To say that there is waste is an understatement. Anywhere there is money there is some level of corruption. But when you compare this scenario to the financial -private sector- meltdown it doesn’t even come close.[/quote]
The meltdown was not merely private sector greed. It was crony capitalism. You can’t separate the government’s role in the meltdown from the private sector’s role without an ultra-myopic, ultra-subjective field of view.
[/quote]
The meltdown was mostly deregulation on the behest of investment bankers. Did the government deregulate? Yep! So I’m not absolving them of their share of the responsibility I’m just saying that the investment banks are considered private sector and this meltdown was almost of global proportions. Some argue it was and still is. This problem was far worse than government waste in so-called shovel ready projects. This is something you never here on this forum from those who worship at the feet of the private sector.
The meltdown was mostly deregulation on the behest of investment bankers. Did the government deregulate? Yep! So I’m not absolving them of their share of the responsibility I’m just saying that the investment banks are considered private sector and this meltdown was almost of global proportions. Some argue it was and still is. This problem was far worse than government waste in so-called shovel ready projects. This is something you never here on this forum from those who worship at the feet of the private sector.[/quote]
ultra-myopic. check
ultra-subjective. check
Thanks for using yourself as an example to show how on point I am.
The meltdown was mostly deregulation on the behest of investment bankers. Did the government deregulate? Yep! So I’m not absolving them of their share of the responsibility I’m just saying that the investment banks are considered private sector and this meltdown was almost of global proportions. Some argue it was and still is. This problem was far worse than government waste in so-called shovel ready projects. This is something you never here on this forum from those who worship at the feet of the private sector.[/quote]
ultra-myopic. check
ultra-subjective. check
Thanks for using yourself as an example to show how on point I am.
[/quote]
You want the world to be a certain way. You need the world to be a certain way. You have been told it is a certain way, and you believe what you are told. That is not objective. That is subjective. Ultra subjective.
You want the world to be a certain way. You need the world to be a certain way. You have been told it is a certain way, and you believe what you are told. That is not objective. That is subjective. Ultra subjective.
[/quote]
Is it just a coincidence that when regulations are lifted- finance sector in this case- things go badly or do you think there is a causation here?
You sound like yourself in your above description. Married to an ideology.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Is it just a coincidence that when regulations are lifted- finance sector in this case- things go badly or do you think there is a causation here?
You sound like yourself in your above description. Married to an ideology.
[/quote]
If the government stayed out of the economy, things would not go “badly.” Incompetent businesses would go out of business, good businesses would grow. People who bought things they couldn’t afford, invested in incompetent businesses, etc. would just have to deal with the consequences of their actions. People who made wise choices would profit.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Is it just a coincidence that when regulations are lifted- finance sector in this case- things go badly or do you think there is a causation here?
You sound like yourself in your above description. Married to an ideology.
[/quote]
If the government stayed out of the economy, things would not go “badly.” Incompetent businesses would go out of business, good businesses would grow. People who bought things they couldn’t afford, invested in incompetent businesses, etc. would just have to deal with the consequences of their actions. People who made wise choices would profit.[/quote]
This is the obvious consequence to deregulation. It is because of the regulations being gutted that enabled these banks to take these types of risks. It is the reason the government need to be more involved in the economy. They became so rich and powerful they controlled the politicians and were able to get bailed out by the financial wing of the democratic party. It is instructive to anyone that actually believes that Obama is a socialist how brainwashed they have become. To believe it is a hallmark of a socialist to bail out the ultra-rich on the backs of the taxpayers, indeed.
For those who really believe that Obama is a socialist please do me a favor and get a hold of Wall Street to let them know that they contributed more money to a socialist candidate than they did to a republican " free-market believer" - McCain.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Is it just a coincidence that when regulations are lifted- finance sector in this case- things go badly or do you think there is a causation here?
You sound like yourself in your above description. Married to an ideology.
[/quote]
If the government stayed out of the economy, things would not go “badly.” Incompetent businesses would go out of business, good businesses would grow. People who bought things they couldn’t afford, invested in incompetent businesses, etc. would just have to deal with the consequences of their actions. People who made wise choices would profit.[/quote]
This is the obvious consequence to deregulation. It is because of the regulations being gutted that enabled these banks to take these types of risks. It is the reason the government need to be more involved in the economy. They became so rich and powerful they controlled the politicians and were able to get bailed out by the financial wing of the democratic party. It is instructive to anyone that actually believes that Obama is a socialist how brainwashed they have become. To believe it is a hallmark of a socialist to bail out the ultra-rich on the backs of the taxpayers, indeed.
For those who really believe that Obama is a socialist please do me a favor and get a hold of Wall Street to let them know that they contributed more money to a socialist candidate than they did to a republican " free-market believer" - McCain.
[/quote]
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Is it just a coincidence that when regulations are lifted- finance sector in this case- things go badly or do you think there is a causation here?
You sound like yourself in your above description. Married to an ideology.
[/quote]
If the government stayed out of the economy, things would not go “badly.” Incompetent businesses would go out of business, good businesses would grow. People who bought things they couldn’t afford, invested in incompetent businesses, etc. would just have to deal with the consequences of their actions. People who made wise choices would profit.[/quote]
This is the obvious consequence to deregulation. It is because of the regulations being gutted that enabled these banks to take these types of risks. It is the reason the government need to be more involved in the economy. They became so rich and powerful they controlled the politicians and were able to get bailed out by the financial wing of the democratic party. It is instructive to anyone that actually believes that Obama is a socialist how brainwashed they have become. To believe it is a hallmark of a socialist to bail out the ultra-rich on the backs of the taxpayers, indeed.
For those who really believe that Obama is a socialist please do me a favor and get a hold of Wall Street to let them know that they contributed more money to a socialist candidate than they did to a republican " free-market believer" - McCain.
[/quote]
Here you go…
Oh Gawd! Seriously it was a total joke. He was making fun of people who call him a socialist. About 85% of the people on this forum. Even if he had a serious tone it would mean nothing. There is a big difference between rhetoric and actuality.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
It is because of the regulations being gutted that enabled these banks to take these types of risks. [/quote]
Why oh why do you act as if these activities wouldn’t have just gone on under a different veil?
Just because a Bank’s direct name is or isn’t on a product, wasn’t going to stop the instruments from being made, being sold, insured, or the housing bubble to not burst.
This was going to happen with or without your blessed government having more power to control your life.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
It is because of the regulations being gutted that enabled these banks to take these types of risks. [/quote]
Why oh why do you act as if these activities wouldn’t have just gone on under a different veil?
Just because a Bank’s direct name is or isn’t on a product, wasn’t going to stop the instruments from being made, being sold, insured, or the housing bubble to not burst.
This was going to happen with or without your blessed government having more power to control your life. [/quote]
Then why oh why didn’t this happen during the periods of regulations?
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
It is because of the regulations being gutted that enabled these banks to take these types of risks. [/quote]
Why oh why do you act as if these activities wouldn’t have just gone on under a different veil?
Just because a Bank’s direct name is or isn’t on a product, wasn’t going to stop the instruments from being made, being sold, insured, or the housing bubble to not burst.
This was going to happen with or without your blessed government having more power to control your life. [/quote]
Then why oh why didn’t this happen during the periods of regulations?[/quote]
Do you know what a bubble is?
Do you understand what the “troubled assets” were when we speak of need for TARP?
Do you know that subordinated debt investment instruments have been around a long, long time?
Can you even name a single regulation other than glass-Stiegel?
That graph is almost a carbon copy of the health care cost graph I posted a few days ago.
Hmmmm…what could have possibly happened in the mid-late 70’s that would cause the beginning of an exponentiation in housing prices? Couldn’t possibly have been Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, could it?
Hell no. It was all the fault of the evil bankers and predatory lending practices.
But let’s regulate the housing industry more because the 80’s and 90’s were such a bitchin’ good time.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
It is because of the regulations being gutted that enabled these banks to take these types of risks. [/quote]
Why oh why do you act as if these activities wouldn’t have just gone on under a different veil?
Just because a Bank’s direct name is or isn’t on a product, wasn’t going to stop the instruments from being made, being sold, insured, or the housing bubble to not burst.
This was going to happen with or without your blessed government having more power to control your life. [/quote]
Then why oh why didn’t this happen during the periods of regulations?[/quote]
Do you know what a bubble is?
Do you understand what the “troubled assets” were when we speak of need for TARP?
Do you know that subordinated debt investment instruments have been around a long, long time?
Can you even name a single regulation other than glass-Stiegel?[/quote]
Bubble is a heightened loss of intrinsic value that eventually will burst once the hype is gone and reality comes to the fore.
Troubled assets in regards to TARP were insuring the mortgages that were in trouble due to the housing collapse.
Yes but why were these debt investments fine before?
Glass_Steagal is the most cited regulation and also the most important. Part of 4 provisions of the Bank Act of 1933. I’m not familiar with the names of the provisions or the names of other regulations. One of GS main contribution was separating commercial and investment banking.
This graph would be interesting when put over a graph with the gutting of the regulations within the GS regulation.
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
That graph is almost a carbon copy of the health care cost graph I posted a few days ago.
Hmmmm…what could have possibly happened in the mid-late 70’s that would cause the beginning of an exponentiation in housing prices? Couldn’t possibly have been Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, could it?
Hell no. It was all the fault of the evil bankers and predatory lending practices.
But let’s regulate the housing industry more because the 80’s and 90’s were such a bitchin’ good time. [/quote]
Wow I thought Reagan would have been your personal Jesus. So you didn’t like the 80’s?
Better idea. Why don’t we have publicly owned banks like they do in North Dakota and avoid the calamitous nature of the private banking disease?
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
That graph is almost a carbon copy of the health care cost graph I posted a few days ago.
Hmmmm…what could have possibly happened in the mid-late 70’s that would cause the beginning of an exponentiation in housing prices? Couldn’t possibly have been Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, could it?
Hell no. It was all the fault of the evil bankers and predatory lending practices.
But let’s regulate the housing industry more because the 80’s and 90’s were such a bitchin’ good time. [/quote]
Wow I thought Reagan would have been your personal Jesus. So you didn’t like the 80’s?
Better idea. Why don’t we have publicly owned banks like they do in North Dakota and avoid the calamitous nature of the private banking disease?
[/quote]
If you can buy stock in a bank, it is a publicly owned bank. Do you mean government owned bank? It would help if you had at least a working knowledge of the subject matter on which you wax expert.
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
That graph is almost a carbon copy of the health care cost graph I posted a few days ago.
Hmmmm…what could have possibly happened in the mid-late 70’s that would cause the beginning of an exponentiation in housing prices? Couldn’t possibly have been Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, could it?
Hell no. It was all the fault of the evil bankers and predatory lending practices.
But let’s regulate the housing industry more because the 80’s and 90’s were such a bitchin’ good time. [/quote]
Wow I thought Reagan would have been your personal Jesus. So you didn’t like the 80’s?
Better idea. Why don’t we have publicly owned banks like they do in North Dakota and avoid the calamitous nature of the private banking disease?
[/quote]
If you can buy stock in a bank, it is a publicly owned bank. Do you mean government owned bank? It would help if you had at least a working knowledge of the subject matter on which you wax expert.
[/quote]
Everyone knows Zep is the town idiot. We keep him around for sh!ts and giggles.
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
That graph is almost a carbon copy of the health care cost graph I posted a few days ago.
Hmmmm…what could have possibly happened in the mid-late 70’s that would cause the beginning of an exponentiation in housing prices? Couldn’t possibly have been Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, could it?
Hell no. It was all the fault of the evil bankers and predatory lending practices.
But let’s regulate the housing industry more because the 80’s and 90’s were such a bitchin’ good time. [/quote]
Wow I thought Reagan would have been your personal Jesus. So you didn’t like the 80’s?
Better idea. Why don’t we have publicly owned banks like they do in North Dakota and avoid the calamitous nature of the private banking disease?
[/quote]
If you can buy stock in a bank, it is a publicly owned bank. Do you mean government owned bank? It would help if you had at least a working knowledge of the subject matter on which you wax expert.
[/quote]
Ahh bullshit. Two different things. Why have your version of publically owned banks needed a bailout but the publically owned bank I’m speaking of did just fine? No difference huh?
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
That graph is almost a carbon copy of the health care cost graph I posted a few days ago.
Hmmmm…what could have possibly happened in the mid-late 70’s that would cause the beginning of an exponentiation in housing prices? Couldn’t possibly have been Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, could it?
Hell no. It was all the fault of the evil bankers and predatory lending practices.
But let’s regulate the housing industry more because the 80’s and 90’s were such a bitchin’ good time. [/quote]
Wow I thought Reagan would have been your personal Jesus. So you didn’t like the 80’s?
Better idea. Why don’t we have publicly owned banks like they do in North Dakota and avoid the calamitous nature of the private banking disease?
[/quote]
If you can buy stock in a bank, it is a publicly owned bank. Do you mean government owned bank? It would help if you had at least a working knowledge of the subject matter on which you wax expert.
[/quote]
Ahh bullshit. Two different things. Why have your version of publically owned banks needed a bailout but the publically owned bank I’m speaking of did just fine? No difference huh?[/quote]
They still sell stevia in the head shops where you live?
