US Banks: Nationalization? Pre-privatization?

[Huston]

How unfortunate for conservatives who take no responsibility for their very major part in the outcome of the crash. Blaming the law from the Carter years after how many Republican administrations in power is just deflecting.

You need all the building block in order to figure out the problem. You're focus is too short term. Why do you say conservative. I'm not conservative despite your delusion.

You'll have to show how a law with that says sound banking practices must be adhered to is responsible.

Huh? You need proper context for this. I don't see how this can be derived from what I said.. you're confusing. Now should I being doing this... not that i can understand your question. Can you rephrase it, because I am having trouble understanding why I should be the one doing it. Again. Market fundamental should tell a bank how much they should leverage. If they are stupid enough to make a bad bet and loose, thats capitalism. You are an idiot, you deserve to fail. The free-market then balances out. However, central banking made it possible for banks to become extremely leverage. That is why the Banks were panicing when Andrew Jackson closed down the Second Bank of the United States

You are the one who criticized socialism. Better take a shot at Republicans and Bush who started the bail out last year.

Huh? I have no clue why you are making shit up of what I said. Stop it. your embarrasing yourself making shit up. Why should I only be blaming Bush. Why should I only have to focus on him, when the problem started way before him. I don't get it.

Stop blaming today's debacle on the Carter years. It's as embarrassing as your insults.

You're lack of argument is embarrasing.

Think you were the one that shouted socialist. What paradigm is that?

Statist. Let me clarify to you what I think a socialist is. A socialist is someone who appeals to some ideal applied to all. Since we are all equal... whatever that means. Redistribution of welath.. that is pretty much taxation, coersive taxation on income.

If you feel I am wasting your time, make use of the ignore button.

Whatever.

As for wanting to go back to the gold standard or for private banks to be the issuers of currency, I doubt very much that many in any circle right or left would find that a wholly acceptable or even practical.

Oh.. gee still no argument. Why don't you try to explain it.. you know, arguing.

[jdobbin]

You need all the building block in order to figure out the problem. You're focus is too short term. Why do you say conservative. I'm not conservative despite your delusion.

I say you are taking the conservative view that the reason for the sub-prime mortgage crash is the Carter law. It is unsupported. That is the ideological spin to the story and it is certainly not cited by the analysts.

The free-market then balances out. However, central banking made it possible for banks to become extremely leverage.

Deregulation allowed that to happen as Greenspan pointed out. He expected the private financial institutions to act in the self interest of their industry as much as in the self interest of their companies. They certainly did that the latter but created packaging for their portfolios that was not transparent and hid the solvency issues that the Carter law said were essential to good banking.

Huh? I have no clue why you are making shit up of what I said. Stop it. your embarrasing yourself making shit up. Why should I only be blaming Bush. Why should I only have to focus on him, when the problem started way before him. I don't get it.

I'm sure you don't get it. You are simply taking the Republican spin on this that Carter was responsible for the crash. It is embarrassing to watch. The law in the that was written in the 1970s said sound banking practices should be adhered to. At the time regulations were in place to ensure better oversight.

You're lack of argument is embarrasing.

Statist. Let me clarify to you what I think a socialist is. A socialist is someone who appeals to some ideal applied to all. Since we are all equal... whatever that means. Redistribution of welath.. that is pretty much taxation, coersive taxation on income.

Guess that means any society that has placed a levy on the citizenry. Render under to Caesar what is Caesar's. Those Roman socialists.

Whatever.

Just telling you that you have options rather than personalizing things.

Oh.. gee still no argument. Why don't you try to explain it.. you know, arguing.

I'm saying your view is unsupported on all matters regarding this issue. Those Republicans would be in the know on what led to the sub-prime mortgage have not taken up the rallying cry that Carter's law was responsible. They certainly have blamed Democrats when they could and Clinton certainly bares some responsibility for deregulation that took place under his administration. However, the majority of the changes regarding oversight took place under Republican regimes pushed by Greenspan at every turn.

As for the gold standard, Greenspan may have once believed that in 1966 but his position certainly modified by time he was Fed Chairman. Like many people, he accepted the U.S. dollar as a reserve currency.

[Huston]

I say you are taking the conservative view that the reason for the sub-prime mortgage crash is the Carter law. It is unsupported. That is the ideological spin to the story and it is certainly not cited by the analysts.

You are the one spinning. The legislation was first introduced during the Nixon era. I am just giving names of the administration that was in control at the time. I do not give a shit about left or right.. or Republican or Democrat.

Deregulation allowed that to happen as Greenspan pointed out. He expected the private financial institutions to act in the self interest of their industry as much as in the self interest of their companies. They certainly did that the latter but created packaging for their portfolios that was not transparent and hid the solvency issues that the Carter law said were essential to good banking.

I would like to know what those deregulations were. It can't be 'deregulation' when their was never regulations concerning transparency in the first place. And of all people.. since he is misrepresented.. Ron Paul is one that is trying to make transparency with the FED, well.. he also put a bill for ending the fed to... he is keeping his options open. The former one is looking the most likely to go somewhere.

Edit: Transparency is not a regulation, it is a fundamental principle of a free-market.

I'm sure you don't get it. You are simply taking the Republican spin on this that Carter was responsible for the crash.

You’re an idiot. Stop constructing strawmen. You are the one stuck in this false dichotomy.

It is embarrassing to watch.

What? You stuck in a dichotomy? Oh, certainly.

The law in the that was written in the 1970s said sound banking practices should be adhered to. At the time regulations were in place to ensure better oversight.

Look asshole. This was one of the pieces. I already said that. Many others things caused. You make this more simpler than what it is.

Guess that means any society that has placed a levy on the citizenry. Render under to Caesar what is Caesar's. Those Roman socialists.

If you have an ideal of what a SOCIETY is, then that is SOCIALISM. yes, Romans were socialist. They coersed others into their ideal society. Just like any religion would.

Guess Just telling you that you have options rather than personalizing things.

Options like republican or democrat. I am not going to be simple like you. Ideologically driven spinster. Just like I will not exercise a silly little ignore option. You are the one attacking me by spinning my argument. I will not hide when I am being attacked.

I'm saying your view is unsupported on all matters regarding this issue. Those Republicans would be in the know on what led to the sub-prime mortgage have not taken up the rallying cry that Carter's law was responsible. They certainly have blamed Democrats when they could and Clinton certainly bares some responsibility for deregulation that took place under his administration. However, the majority of the changes regarding oversight took place under Republican regimes pushed by Greenspan at every turn.

FUCK! STRAWMAN! I don’t give a shit what Republicans think, I don't even know what they think. I know what one of thinks, but obviously he didn't represent the GOP, and that is why he never won the GOP. So stop making up my argument for men, because that is not my argument.

Guess As for the gold standard, Greenspan may have once believed that in 1966 but his position certainly modified by time he was Fed Chairman. Like many people, he accepted the U.S. dollar as a reserve currency.

So? Can you please say something. I don't care about Greenspan. Greenspan was part of the problem. I have no confidence that man. Just like I mentioned the regulations passed under Carter and Clinton, which were both republican plans, but the democrates supported and drove the regulation (oddly enough, the call the repeal of glass-steagal as deregulation... deregulations are just more regulation), so your false dichotomy is just that. False!

Edited February 25, 2009 by Huston

[jdobbin]

You are the one spinning. The legislation was first introduced during the Nixon era. I am just giving names of the administration that was in control at the time. I do not give a shit about left or right.. or Republican or Democrat.

If your spin is that this is what caused the crisis, it isn't one shared my many except partisan Republicans.

I would like to know what those deregulations were.

They have been listed in this thread a few times already. Check out some of the links as to what Greenspan says now in retrospect.

Edit: Transparency is not a regulation, it is a fundamental principle of a free-market.

That is usually overseen by an oversight regulatory body. Greenspan championed less scrutiny and deregulation of these oversight bodies in favour of the market acting according to self interest.

You’re an idiot. Stop constructing strawmen. You are the one stuck in this false dichotomy.

You can't seem to stop with the insults. Are you looking to get banned?

Look asshole. This was one of the pieces. I already said that. Many others things caused. You make this more simpler than what it is.

Yup. It certainly looks like you are looking to have the moderator address your behaviour.

If you have an ideal of what a SOCIETY is, then that is SOCIALISM. yes, Romans were socialist. They coersed others into their ideal society. Just like any religion would.

I can't think of any functioning society that doesn't have elements of coercion.

Options like republican or democrat. I am not going to be simple like you. Ideologically driven spinster. Just like I will not exercise a silly little ignore option. You are the one attacking me by spinning my argument. I will not hide when I am being attacked.

Please. I am addressing your statement. I have not resorted to insults.

I simply disagree with your viewpoint and you have lashed out.

FUCK! STRAWMAN! I don’t give a shit what Republicans think, I don't even know what they think. I know what one of thinks, but obviously he didn't represent the GOP, and that is why he never won the GOP. So stop making up my argument for men, because that is not my argument.

I am saying your argument is the same as partisan Republicans are making and it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It isn't a strawman argument to point out your view is identical to what those Republicans are saying.

I don't care about Greenspan. Greenspan was part of the problem.

You certainly can't talk about the issue without addressing Greenspan despite whatever confidence or lack thereof you had in the man.

Take it easy and don't let your anger end up getting you ejected off the forum.

Edited February 25, 2009 by jdobbin

[Huston]

If your spin is that this is what caused the crisis, it isn't one shared my many except partisan Republicans.

You are the one spinning. there are many causes.

They have been listed in this thread a few times already. Check out some of the links as to what Greenspan says now in retrospect.

Really. obviously not clear enough. And what if Greenspan is wrong?

That is usually overseen by an oversight regulatory body. Greenspan championed less scrutiny and deregulation of these oversight bodies in favour of the market acting according to self interest.

So it is said.

You can't seem to stop with the insults. Are you looking to get banned?

Bullshit. You are making up your own oppenent by creating a strawmen. THAT is insulting.

Yup. It certainly looks like you are looking to have the moderator address your behaviour.

What about your behavior?

I can't think of any functioning society that doesn't have elements of coercion.

Because it is willfully given

Please. I am addressing your statement. I have not resorted to insults.

Bullshit you miss represent my argument by making claims that I do not agree with. Stop with the strawmen.

I simply disagree with your viewpoint and you have lashed out.

You did more than disagreed, you made shit up about what I represent.

I am saying your argument is the same as partisan Republicans are making and it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It isn't a strawman argument to point out your view is identical to what those Republicans are saying.

It does not. You are making it up. I do not agree with the republican. You are playing the partisan card. Not me.

You certainly can't talk about the issue without addressing Greenspan despite whatever confidence or lack thereof you had in the man.

Greenspan is playing a theoritical game. I have no confidence in him. The market is not a theory. He was a part of the problem yes. He is incompetent. Why should I listen to anything he says.

Take it easy and don't let your anger end up getting you ejected off the forum.

Asshole. Don't make shit up then. If you want to play a partisan card, you are making shit up. Simple as that.

Edited February 25, 2009 by Huston

[jdobbin]

You are the one spinning. there are many causes.

I don't think I have stated there weren't many causes. I just stated that the main cause was not legislation that was put into place in the Carter years.

Really. obviously not clear enough. And what if Greenspan is wrong?

I'm sure what Greenspan did or did not do will fill textbooks for years. The one thing he has said that is surprised the market could not supervise itself and that were it not for federal intervention at this point, the fall would have been catastrophic. It was not merely going to be a correction but devastation for even those who practiced better self-control.

So it is said.

And so it was done.

Bullshit. You are making up your own oppenent by creating a strawmen. THAT is insulting.

Namecalling is against the rules of this board. I have not done it here with you at any time.

What about your behavior?

If you feel I have violated the rules, by all means, report it. I have not insulted you. I have disagreed with you.

Because it is willfully given

What is that? Submission to state authority?

Bullshit you miss represent my argument by making claims that I do not agree with. Stop with the strawmen.

I haven't seen where you disagree with the claim. You have stated what I partisan Republicans have stated and I've said so. That is not insulting.

You did more than disagreed, you made shit up about what I represent.

Don't believe I did anything of the sort. I simply stated you share the same viewpoint.

It does not. You are making it up. I do not agree with the republican. You are playing the partisan card. Not me.

Think I have pointed out that both parties are responsible for deregulation.

Greenspan is playing a theoritical game. I have no confidence in him. The market is not a theory. He was a part of the problem yes. He is incompetent. Why should I listen to anything he says.

The market, although as old as humanity itself, has always been subject to theoretical analysis. Why should Greenspan be listened to? Well, because he can detail what went wrong and what went right in the years he was at the Fed.

Asshole. Don't make shit up then. If you want to play a partisan card, you are making shit up. Simple as that.

Your temper and crude behaviour are just going to get you into trouble.

This is a political board. It is filled with partisans. If not for the parties than for ideology whether that be yours or someone else's. No sense in getting too worked up about it.

Feel free to disagree or make a counter remark but lashing out with personal insults is something that isn't accepted in these forums.

[msj]

You didn't point out any facts. Do you really think they will say or even realize that such things may have risks.

Actually, I pointed out two notable facts:

1) That the CRA encourages prudent lending by banks. They don't just go into poor neighbourhoods and give money away - it is done under business conditions and rules.

If you don't like that fact then I suggest you take it up with the legislation.

2) That banks like WaMu have lent recklessly to just about anybody who can make up an income out of thin air thanks to the system in place that encouraged such behaviour (and that system is not the CRA - rather, it is the lack of proper regulation).

You must not forget that under Clinton, the commercial banks were allowed to merge with investment banks. This is the source of this article. They took those loan made indescriminately to the poor and then repackaged them into a wall street.

Sure, Clinton played a role in this mess too. Never said otherwise.

Oh, but what was the name of that bill again? I think it was the Gramm-Leach-Blilely Act. Hmm, that Gramm guy sure is popular amongst Republicans and recession deniers, ain't he?

The article spends most of its time criticizing Austrian economists. They were the only ones who saw this thing coming. The article is just playing the typical state good private bad. The state never saw this coming. At this moment the Austrian have gained by confidence.

Ah, yes, the old ignore what the article and links are mostly about and change the subject.

Of course, the Austrians have been right for many decades - ever since the creation of the Federal Reserve, I'm sure.

[Huston]

Feel free to disagree or make a counter remark but lashing out with personal insults is something that isn't accepted in these forums.

Oh boohoo.. personal insult. And you fabricating my argument for is is not?

Fuck you.. you are projecting you know. You know.. the temper remark. Your projecting, unless you want to substantiate that. Good luck.

Since you went crying off to the mod, I say fuck to this forum. Do not confuse essentric with a bad temper.

[Huston]

Of course, the Austrians have been right for many decades - ever since the creation of the Federal Reserve, I'm sure.

Yes, they blame to problem on the federal reserve. but you obviously don't get it. They know a how many countries that have been ruined through central banking. It is obvious. I would rather listen to them then you. Can I vocabulize my argument, no. not like them. So since i cannot, i will leave this forum. I hate politics. Go play that game if you want. I did say that the Carter and Clinton regulations.. or deregulations and such were Republican ideas. I just name the party in power at the time.. oh well.

[M.Dancer]

Can I vocabulize my argument, no.

I'm sure you mean articulate but obviously the answer is still no. Chomsky could pipe in here how having a limited vocabulary stunts your ability to comprehend and to think abstractly....but lets keep him out of it.

Suffice to the, if you can't articulate (vocabulize? vocalize? ) the argument, you don't have a coherent argument.

Edited February 26, 2009 by M.Dancer

[guyser]

I hate politics.

I hate green peppers. So..I dont eat them.

You hate politics, so you come here.

Kinda dumb isnt it?

[Charles Anthony]

Everybody,

Stop with the childish personal attacks and jabs.

Ch. A.

[Oleg Bach]

Everybody,

Stop with the childish personal attacks and jabs.

Ch. A.

It's not like we don't know when we are wasting band width. Most have a sense when they are not being productive..we should follow our senses. Hear Hear Charles.....we all need instruction on occassion - thanks....now getting back to being diligent for a change.

[blueblood]

After reading thru this thread, I'd say that MSJ/Dobbin and Aug91/Huston sides are both right.

Having the gov't "regulate" that loans are supposed to be given to people who shouldn't be given them in order to have some sort of affordable housing, and then on top of that have both the Clinton and Bush admin stick their heads in the sand and assuming everything is hunky dory and no regulations are necessary is in fact a recipe for disaster.

If the gov't wants the banks to loan to high risk people, then they had best put forth some strict regulations so that this type of mess doesn't happen.

[August1991]

I don't think it is necessarily a matter of "more" regulation as much as it is about coordinating regulation and ensuring that it is proper - i.e. effective, up-to-date, and as efficient and pragmatic as possible.

Canada comes to mind (although Canada isn't perfect - at least we got lucky in that this crisis forced Harper to back off his deregulation plan as put in the 2006 budget).

In a recent speech, Volker mentioned Canada quite a bit. I admit that that kind of thing worries me.

It is a very curious fact that Canada's banks do not respect the Tier1 constraint: they overreach them.

IOW, our government regulations are ineffective, otiose.

----

The US (and other countries) got themselves involved in a housing bubble. Why? Well, why does any speculative bubble occur?

I agree that moral hazard plays a role in egging players on. So yes, I agree with you that Greenspan probably should not have twisted the dials (or what you would call Greenspan's put. I would call Greenspan's confusion).

Regulation cannot prevent bubbles. Full stop. A speculative market chose an unstable path. It happens.

----

The Obama Administration's problem now is cleaning up after the collapse of a bubble. IMV, it is not bubbles that are the problem; it is the response to them.

[punked]

This blame the borrower/someone made the banks lend to people couldn't afford it, is a right wing talking point. It is also a lie.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-k-bl...n_b_169813.html

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/financial/..._crime_2007.htm

[Oleg Bach]

This blame the borrower/someone made the banks lend to people couldn't afford it, is a right wing talking point. It is also a lie.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-k-bl...n_b_169813.html

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/financial/..._crime_2007.htm

The banks are like credit card companies....send out a million cards and it does not matter if few hundred thousand creditors default..You still turn a profit as they did.

[jdobbin]

If the gov't wants the banks to loan to high risk people, then they had best put forth some strict regulations so that this type of mess doesn't happen.

I don't disagree. Carter's moves in the 1970s were not an attempt to create a scenario for bad bank practices. It specifically said that the banks must keep up those standards. The move was made to avoid some of the discriminatory practices that had been taking place that had little to do with a person's credit score and more to do with who they were in terms of colour, geographic location, marital status and gender.

[jdobbin]

Regulation cannot prevent bubbles. Full stop. A speculative market chose an unstable path. It happens.

Better regulation and oversight would have revealed the insolvency issues a lot sooner than we saw in this case.

The Obama Administration's problem now is cleaning up after the collapse of a bubble. IMV, it is not bubbles that are the problem; it is the response to them.

Or the lack of response.

[jdobbin]

Since you went crying off to the mod, I say fuck to this forum. Do not confuse essentric with a bad temper.

I was hoping you would come to your senses but your reaction is a little over the top.

I disagreed with your view and pointed out where I thought you were wrong and who else was citing that opinion. That is all.

[ReeferMadness]

The basic problem with capitalism as it is currently practised is that it is premised on debt. If everyone pays off their mortgages and stops running up their credit cards, the whole thing collapses. It seems to me that this whole miraculous economic expansion over the last 15 years was completely artificial. It was based on increased debt. Obviously, that's a short term strategy. Now they appear to be attempting to reproduce the same circumstances that produced the mess in the first place. Where's the sanity in that?

I think the U.S. government should buy up the banks at fire-sale prices and wait for the economy to recover. Use the profits to offset all of the government debt that is going to be piled up.

[August1991]

The basic problem with capitalism as it is currently practised is that it is premised on debt.

And debt is bad?

[msj]

And debt is bad?

No, debt isn't bad.

It is the point of view that is important: debt is a consequence of wealth.

Too many people wrongly assume that wealth is a consequence of debt.

When people's attitudes are backwards then they end up indebted rather than wealthy.

Edited so people will get the point.

Edited February 26, 2009 by msj

[August1991]

It is the point of view that is important: debt is a consequence of wealth.

Too many people wrongly assume that wealth is a consequence of debt.

When people's attitudes are backwards then they end up indebted rather than wealthy.

Is this one of those war=peace arguments, or am I missing something?

[msj]

Is this one of those war=peace arguments, or am I missing something?

Nope, you're missing the point.