BoA emails leak...

[ElNono]

Bank Of America E-Mail Leaks Are Here, How Much Will They Hurt? (http://blogs.forbes.com/halahtouryalai/2011/03/14/bank-of-america-e-mail-leaks-are-here-how-much-will-they-hurt/)

[Wild Cobra]

LOL...

I was going to say, who care about that singer, why you posting it here, then realized you meant the bank.

BoA:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/BoA_FanSigningEvent2010.jpg/442px-BoA_FanSigningEvent2010.jpg

[Cry Havoc]

In before WC says they have a right to defraud the people, because they worked hard to earn the money they made and deserve to be rich.

[DMX7]

It's their duty to not pay taxes too, at least not to this social justice, imperialist, Kenyan-born, Hitler-loving, socialist, fascit, anti-american, racist President.

[Wild Cobra]

In before WC says they have a right to defraud the people, because they worked hard to earn the money they made and deserve to be rich.
Have I ever defended a regular bank?

God... I hate them. US Bank has screwed me in the past. Fuck them.

[Cry Havoc]

Have I ever defended a regular bank?

God... I hate them. US Bank has screwed me in the past. Fuck them.

They worked hard to get where they are. They deserve to be rich.

[Wild Cobra]

They worked hard to get where they are. They deserve to be rich.
If that's your belief...

I don't disagree that businesses should make a profit. I have never seen a bank that I had respect for though, in the way they pad their profits.

[Stringer_Bell]

If that's your belief...

I don't disagree that businesses should make a profit. I have never seen a bank that I had respect for though, in the way they pad their profits.

:lmao

What are banks supposed to do if not pad their profits? It's like that woman that got upset because she nursed a sick snake back to health... the bitch knew it was a snake!

[ChuckD]

If that's your belief...

I don't disagree that businesses should make a profit. I have never seen a bank that I had respect for though, in the way they pad their profits.

That's called "Capitalism", WC. Maybe you've heard of it?

[Marcus Bryant]

It's a nasty system, but I don't think that Americans can handle a change to a regime which restricted credit (ah, if bankers were personally liable for losses....but I digress.)

And it's not going to change. The bubble must be reinflated, it's now a matter of national security. :shootme

[Cry Havoc]

If that's your belief...

I don't disagree that businesses should make a profit. I have never seen a bank that I had respect for though, in the way they pad their profits.

I'm regurgitating what you've said in the past about ultra-rich individuals and how they made their money.

[DMX7]

The government will never allow one of these banks like Citi or BOA to go under because they do more than risky i-banking. They also handle massive amounts of middle-class personal savings and checking accounts. Not to mention the FDIC doesn't even have enough money to pay out to account holders if those banks ever did go down. So they've effectively gamed the system. If a risky bet ever backfires they can just say "we go down, and we'll take you with us", and they're absolutely right.

[ElNono]

Can't wait for the life in prison sentence they're going to hand to the disgruntled employee while the BoA sharks ensure the documents cannot be used in court against them...

[Marcus Bryant]

We hate it, but who really is ready to accept limits with personal borrowing?

[Yonivore]

We hate it, but who really is ready to accept limits with personal borrowing?
I am. Other than my mortgage, I have zero credit debt. And, I'm paying off the house as quickly as possible.

[Marcus Bryant]

Fewer busts, but then, fewer booms, and less ability to live outside your means. American society is not ready.

[boutons_deux]

"who really is ready to accept limits with personal borrowing"

The finance interest is heavily leveraged in the casino, and they live off interest and fees sucked out of heavily indebted citizens. IIRC it was 2009 that banks made $13B profit, while pocketigng $38B only in overdraft fees. No overdraft fees, banks LOSE $25B.

Do you really think the financial sector will allow their employees in Congress to regulate finance? The Repugs are working extremely hard to defund SEC, CFPA, and weaken all financial rules into jokes.

[Cry Havoc]

We hate it, but who really is ready to accept limits with personal borrowing?

:lol at blaming the American public for the economic crisis. :lol

[TeyshaBlue]

:lol at blaming the American public for the economic crisis. :lol

You don't think we had a part in this fiasco?

[boutons_deux]

"You don't think we had a part in this fiasco"

Not at all. Househeld debt was 113% of household income. Avg cc debt is $4000.

The Banskters' Great Depression is completely the fault of the criminal, fraudulent, predatory financial sector. Individuals couldn't crater the world's economy if the financial sector didn't take the lead.

[Cry Havoc]

You don't think we had a part in this fiasco?

A small part, yes. However, it was the banks that convinced the American public that they could afford an $800,000 house on a $50,000 salary. Our fault was trusting the banks thinking they weren't going to intentionally, illicitly, and maliciously screw us over, something they in any SANE system should never have been allowed to do. However, it's difficult to do when the person telling you all this knows 50x what you do on the subject, and can word it in a way that sounds entirely reasonable and believable. Keep in mind that these banks were not only intentionally deceiving people, but they were actually going back and betting against their customers.

So let's review:

You have a financial institution that A) gets deregulated
B) Begins to (ILLEGALLY) take advantage of the system en masse and
C) pathologically lies to the public and actively attempts to bankrupt them in order to make money back on the interest of their mistake.

Now, you can say that the public should have used more common sense, but when your own banking institutions are literally out to fucking ruin you so they can make money on the short, how long do you think it would have been before they found some other way of packaging a shit sandwich to the average person and convincing them to buy it? Take, for example, the situation in Japan right now with the reactors melting down. If the scientists say everything is alright, who are you to tell them different? They're a physicist, they know more about the reactors than you ever will. And even IF you know they're lying, what the hell are you going to do about it if nearly EVERY scientist is in on the cover-up?

The total for credit default swaps alone in this country was in the hundreds of trillions of dollars. Not only were these banks manufacturing ways to make money with no one checking up on the, they were trying to sink as many people as they could, as fast as they could, to make their pockets diamond lined, instead of just platinum plated.

[TeyshaBlue]

I don't know, boutons. I had an opportunity to build a house I couldn't really afford. But the loan was approved and everything was ready to go. I killed the deal and walked away because I knew I couldn't swing the mortgage payments if anything at all happened in the future. Loads of consumers didn't walk away.
Also, you assume the cc debt is all non-discretionary. I think you might be wrong there.

[Cry Havoc]

Also, you assume the cc debt is all non-discretionary. I think you might be wrong there.

It's easy to blame the public. To believe that if people were just more sensible, that none of this would have happened.

And it's bullshit. I mean no offense to you. But the total CC debt in this country would not even have phased the economy on it's own, and even factored in it's a tiny percentage of what went wrong.

Banks were toying with figures that were over 10 times the GNP. Nothing the public could have done would have averted that. They were gaming the system unchecked. If it didn't happen with real estate and credit default swaps, it would have happened with something else.

To provide an analogy, it's like saying, "Wow, if we just hadn't eaten so much at every meal, we'd have food for the entire winter instead of starving halfway through" and saying this while every farmer in the country is selling food overseas and intentionally jacking local prices so high that only the ultra-rich can afford to eat more than one meal per day.

[TeyshaBlue]

A small part, yes. However, it was the banks that convinced the American public that they could afford an $800,000 house on a $50,000 salary. Our fault was trusting the banks thinking they weren't going to intentionally screw us over, but it's difficult to do when the person telling you all this knows 50x what you do on the subject, and can word it in a way that sounds entirely reasonable and believable. Keep in mind that these banks were not only intentionally deceiving people, but they were actually going back and betting against their customers.

So let's review:

You have a financial institution that A) gets deregulated
B) Begins to (ILLEGALLY) take advantage of the system en masse and
C) pathologically lies to the public and actively attempts to bankrupt them in order to make money back on the interest of their mistake.

Now, you can say that the public should have used more common sense, but when your own banking institutions are literally out to fucking ruin you so they can make money on the short, how long do you think it would have been before they found some other way of packaging a shit sandwich to the average person and convincing them to buy it? Take, for example, the situation in Japan right now with the reactors melting down. If the scientists say everything is alright, who are you to tell them different? They're a physicist, they know more about the reactors than you ever will. And even IF you know they're lying, what the hell are you going to do about it if nearly EVERY scientist is in on the cover-up?

I agree with alot of this, however, it wasn't just the banks doing this. In my case, the builder was the huckster. But in the end, I knew I could afford the mortgage at present income/debt levels, but I also know that weird shit/set backs happen and I wouldn't have the reserve to handle it if I tied myself to that mortgage. It's common sense coupled with a concentrated effort to deny the impulse of instant gratification. We, as Americans, don't do this very well. The banks, of course, know this and make a killing off of this weakness. In that respect, they are as implicit as our lack of control. But, they do not own the entire fiasco. We, by dint of ignoring our common sense and signing these mortgages, fed the shark when we really didn't have to.

[TeyshaBlue]

It's easy to blame the public. To believe that if people were just more sensible, that none of this would have happened.

And it's bullshit. I mean no offense to you. But the total CC debt in this country would not even have phased the economy on it's own, and even factored in it's a tiny percentage of what went wrong.

Banks were toying with figures that were over 10 times the GNP. Nothing the public could have done would have averted that. They were gaming the system unchecked. If it didn't happen with real estate and credit default swaps, it would have happened with something else.

I don't think it's easy, Havoc. It's probably the hardest party to lay blame with...

There was a back office scenario to this whole thing....such as what you describe. It easily claims the lion's share of the blame. Even so, easy prey is easy.

[TeyshaBlue]

We, by dint of ignoring our common sense and signing these mortgages, fed the shark when we really didn't have to.

btw...I'm waaaay over generalizing here.

[Cry Havoc]

I agree with alot of this, however, it wasn't just the banks doing this. In my case, the builder was the huckster. But in the end, I knew I could afford the mortgage at present income/debt levels, but I also know that weird shit/set backs happen and I wouldn't have the reserve to handle it if I tied myself to that mortgage. It's common sense coupled with a concentrated effort to deny the impulse of instant gratification. We, as Americans, don't do this very well. The banks, of course, know this and make a killing off of this weakness. In that respect, they are as implicit as our lack of control. But, they do not own the entire fiasco. We, by dint of ignoring our common sense and signing these mortgages, fed the shark when we really didn't have to.

All I need to do is point you to wall street, where even while the economy was going into the gutter, it took a Presidential order to prevent them from handing out hundreds of billions of dollars of bonuses per year.

Where do you think that money was coming from? Do you think it was made honestly? Should the American public just assume every company is out to fleece and rape them like the banks did? If we took that approach, the stock market would collapse in months because people would be yanking money out to bury it in their yards, and would have justifiable reason for doing so.

[coyotes_geek]

I agree with alot of this, however, it wasn't just the banks doing this. In my case, the builder was the huckster. But in the end, I knew I could afford the mortgage at present income/debt levels, but I also know that weird shit/set backs happen and I wouldn't have the reserve to handle it if I tied myself to that mortgage. It's common sense coupled with a concentrated effort to deny the impulse of instant gratification. We, as Americans, don't do this very well. The banks, of course, know this and make a killing off of this weakness. In that respect, they are as implicit as our lack of control. But, they do not own the entire fiasco. We, by dint of ignoring our common sense and signing these mortgages, fed the shark when we really didn't have to.

Bingo. There's enough blame to go around. The banks deserve some. The American public deserves a portion of it as well.

[Cry Havoc]

The banks, of course, know this and make a killing off of this weakness. In that respect, they are as implicit as our lack of control. But, they do not own the entire fiasco. We, by dint of ignoring our common sense and signing these mortgages, fed the shark when we really didn't have to.

It didn't matter. It was a shark before we fed it. It had already decided that it was going to eat us. Americans had been in debt for decades before this without the economy collapsing. It only did because there was so much money being redistributed to the top of the ladder that the bottom couldn't support it any longer.

[TeyshaBlue]

All I need to do is point you to wall street, where even while the economy was going into the gutter, it took a Presidential order to prevent them from handing out hundreds of billions of dollars of bonuses per year.

Where do you think that money was coming from? Do you think it was made honestly? Should the American public just assume every company is out to fleece and rape them like the banks did? If we took that approach, the stock market would collapse in months because people would be yanking money out to bury it in their yards, and would have justifiable reason for doing so.

I know about 25billion of it was coming from fucking overdraft fees.:bang

[TeyshaBlue]

It didn't matter. It was a shark before we fed it. It had already decided that it was going to eat us. Americans had been in debt for decades before this without the economy collapsing. It only did because there was so much money being redistributed to the top of the ladder that the bottom couldn't support it any longer.

True. However, I decided it wouldn't eat me. It hasn't.....yet.

[Cry Havoc]

Bingo. There's enough blame to go around. The banks deserve some. The American public deserves a portion of it as well.

Yeah. Something along the lines of 98% to 2%. You have banks that are basically no better or different than the mob was in the early 1900s. What the fuck do you think the end result of that was going to be? Do you think the public could have stopped it? Do you think if only people wouldn't have invested in houses they couldn't afford, that it would have averted crisis, when the banks can so openly and easily flout the law in any way they desired to make money? The housing crisis was simply the easiest, fastest way for them to do it. If that didn't pan out, they would have found something else.

[Cry Havoc]

I know about 25billion of it was coming from fucking overdraft fees.:bang

Which banks can invent and use at their will.

"Oh sorry, we temporarily removed all the money in your account yesterday with the intent to put it back an hour later, and just forgot. So because you bought groceries, you now owe us $35 for the overdraft, $20 for the auto-transfer, and $9 a month for the early warning surcharge. Oh, and by the way, your credit rating is now shit, so we can charge you more interest on your credit card. We would also like to inform you that because your account dipped below $50, we are adding a $10 upkeep charge at the end of the month. Have a nice day!"

[TeyshaBlue]

Which banks can invent and use at their will.

"Oh sorry, we temporarily removed all the money in your account yesterday with the intent to put it back an hour later, and just forgot. So because you bought groceries, you now owe us $35 for the overdraft, $20 for the auto-transfer, and $9 a month for the early warning surcharge. Oh, and by the way, your credit rating is now shit, so we can charge you more interest on your credit card. We would also like to inform you that because your account dipped below $50, we are adding a $10 upkeep charge at the end of the month. Have a nice day!"

*sigh* Would a straight, up and up bank, not make money in today's economy?

I think it would. Wonder why that's such an unpopular business model?

[coyotes_geek]

Yeah. Something along the lines of 98% to 2%. You have banks that are basically no better or different than the mob was in the early 1900s. What the fuck do you think the end result of that was going to be? Do you think the public could have stopped it? Do you think if only people wouldn't have invested in houses they couldn't afford, that it would have averted crisis, when the banks can so openly and easily flout the law in any way they desired to make money? The housing crisis was simply the easiest, fastest way for them to do it. If that didn't pan out, they would have found something else.

Try 50%-50%. If the public weren't in such a rush to keep up with the Joneses by buying more house than they could afford the crisis certainly wouldn't have been nearly the size that it was.

I'm no fan of the banks. I've said on multiple occasions in this forum that I think the TBTF banks should be broken up. But let's not pretend like banks were just grabbing people off the streets and forcing them to borrow money against their will. Every single loan was an agreement between two equally willing parties.

[Cry Havoc]

*sigh* Would a straight, up and up bank, not make money in today's economy?

I think it would. Wonder why that's such an unpopular business model?

Simple. Would you rather have 10 million dollars next year or 20 billion dollars in 6 months?

[Cry Havoc]

Try 50%-50%. If the public weren't in such a rush to keep up with the Joneses by buying more house than they could afford the crisis certainly wouldn't have been nearly the size that it was.

I'm no fan of the banks. I've said on multiple occasions in this forum that I think the TBTF banks should be broken up. But let's not pretend like banks were just grabbing people off the streets and forcing them to borrow money against their will. Every single loan was an agreement between two equally willing parties.

Sigh. Some of you really need to take social economics. There's obviously no convincing you. It's just sad when the truth is laid out a clean and clear as possible and you still cling to the victim-blame approach, thinking that people could have averted disaster if they "would just be upstanding rational citizens who knew when to say 'No!'". This has been discussed ad nauseam countless times. I really wonder how people still think that banks (6 of them constitute 60% of the GNP, by the way) who participate collectively in massively illicit activities with no oversight or regulation still aren't the culprits here. 50/50 doesn't begin to state the expanse or severity of the problem, the lack of control associated with wall street, and is incredibly, wholly idealistic in origin. It's also dangerously naive to just how severe the real problem was in the entire situation.

[TeyshaBlue]

I don't think anyone is "clinging to a victim-blame approach". Stating that there is shared responsibility is a far cry from blaming the victim for the entire fiasco. It just isn't as black and white as your textbook approach would like it to be. But thanks for recommending a future course selection for me.:lol

[TeyshaBlue]

You'd get along well with my daughter. She's firmly convinced I have no idea what I'm talking about as well.:rollin

[Cry Havoc]

I don't think anyone is "clinging to a victim-blame approach". Stating that there is shared responsibility is a far cry from blaming the victim for the entire fiasco. It just isn't as black and white as your textbook approach would like it to be. But thanks for recommending a future course selection for me.:lol

Actually, it is you who's giving the token, textbook response. It's the one the banks and wall street want you to give, as well.

"If people had only been more responsible!" Is such a naive stance to take, given the capital the banks already had amassed before housing prices went through the roof. You're blaming someone for letting a werewolf in the front door when he could have just as easily ripped it off it's hinges at any point. This is not debatable. This is pretty common sense economics. 6 banks worth around $8,000,000,000,000 given free reign to do (almost) anything they want, legal or not. Do you not see how that is a no-win situation, regardless of how "reasonable" the American public is?

[boutons_deux]

"Stating that there is shared responsibility"

false sharing of the blame, yet another false equivalence.

Repugs and conservatives blame govt and citizens in order to cover up the the primary responsibility of the financial sector.

The debtors wouldn't be in over their heads if lenders weren't lending to unqualified lenders and/or letting lenders run up large debts.

Overall, lenders love to lend, that's why they mail Bs of unsolicited cc offers, because that's fundamental to their profits, esp with usurious 20%+ cc interest rates, and payday lender rates of 400%. Big banks are heavily behind payday lenders.

[TeyshaBlue]

@ Havoc. There are multiple problems/issues at play here. I don't disagree with your take on about 90% of them. However, conflation of them is easy and almost impossible to avoid. How is it that I and others were able to easily deny entry to the werewolf. (What is it with these animal methaphors anyway? Maybe add Javelinas...they are waaaay scarier than werewolves.:lol)
If this was inevitable I should have succumbed. I did not. Therefore, your premise is indeed debatable regardless of how badly you wish it weren't.

And boutons, the grownups are talking now. Sit down and pay with your repug and Palin dolls and color in your VWRC coloring book.:nope

[coyotes_geek]

Sigh. Some of you really need to take social economics. There's obviously no convincing you. It's just sad when the truth is laid out a clean and clear as possible and you still cling to the victim-blame approach, thinking that people could have averted disaster if they "would just be upstanding rational citizens who knew when to say 'No!'". This has been discussed ad nauseam countless times. I really wonder how people still think that banks (6 of them constitute 60% of the GNP, by the way) who participate collectively in massively illicit activities with no oversight or regulation still aren't the culprits here. 50/50 doesn't begin to state the expanse or severity of the problem, the lack of control associated with wall street, and is incredibly, wholly idealistic in origin. It's also dangerously naive to just how severe the real problem was in the entire situation.

No one is saying that the banks don't suck. Again, I'm 100% in favor of breaking them up. But when you're talking about an agreement that two parties willingly entered into, the victim card only goes so far.

[Cry Havoc]

@ Havoc. There are multiple problems/issues at play here. I don't disagree with your take on about 90% of them. However, conflation of them is easy and almost impossible to avoid. How is it that I and others were able to easily deny entry to the werewolf. (What is it with these animal methaphors anyway? Maybe add Javelinas...they are waaaay scarier than werewolves.:lol)
If this was inevitable I should have succumbed. I did not. Therefore, your premise is indeed debatable regardless of how badly you wish it weren't.

And boutons, the grownups are talking now. Sit down and pay with your repug and Palin dolls and color in your VWRC coloring book.:nope


No one is saying that the banks don't suck. Again, I'm 100% in favor of breaking them up. But when you're talking about an agreement that two parties willingly entered into, the victim card only goes so far.

That's my point exactly. The door is not an analogy to financing a home. It's the fact that the banks had $8 trillion in net worth between them, and if you didn't let them in with a home loan, they would have forced their way in with something else. They don't even need you to cheat the system. They could have cut the public completely out of the situation and illegally made money another way. Why didn't they? Because this way, people still blame other people for what happened, rather than ascribing the near 100% of the blame to the banks that deserve it. Point being: People still use banks because they managed to shirk the responsibility for the financial crisis.

[TeyshaBlue]

That's my point exactly. The door is not an analogy to financing a home. It's the fact that the banks had $8 trillion in net worth between them, and if you didn't let them in with a home loan, they would have forced their way in with something else. They don't even need you to cheat the system. They could have cut the public completely out of the situation and illegally made money another way. Why didn't they? Because this way, people still blame other people for what happened, rather than ascribing the near 100% of the blame to the banks that deserve it. Point being: People still use banks because they managed to shirk the responsibility for the financial crisis.

I understand your point now. I can't disagree with it.:toast

[Wild Cobra]

I'm regurgitating what you've said in the past about ultra-rich individuals and how they made their money.

You guys are getting ridiculous. I specify I don't like how they do certain things, and you assume I still support it in the name of capitalism? There are aspects of any system that can and are abused. Your attempt to do what ever you are doing is either ignorant, or pathetic. Maybe both.

[Cry Havoc]

You guys are getting ridiculous. I specify I don't like how they do certain things, and you assume I still support it in the name of capitalism? There are aspects of any system that can and are abused. Your attempt to do what ever you are doing is either ignorant, or pathetic. Maybe both.

What percentage of the ultra-rich do you think got there through wholly legitimate means?

[TeyshaBlue]

You guys are getting ridiculous. I specify I don't like how they do certain things, and you assume I still support it in the name of capitalism? There are aspects of any system that can and are abused. Your attempt to do what ever you are doing is either ignorant, or pathetic. Maybe both.

lol @ what ever you are doing.

You know, if you don't know what he's talking about, you could always just pass.:lol

[Wild Cobra]

What percentage of the ultra-rich do you think got there through wholly legitimate means?
I don't know, but that's not reason to punish all of them.

[Cry Havoc]

I understand your point now. I can't disagree with it.:toast

:tu

[LnGrrrR]

*sigh* Would a straight, up and up bank, not make money in today's economy?

I think it would. Wonder why that's such an unpopular business model?

I'm uneducated on the big differences, but it seems that "credit unions" tend to be the "up and up" banks nowadays.

[Wild Cobra]

lol @ what ever you are doing.

You know, if you don't know what he's talking about, you could always just pass.:lol
What ever he's talking about, it not in line with what my intent is. The retort is meaningless, but a definite attack against me for an intent I didn't say.

[LnGrrrR]

Try 50%-50%. If the public weren't in such a rush to keep up with the Joneses by buying more house than they could afford the crisis certainly wouldn't have been nearly the size that it was.

I'm no fan of the banks. I've said on multiple occasions in this forum that I think the TBTF banks should be broken up. But let's not pretend like banks were just grabbing people off the streets and forcing them to borrow money against their will. Every single loan was an agreement between two equally willing parties.

A question: haven't there ALWAYS been people like that though? I mean, why the catastrophe THIS time? Are there that many people who suddenly got stupider?

[TeyshaBlue]

A question: haven't there ALWAYS been people like that though? I mean, why the catastrophe THIS time? Are there that many people who suddenly got stupider?

No, but the 80's changed consumerism in a big way. It became turbo-charged at that point and it seems to me at least, that the insane drive to acquire goods ratched up to an all time high and has largely stayed that way.

[TeyshaBlue]

What ever he's talking about, it not in line with what my intent is. The retort is meaningless, but a definite attack against me for an intent I didn't say.

http://www.audioandanarchy.com/images/smilies/fack.png

[LnGrrrR]

No, but the 80's changed consumerism in a big way. It became turbo-charged at that point and it seems to me at least, that the insane drive to acquire goods ratched up to an all time high and has largely stayed that way.

Damn you boomers! :bang :lol

Even so, there's a big 20 year gap there. And I think Cry's point about the bank betting against itself is a good one. Of course, banks would just call that "insurance" against themselves, but doesn't that create some moral hazard?

I mean, if you don't care one way or another if a loan actually pans out, what's your incentive for doing due diligence on customers asking for loans?

[Cry Havoc]

What ever he's talking about, it not in line with what my intent is. The retort is meaningless, but a definite attack against me for an intent I didn't say.

You have issued blanket statements in the past that have said that rich people deserve to be rich because they earned it. I'm attempting to ascertain what is acceptable to you in terms of "earning" that money.

[coyotes_geek]

That's my point exactly. The door is not an analogy to financing a home. It's the fact that the banks had $8 trillion in net worth between them, and if you didn't let them in with a home loan, they would have forced their way in with something else. They don't even need you to cheat the system. They could have cut the public completely out of the situation and illegally made money another way. Why didn't they? Because this way, people still blame other people for what happened, rather than ascribing the near 100% of the blame to the banks that deserve it. Point being: People still use banks because they managed to shirk the responsibility for the financial crisis.

Betting on the public ended up costing the banks about $1 trillion in bad loan writedowns. If they could have cut the public completely out of the situation they would have. Banks make decisions on finances, not alleged concerns over whether or not they might get blamed for something.

[coyotes_geek]

A question: haven't there ALWAYS been people like that though? I mean, why the catastrophe THIS time? Are there that many people who suddenly got stupider?

People and banks got stupider. Banks lowered lending standards. Consumers raised their tolerance for using debt to finance a standard of living.

[LnGrrrR]

People and banks got stupider. Banks lowered lending standards. Consumers raised their tolerance for using debt to finance a standard of living.

You don't think CDS had much of anything to do with it?

[CosmicCowboy]

When those stupid shows like "Flip that House!" started showing up with ABSOLUTE IDIOTS coming in and buying houses they couldn't afford as an investment and wanting to spend $30,000 on paint/cosmetic and make a $200,000 profit I KNEW the end was near...

[Cry Havoc]

When those stupid shows like "Flip that House!" started showing up with ABSOLUTE IDIOTS coming in and buying houses they couldn't afford as an investment and wanting to spend $30,000 on paint/cosmetic and make a $200,000 profit I KNEW the end was near...

Flipping a house by adding amenities and renovating = not so horrible.

Flipping a house solely by buying it and waiting for it to appreciate in value = stupid.

[coyotes_geek]

You don't think CDS had much of anything to do with it?

No doubt CDS caused a lot of problems for banks, but IMO that's more of a symptom than a cause. A CDS is basically just one bank agreeing to insure another bank's liability for a fee. If things hadn't gotten so insane between the lenders and the homebuyers, the CDS wouldn't have been a problem.

[Marcus Bryant]

It's as if the Humphrey-Hawkins Act doesn't exist. Why, there's no political pressure ever placed on the Fed for the benefit of the public.

Not to mention the GSEs that subsidized home loan and student loan issuance, with the implicit backing of the federal treasury.

Poor American public, the evil bankers just foisted this calamity on them. :shootme

[Cry Havoc]

It's as if the Humphrey-Hawkins Act doesn't exist. Why, there's no political pressure ever placed on the Fed for the benefit of the public.

Not to mention the GSEs that subsidized home loan and student loan issuance, with the implicit backing of the federal treasury.

Poor American public, the evil bankers just foisted this calamity on them. :shootme

Ah, so because the government botched things or made bad policy, it makes the public more at fault?

[Marcus Bryant]

And poor American public, they were forced to get into debt by the evil banksters.

No, this is not to say that there wasn't plenty of lobbying by the financial services industry for policies to benefit itself, instances of outright fraud common in said industry, and unsound practices rife throughout the industry, but to pretend that somehow the American public did not demand easy access to cheap credit from said industry, expected its elected representatives to do what it could to facilitate that, is a glossing over of what actually occurred.

[Marcus Bryant]

Ah, so because the government botched things or made bad policy, it makes the public more at fault?

ROFL. Now it's the government's fault. Why, it could never be that the politicians were giving the people what they wanted. The people demand accountability, save for themselves.

[boutons_deux]

"somehow the American public did not demand easy access to cheap credit from said industry"

demand?

It was pushed/marketed hard by the finance sector. Who reads a 10 page 6-pt cc application?

With household incomes stagnant for 30 years, it was easy to sucker consumers, eg "house prices always go up, your house is an ATM", into over-borrowing to maintain/increase their consumption.

But in the end, "easy" credit can only exist if the lenders make it exist. Nobody forced the lenders to over-lend, nobody forced lenders into Liar's Loans, stated-income mortgages.

That's like saying "I really wanted that car, it's my fault it's POS lemon I can't get rid of"

[boutons_deux]

"somehow the American public did not demand easy access to cheap credit from said industry"

demand?

It was pushed/marketed hard by the finance sector. Who reads a 10 page 6-pt cc application?

With household incomes stagnant for 30 years, it was easy to sucker consumers, eg "house prices always go up, your house is an ATM", into over-borrowing to maintain/increase their consumption.

But in the end, "easy" credit can only exist if the lenders make it exist. Nobody forced the lenders to over-lend, nobody forced lenders into Liar's Loans, stated-income mortgages.

That's like saying "I really wanted that car, it's my fault it's POS lemon I can't get rid of"

[Cry Havoc]

And poor American public, they were forced to get into debt by the evil banksters.

No you're right, those people selling bad credit loans to other banks to turn a profit at the cost of someone losing their house... why, they're... they're angels! I can hear you swooning from here.


No, this is not to say that there wasn't plenty of lobbying by the financial services industry for policies to benefit itself, instances of outright fraud common in said industry, and unsound practices rife throughout the industry, but to pretend that somehow the American public did not demand easy access to cheap credit from said industry, expected its elected representatives to do what it could to facilitate that, is a glossing over of what actually occurred.

And your riff on the desires of the American people is probably even more generalized and naive of what actually happened.


ROFL. Now it's the government's fault. Why, it could never be that the politicians were giving the people what they wanted. The people demand accountability, save for themselves.

Yes, it absolutely is. The government de-regulated everything and allowed hundred-billion or trillion dollar companies to run amok, doing whatever they pleased for the most part. The general public shouldn't be held accountable when they are so obviously and nefariously ripped to shreds by moguls breaking any laws they desire to make more money as quickly as possible.

[Marcus Bryant]

No you're right, those people selling bad credit loans to other banks to turn a profit at the cost of someone losing their house... why, they're... they're angels! I can hear you swooning from here.

Nope, never claimed that they were.

As if no-doc mortgage loans didn't involve two parties who thought they were scamming someone else.




And your riff on the desires of the American people is probably even more generalized and naive of what actually happened.


Right, anything counter to the evil banker theme must be ignored, especially as it relates to legislation which reflects the will of the people.




Yes, it absolutely is. The government de-regulated everything and allowed hundred-billion or trillion dollar companies to run amok, doing whatever they pleased for the most part. The general public shouldn't be held accountable when they are so obviously and nefariously ripped to shreds by moguls breaking any laws they desire to make more money as quickly as possible.

Of course. The people just wanted cheap, easy credit, and the government obliged them.

[coyotes_geek]

That's like saying "I really wanted that car, it's my fault it's POS lemon I can't get rid of"

Who decided you were going to buy that car?

[Cry Havoc]

Nope, never claimed that they were.

As if no-doc mortgage loans didn't involve two parties who thought they were scamming someone else.

Right, anything counter to the evil banker theme must be ignored, especially as it relates to legislation which reflects the will of the people.

Of course. The people just wanted cheap, easy credit, and the government obliged them.

When trillion dollar financial institutions break the law rampantly with no oversight, it's the public's fault!

[Wild Cobra]

You have issued blanket statements in the past that have said that rich people deserve to be rich because they earned it. I'm attempting to ascertain what is acceptable to you in terms of "earning" that money.
A general statement does not include all.

Please tell me you aren't that stupid to assume such things.

If you aren't that stupid, then you are purposely trying make others think I said things I didn't.

God, you are being real lame right now. Fuck off.

[Marcus Bryant]

when trillion dollar financial institutions break the law rampantly with no oversight, awash in easy money extended and guarantees provided to them by a government giving the people the cheap, easy credit they want in order to get re-elected, it's the evil banksters fault.

fify.

[Cry Havoc]

A general statement does not include all.

Then you better be damn careful when you make blanket statements.


Please tell me you aren't that stupid to assume such things.

No, as I said, I didn't assume that, I'm trying to get a feel for who you think deserves to be rich.


If you aren't that stupid, then you are purposely trying make others think I said things I didn't.

God, you are being real lame right now. Fuck off.

Did you or did you not make the statement that "Rich people deserve to be rich?"

I'm just curious as to how many wealthy individuals you feel got there through their own volition without any illicit dealings at the expense of others.

[LnGrrrR]

No doubt CDS caused a lot of problems for banks, but IMO that's more of a symptom than a cause. A CDS is basically just one bank agreeing to insure another bank's liability for a fee. If things hadn't gotten so insane between the lenders and the homebuyers, the CDS wouldn't have been a problem.

Don't you think there's some moral hazard for banks betting on themselves?

Before that issue, banks had to make sure they were doing their due diligence on loans, so they wouldn't lose money. But with CDS, even if the loan failed, they'd still recoup money. That leads me to believe they were willing to take on riskier and riskier loans, since they were making money either way. Does this sound right?

[LnGrrrR]

IOW, perhaps the existence of CDS led to banks' lowered standards.

[Wild Cobra]

Cry Wolf...

What you are trying to get me to say applies to all individuals of all income ranges.

Some are ethical, some are no, and there is a whole range of gray in between.

You want me to be specific, then be so yourself. Specific question can get a specific answer. General questions and scenarios only deserve a general answer.

[coyotes_geek]

Don't you think there's some moral hazard for banks betting on themselves?

Before that issue, banks had to make sure they were doing their due diligence on loans, so they wouldn't lose money. But with CDS, even if the loan failed, they'd still recoup money. That leads me to believe they were willing to take on riskier and riskier loans, since they were making money either way. Does this sound right?


IOW, perhaps the existence of CDS led to banks' lowered standards.

Sure, there's a moral hazard there. I agree with you. Everyone got careless, I'll buy that CDS were a mechanism that contributed to the carlessness on the bank's side.

[LnGrrrR]

Sure, there's a moral hazard there. I agree with you. Everyone got careless, I'll buy that CDS were a mechanism that contributed to the carlessness on the bank's side.

Fair enough. I just think that one factor seems to be unique to this era. I'm more willing to believe that the creation of these CDS led to lowered loaning standards over the idea that banks and people who take loans both became stupider simultaneously. I might be wrong though.

[MannyIsGod]

Try 50%-50%. If the public weren't in such a rush to keep up with the Joneses by buying more house than they could afford the crisis certainly wouldn't have been nearly the size that it was.

I'm no fan of the banks. I've said on multiple occasions in this forum that I think the TBTF banks should be broken up. But let's not pretend like banks were just grabbing people off the streets and forcing them to borrow money against their will. Every single loan was an agreement between two equally willing parties.

No fucking way its 50/50. Its about 95/5 with the financial sector and the banks holding the lionshare of the burden. They fought and rolled back regulation in order to take bad risks and increase their short term profits on the back of many Americans who did nothing wrong. The vast majority of us did not take out sub prime mortgages and had no hand in this yet we all paid a price in one way or another.

There is no fucking way its 50/50. There's no fucking way its even 80-20. The financial sector fucked this nation so hard its not even funny. At least many other countries around the world have actually done something worthwhile regarding regulating this situation in the future. We've done effectively nothing.

[MannyIsGod]

People and banks got stupider. Banks lowered lending standards. Consumers raised their tolerance for using debt to finance a standard of living.

Except its so much bigger than this and outside of people taking the mortgages what banks and the financial sector DID with those mortgages compounded the situation so much.

Yeah, if you sell a psycho a gun you hold some responsibility but not so much if he attaches a fucking rocket launcher to it and uses it to blow up 20,000 people.

[MannyIsGod]

No doubt CDS caused a lot of problems for banks, but IMO that's more of a symptom than a cause. A CDS is basically just one bank agreeing to insure another bank's liability for a fee. If things hadn't gotten so insane between the lenders and the homebuyers, the CDS wouldn't have been a problem.

#@)$*@()$*@)($!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Except the CDS were sold in EVERYTHING and packaged with EVERYTHING. Oh some sub prime mortgages happened to be in my mutual fund? NO BIG DEAL BECAUSE THEY"RE RATED AAA!!!!!!

Oh AIG is selling insurance on those CDS because they'll never default since they're AAA rated? Oh thats the consumers fault!

Oh lets regulate them but never mind because the banking industry has lobbied against just that?!?!?!? Oh, stupid over reaching consumer!

No fucking way man. This type of blame is lunacy and exactly what the financial sector wants. I'm all for personal responsibility but they just fucked us and I'm not going to take the blame for that.

[MannyIsGod]

Now, I actually agree with MB that the American Public has been asleep at the wheel and has allowed this to happen but to me thats a completely different set of blame. The financial sector fucked us pretty hard in this crisis and they got off pretty much with no repercussions.

[coyotes_geek]

Now, I actually agree with MB that the American Public has been asleep at the wheel and has allowed this to happen but to me thats a completely different set of blame. The financial sector fucked us pretty hard in this crisis and they got off pretty much with no repercussions.

It's the bank's fault.

It's the bank's fault.

It's the bank's fault.

Okay, it's partially our fault.

Thanks for agreeing with me.

[LnGrrrR]

One important aspect that I feel gets overlooked is the stupidity of the AAA rating. Those people need to be docked/fined/etc for negligence. Anyone who thinks risks magically disappear because you pool a bunch of risky funds together deserves a bullet to the head.

[MannyIsGod]

I agree with you that the American Public shares the blame, CG. But its no where near 50/50. The biggest problem the American public has in this isn't even their credit but the people they listen to regarding economics and general legislative leadership. The vast majority of us didn't have any part of the sub prime crisis and the vast majority of us pay our credit bills and make the system run just fine. However, the vast majority of us allow those smarter guys in the room to fuck us.

CG we're at fault the way stupid people who get defrauded are at fault. We're at fault the way a person who walks through a bad neighborhood and gets mugged is at fault. We're basically at fault for being stupid.

The banks are basically criminal, however.

There is a huge difference in those two faults and you will never equivocate them as far as I'm cocerned.

[TeyshaBlue]

No fucking way its 50/50. Its about 95/5 with the financial sector and the banks holding the lionshare of the burden. They fought and rolled back regulation in order to take bad risks and increase their short term profits on the back of many Americans who did nothing wrong. The vast majority of us did not take out sub prime mortgages and had no hand in this yet we all paid a price in one way or another.

There is no fucking way its 50/50. There's no fucking way its even 80-20. The financial sector fucked this nation so hard its not even funny. At least many other countries around the world have actually done something worthwhile regarding regulating this situation in the future. We've done effectively nothing.

You came in like, 100 hours or something after the thread was created. I'm flaggin you for delay of game.:ihit

[MannyIsGod]

One important aspect that I feel gets overlooked is the stupidity of the AAA rating. Those people need to be docked/fined/etc for negligence. Anyone who thinks risks magically disappear because you pool a bunch of risky funds together deserves a bullet to the head.

The ratings agencies got off with no legislation regarding their actions. Its a total crock of shit.

[LnGrrrR]

It's the bank's fault.

It's the bank's fault.

It's the bank's fault.

Okay, it's partially our fault.

Thanks for agreeing with me.

I think Manny is saying that, as the people who are supposed to be experts in this type of thing, the banking industry experts should be held to more accountability than the people making the loans.

Although, that "reverse accountability" happens in more areas than banking. Looking at the military, when's the last time a high-ranking officer got dishonorably discharged? They just get a slap on the wrist and moved to a new assignment while the lower-ranking enlisted soldiers get screwed.

But that shouldn't be the case. The subject matter experts should hold more responsibility, and therefore, more blame. If I send my troop to do a job that I know she can't handle, and she screws it up, it should be on my head.

[TeyshaBlue]

I agree with you that the American Public shares the blame, CG. But its no where near 50/50. The biggest problem the American public has in this isn't even their credit but the people they listen to regarding economics and general legislative leadership. The vast majority of us didn't have any part of the sub prime crisis and the vast majority of us pay our credit bills and make the system run just fine. However, the vast majority of us allow those smarter guys in the room to fuck us.

CG we're at fault the way stupid people who get defrauded are at fault. We're at fault the way a person who walks through a bad neighborhood and gets mugged is at fault. We're basically at fault for being stupid.

The banks are basically criminal, however.

There is a huge difference in those two faults and you will never equivocate them as far as I'm cocerned.

Easy prey is easy, MIG.

[MannyIsGod]

I DO believe that the people handing out the loans share a larger part of the burden to make good loans, but beyond that what the financial sector and banks did to fight legislation and regulation and what they did to make the crisis grow to the point it did and what they have done since is what makes them the primary parties to blame and its not even close.

Yeah, we may have given them the keys to the car but those fuckers are the ones who got drunk as fuck and killed everyone on the highway.

[TeyshaBlue]

lol. Manny delivers.:king

[MannyIsGod]

For my Media Criticism course this semester I'm writing a paper on how different aspects of media (film, print, news media, etc) have talked about the financial crisis and so I've been reading more about it as late. Its criminal. Sometimes I wish there were some masked vigilante to just off these sons of bitches one at a time.

I wish for a real life Rorschach.

[TeyshaBlue]

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/Vgif.gif

[MannyIsGod]

He would do just as well.

[TeyshaBlue]

I didn't have a Rorschach .gif.:depressed


Now I do.

http://api.ning.com/files/Z5cPx17p4fSaWv28bravq4mxXDpwrG4Teqw178K5mVkFYtbM4u FNNpjGht6J-PNbLSTN8GPFYtHpYPQgpR1S94EedX5OlNV7/rorschachanimsmall.gif

[coyotes_geek]

One important aspect that I feel gets overlooked is the stupidity of the AAA rating. Those people need to be docked/fined/etc for negligence. Anyone who thinks risks magically disappear because you pool a bunch of risky funds together deserves a bullet to the head.

They deserve their share of the blame as well.


I agree with you that the American Public shares the blame, CG. But its no where near 50/50. The biggest problem the American public has in this isn't even their credit but the people they listen to regarding economics and general legislative leadership. The vast majority of us didn't have any part of the sub prime crisis and the vast majority of us pay our credit bills and make the system run just fine. However, the vast majority of us allow those smarter guys in the room to fuck us.

CG we're at fault the way stupid people who get defrauded are at fault. We're at fault the way a person who walks through a bad neighborhood and gets mugged is at fault. We're basically at fault for being stupid.

The banks are basically criminal, however.

There is a huge difference in those two faults and you will never equivocate them as far as I'm cocerned.

Banks suck. I didn't want to bail them out, I want to break them up. Third time I've said that in this thread. Banks suck. No matter how many times I agree with you in saying that banks suck at the end of the day we still have a crisis that originated in the millions of instances where one member of the American public actively sought out a lender and asked to borrow money. In that specific situation there are two parties to blame. MB is correct in pointing out that the banks gave us exactly what we wanted. If you feel that the bank bears more responsibility for those two parties willfully coming together, fair enough.

[MannyIsGod]

Yes, the root was the mortgages. But before, mortgages never caused a financial crisis because they weren't securitized. The securitization and lack of regulation on that action of sub prime mortgages was the real killer here.

In the past someone giving out a bad loan was just that - one bad loan. Now its much more of that because of the way the financial sector structured things. And whats really criminal is the ratings system. Giving subprime mortgages AAA ratings when they're sold is amazing. Just flat out amazing.

[MannyIsGod]

In this scheme, if you didn't have the AAA ratings making those securitized mortage so easy to move, then you don't have an incentive to give out so many subprime loans because you're actually on the hook for them.

See its not just the loan. Its the fact that they were able to repackage their bullshit in a rose scented packaging and convince everyone who would listen that their shit really didn't stink. There was a huge systematic con job.

[MannyIsGod]

Not to mention, CG, that there was also a huge element of predatory lending involved in this. Not all the sub prime mortgages sold went to people who were sub prime risks. They were needlessly stuck into mortgages that made them pay more at higher interest rates for the benefits of the banks.

Now, obviously the person who falls into such a trap does so out of ignorance or stupidity, but god damn if setting that trap to begin with isn't criminal.

[CosmicCowboy]

Manny, now that you are actually doing research on this, how can you possibly still give Fannie and Freddie a pass? They were right in the middle of it and were the "fence" that connected sellers with buyers...

[MannyIsGod]

I don't think I ever gave them a pass at all. If I remember correctly in all the debates I had you and a lot of other people wanted to put the blame on them squarely. Thats not the case at all.

[LnGrrrR]

If you feel that the bank bears more responsibility for those two parties willfully coming together, fair enough.

This, though more so feeling they are responsible for poor loans than the two coming together in the first place.

Just as an individual should be responsible about loans they can and can not afford, the bank rep should be responsible about loans they should and shouldn't hand out. All the "liar loans" going around in the early 2000's would've been defeated rather easily if the bank cared to do due diligence. But that would've cut into profit.

[MannyIsGod]

The problem is that if our economy is going to be held hostage by the willingness of idiots to take bad loans on then we're pretty much fucked because a banker with motivation can easily find a client they should not give a loan to who will take it.

[LnGrrrR]

The problem is that if our economy is going to be held hostage by the willingness of idiots to take bad loans on then we're pretty much fucked because a banker with motivation can easily find a client they should not give a loan to who will take it.

That's another point that hasn't been brought up; it's a lot easier to hit force the individual to pay then the banks (obviously, history has proven that out.)

So if the banks are TBTF and accept taxpayer money, then they should accept some form of taxpayer control. (I know you're not a fan of TBTF coyote, this isn't directed at anyone in particular.)

[CosmicCowboy]

The problem is that if our economy is going to be held hostage by the willingness of idiots to take bad loans on then we're pretty much fucked because a banker with motivation can easily find a client they should not give a loan to who will take it.

Manny, do you actually KNOW any bankers? I do...

Their business at the retail/commercial loan end is so damn regulated and over supervised now it's a wonder they EVER get a loan funded.

[LnGrrrR]

Manny, do you actually KNOW any bankers? I do...

Their business at the retail/commercial loan end is so damn regulated and over supervised now it's a wonder they EVER get a loan funded.

Devil's Advocate comment: You're assuming that they fill out all the paperwork correctly, and that someone is actually performing oversight...

[CosmicCowboy]

Devil's Advocate comment: You're assuming that they fill out all the paperwork correctly, and that someone is actually performing oversight...

Seriously, it seems like they are constantly being audited. A lot of deserving people aren't getting loans because they are busting the nuts of the retail bankers. If they aren't PERFECT they aren't getting approved.

[MannyIsGod]

Yeah, that might sway me if we hadn't just had a huge housing bubble fueled by sub prime loans. There is no way they're even close to being regulated enough.

[CosmicCowboy]

Yeah, that might sway me if we hadn't just had a huge housing bubble fueled by sub prime loans. There is no way they're even close to being regulated enough.

Manny, it's not the RETAIL LEVEL bankers that were the criminals. That shit was happening in Washington DC and New York.

[MannyIsGod]

Thats just bullshit, CC. You're telling the mortgage brokers working for Countrywide didn't push bad mortgages? Really?

[MannyIsGod]

Manny, it's not the RETAIL LEVEL bankers that were the criminals. That shit was happening in Washington DC and New York.

I'm fairly shocked you can say this with a straight face today.

[CosmicCowboy]

Thats just bullshit, CC. You're telling the mortgage brokers working for Countrywide didn't push bad mortgages? Really?

Shit Manny. of course they took advantage of the loan app INSTRUCTIONS that came from Fanny and Freddie. Give us a loan app with this basic info and we will buy it. It was an insiders game.

[CosmicCowboy]

I'm fairly shocked you can say this with a straight face today.

I'm talking about COMMERCIAL bankers. Not mortgage mills. The guys you go talk to if you want to start a small business. They are having hell writing loans on solid deals.

[angrydude]

give me a break. Banks aren't regulated at all. That's like saying an execution is safe because their are rules and regulations governing how the executioner pulls the switch.

Banks won't be regulated enough until they are regulated out of business. The entire modern financial banking system is a farce.

[LnGrrrR]

Seriously, it seems like they are constantly being audited. A lot of deserving people aren't getting loans because they are busting the nuts of the retail bankers. If they aren't PERFECT they aren't getting approved.

That's probably a good thing. But if this was the case before, how did so many "liar loans" get approved? Is it just an example of the media hyping up a few isolated events?

[coyotes_geek]

This, though more so feeling they are responsible for poor loans than the two coming together in the first place.

Just as an individual should be responsible about loans they can and can not afford, the bank rep should be responsible about loans they should and shouldn't hand out. All the "liar loans" going around in the early 2000's would've been defeated rather easily if the bank cared to do due diligence. But that would've cut into profit.


The problem is that if our economy is going to be held hostage by the willingness of idiots to take bad loans on then we're pretty much fucked because a banker with motivation can easily find a client they should not give a loan to who will take it.

Break up the banks into small enough pieces and this concern goes away. Make enough bad loans, you go bankrupt.

[boutons_deux]

"Make enough bad loans, you go bankrupt."

The 100s of banks taken over so far (at FDIC/taxpayer expense), and the nearly 1000 banks still on the watch list are all smaller banks, since taxpayers bailed out all the TBTF banks, which were all bankrupt.

[MannyIsGod]

Break up the banks into small enough pieces and this concern goes away. Make enough bad loans, you go bankrupt.

Couldn't agree more. Good luck getting past that lobby, though. Obama turned out to be just like everyone else and didn't do shit.

[coyotes_geek]

Couldn't agree more. Good luck getting past that lobby, though. Obama turned out to be just like everyone else and didn't do shit.

Yep. Sucks to be us.

[boutons_deux]

The financial sector is unstoppable, has so much power, complexity, opacity that it can't be regulated.

And such power is never given away voluntarily. It must be taken away. And compromised/owned govt won't take it away.

So what/who's left to reduce the unimaginable power of the financial sector?