trigger" for it. We can not, as a nation, continue to spend more that we "earn" and expect some future economic "miracle" to occur to balance the books.
    An example is in the Phoenix AZ area where homes were over built. I was advised to buy a 'second' home as an investment (It would be an unfunded obligation.), by the time it was built I could sell it for a substantial profit. This is an exact example of what you posted about except for one thing, that is that it was driven by private business.
    So, how do you think that housing bubble should have been, um, controlled?

  6. #66
    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
    NONSENSE. Banks did not rewrite ANY banking laws, congress did. Pretending any different is insane.
    No, pretending banks didn't influence, pressure, and pay Congress to change the banking laws is what's insane.


    Come on, we all know what the score is, here - quit playing around.
    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

  7. #67
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,695

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

    Quote Originally Posted by OhIsee.Then View Post
    An example is in the Phoenix AZ area where homes were over built. I was advised to buy a 'second' home as an investment (It would be an unfunded obligation.), by the time it was built I could sell it for a substantial profit. This is an exact example of what you posted about except for one thing, that is that it was driven by private business.
    So, how do you think that housing bubble should have been, um, controlled?
    By requiring (returning to?) the prior SANE lending laws (that did allow "discrimination") by requiring down payments, solid buyer income and credit history, reasonable loan to value ratios, and honest "fair market" valuation appraisals.
    “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

  8. #68
    Pontificator
    iliveonramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 05:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    9,213

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

    NONSENSE. Banks did not rewrite ANY banking laws, congress did. Pretending any different is insane.
    So I guess you assume that campaign donations and lobbying doesn't influence congress? That the revolving door between the financial sector and the Treasury, SEC, Fed Reserve Etc is harmless? I agree to a certain extent....big Wall Street money COUPLED with anti-regulatory ideologues led to the loosening of banking laws but to act like the banking sector hasn't had a large influence?

    Banks had tremendous political pressure to relax "discriminatory" lending practices and thus made "sub-prime" loans WITH gov't backed blessing, in the form of Freddie/Fannie mortagage insurance, that ALL knew was unsustainable.
    Fannie and Freddie have been around for a long time as has the US push for home ownership. Fann and Freddie's share of the subprime lending market DECREASED during the bubble.

    It was "financial innovation" that led to trillions being pumped into housing. The idea that stacks of questionable mortgages stacked created senior tranches that were virtually risk free (triple A rated) The idea that some banks were like "ok...let's take these less senior tranches and stack them" and created new CDO's and turned lower rated tranches into new senior tranches. It was financial innovation where banks were basing their purchases and models on ratings agencies that had no idea what were making up the actual derivatives. It was financial innovation where banks like Countrywide (who didn't sell to frannie and freddie) were able to mass produce loans with little to no limited information and sell it on Wall Street.

    Name the banking law that you allege that banks, not the congress wrote, voted into law and was then signed by the president. Crickets...
    Are you purposely being obtuse here or do you not understand how money corrupts politics.
    “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” John Maynard Keynes

  9. #69
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,695

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    No, pretending banks didn't influence, pressure, and pay Congress to change the banking laws is what's insane.


    Come on, we all know what the score is, here - quit playing around.
    Interesting theory, and one that should be quite easy to "prove". Which members of congress voted for these changes, how much did they get in campaign cash (or other favors) from the banking industry and why do their district/state voters not care about these "corrupt" voting patterns? Perhaps they may include the likes of Barney Frank or other solid blue dudes that have no fear of being denied re-election? That would be "shocking" would it not? That it was the very liberals that cried the loudest about those "greedy bankers" that were the very folks that allowed these "compassionate" and "less discriminatory" lending laws to be "abused" by those mean old greedy bankers. ;-)
    Last edited by ttwtt78640; 06-04-12 at 01:16 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

  10. #70
    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 ttwtt78640 View Post
    NONSENSE. Banks did not rewrite ANY banking laws, congress did. Pretending any different is insane. Banks had tremendous political pressure to relax "discriminatory" lending practices and thus made "sub-prime" loans WITH gov't backed blessing, in the form of Freddie/Fannie mortagage insurance, that ALL knew was unsustainable. Name the banking law that you allege that banks, not the congress wrote, voted into law and was then signed by the president. Crickets...
    We could have purchased a second or third home and many did and no " "sub-prime" loans WITH gov't backed blessing" were needed. Our third home, we expect to sign the papers today, purchased via a short sale, apparently the owners were pushed over the edge by a 2nd mortgage used to purchase a new car. I don't think 2nds were enabled by anything but the 'banking' industry.

Page 7 of 18 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... 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
  •