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 9 of 18 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 176

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

  1. #81
    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
    Quite a clever cop-out, to assert that they (in congress) all do it, when the discussion surrounded WHO, by name, supported the "sub-prime" mortgage lending laws that led DIRECTLY to the housing bubble and need for the bail-outs. Barney Frank led the charge and MOSTLY liberals wanted these housing lending law changes in the name of "fariness" and "helping minorities" get more into the home ownership market. After the mess that it created (the housing bubble) finally collapsed, the cry was that "greedy bankers" caused it, not that well meaning liberal politicians, who simply failed to see (or intentionally ignored) that lending money to those very likely unable to repay it was at the root of the problem. The next, very similar case, is with gov't backed student loans; I predict that bubble will soon burst as well.
    Links?

    Or is this just copy/paste from a right-wing website?
    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. #82
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,552

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    Partisan blame - when it's true - doesn't bother me in the least.

    The Republican Congress wanted to let the banks merge and Clinton signed the bill. That doesn't change the facts of the situation now, does it?!? The banks pushed for that change or Congress wouldn't have given a rats ass. It was a mistake that needs correcting as quickly as possible.

    I don't know what the other crap you posted is about. The Pres pulls the strings at Freddie/Fannie as much as anyone. He also pulls the strings at the SEC.
    WOW. So now we change the subject to an entirely different banking law change (conveniently involving the GOP congress), rather than stick to the point at hand, adding the "sub-prime" mortgage lending laws, which was done by a demorat congress.
    “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. #83
    Pontificator
    iliveonramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    9,158

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

    Once more it is naive to think government and big business have a very incestuous relationship. (remember the 'conservative' stink over Obama using lobbyists/consultants in his administration?) While it is possible to find a needle in a haystack as well as a good fed chairman, treasury sec, chief of staff who never worked for a major corporation/financial institution/stock brokerage house/shadow banking firm/ you get the idea....
    Academics, consumer advocates, people other than entrenched big Wall Street banks. The folks generally pulled to man those positions come from a handful of large Institutions that don't really represent anything other than the interest or views of a small minority of bankers in the US.
    “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. #84
    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
    WOW. So now we change the subject to an entirely different banking law change (conveniently involving the GOP congress), rather than stick to the point at hand, adding the "sub-prime" mortgage lending laws, which was done by a demorat congress.
    I'm sorry, what are those links again - I seem to have missed your first posting.


    I was talking about merging investment and savings banks. If that didn't happen the rest wouldn't matter.


    And, yes, when financial instruments are improperly rated then laws have been broken. When banks are promoting instruments while shorting them then there's a conflict of interest - generally illegal.
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 06-04-12 at 02:17 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

  5. #85
    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
    We had just such regulation PRIOR TO the legalization of "sub-prime" mortages. This "private" industry is regulated as much, if not more, than any other, and with good reason. You can not have it both ways here, either the regualtions were changed for the worse (as I assert) or the banks broke the law (as you seem to assert). I wonder who is rght?
    I have pointed out that a large portion of the loans didn't need the change in regulations to allow them. The short sale house we hope to sign on today had a 1st and 2nd mortgage. We are pretty certain that the second was used to buy a 'new' car. It was granted not because it was legalized or required by law, but rather because the 'bank' thought the value of the house was going up over the term of the loan. I'm sure there were rewards, e.g. bonuses at the bank for getting the loans. This is positive feedback on a time base that is not long enough for actual control. No regulation change was needed to allow the 2nd mortgage. I suspect that no regulation change was needed for the first. It was the second that pushed the seller over the edge.

  6. #86
    Pontificator
    iliveonramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    9,158

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

    Quite a clever cop-out, to assert that they (in congress) all do it, when the discussion surrounded WHO, by name, supported the "sub-prime" mortgage lending laws that led DIRECTLY to the housing bubble and need for the bail-outs. Barney Frank led the charge and MOSTLY liberals wanted these housing lending law changes in the name of "fariness" and "helping minorities" get more into the home ownership market
    Why do you put fairness and helping minorities in quotation marks? Redlining is real and it's been shown countless time that minorities from certain areas were discriminated against. When credit history, income etc were accounted minorities were less likely to get a loan and when they did get a loan were at higher rates. This has been a major issue since the 60's.
    “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

  7. #87
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,552

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    Links?

    Or is this just copy/paste from a right-wing website?
    Wikipedia "sub-prime mortgage crisis" is the most comprehensive and least politically biased link that I can offer (for now). ;-)
    “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. #88
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

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

    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.
    Last edited by clownboy; 06-04-12 at 02:35 PM.

  9. #89
    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
    Then you simply made a bad bet, nobody to blame for it but, yourself. If a deal sounds too good to be true, then it usually is. Many buy bad "investments" but that is simply salesmanship. 15% of the folks will not ever buy anything new, 15% of the folks will buy darn near anything and the rest (70%) is simply salesmanship. ;-)
    You're sorry I made a bad bet? I sold, FISBO, our Phoenix house near the peak (Some commercial property also, but that was another winning bet.) As we purchased another in Michigan from a distressed stupid seller, a pawn shop owner, where house values didn't bubble up much. Then we have purchased two homes in the Phoenix area for far less than construction costs. The one we are closing on this week has gone up about 8% over our offer, about 7 weeks ago, that beat 12 others. And today's value is still way less than today's construction cost for the same home. We now have 3 homes for the approximately the amount we sold one for.

  10. #90
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,552

    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.
    Good post. We are going down that same road, paved with equally good intentions, for student loans now. The prevailing gov't logic is that more is better in nearly every area, with special gov't "help" being offered for those that can not afford any "good" thing. We somehow "know" that green/alternative energy is "good" so that is the next big push for gov't "stimulus". The gov't must eventually learn, from repeatedly getting burned, that "venture capital" and "helpful" regulation (artificially slow down fossil fuel use and production) are not going to "git-r-done" and simply allow the private market and real "experts" to slog along on the tried and true path that has made this free, capitalist country accel in the past. By rewarding and subsidizing failure (welfare), or trying to push for future "next generation" magic technology (green/alternative energy), funded through the taxation of current success, is not the magic gov't bullet that will get us "forward". The vast majority of our great technological leaps were not gov't initiated, but resulted from the direct, or byproducts of, private industry attempts to improve things to gain competitive advantage.
    Last edited by ttwtt78640; 06-04-12 at 03:00 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 9 of 18 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... 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
  •