Reply With Quote
Keep posting, Darrin. Stupid talking points of 3 years ago that have been addressed time and time again only make you look like a genius. Its amazing how stupid you are. Flat out mind blowing.
Keep posting, Darrin. Stupid talking points of 3 years ago that have been addressed time and time again only make you look like a genius. Its amazing how stupid you are. Flat out mind blowing.
I'll give you a hint: Government backed MBS were never a problem. Privately formed derivates were. What you're doing is basically trying to say that T bills are bad because Greece is about to default.
Says a whole of a lot, to be quite honest.
Even if Congress caused it, which is debatable, it's the Congress that the banking industry paid for, so they still don't get out of responsibility. It's like hiring a hit man. You're still guilty of murder one, yourself.
Yes, it does. What do you think it says?
Says a whole of a lot, to be quite honest.
Edit>. And maybe I'm old school, but I prefer les and units on axes.
Last edited by DarrinS; 11-01-2011 at 09:54 PM.
It's amazing how dense you are. So what that the majority of assets lost in the mortgage crisis weren't from Govt guarnteed mortgages.
If it was only rich private investors who got ed in this whole mess none of us would have given a .
But it's because normal everyday people were sold the dream by Bush, Clinton, Carter, Reagan that owning a home was a perogative and that we the govt will insure it, is the reason to why we even give a now.
It's because the smiths lost their home, it's because regular people were ed, and it's because govt felt the need to bail out a whole financial sector.
But we wouldn't have this problem in a free market because no one would want to buy securities that aren't backed by govt agencies from broke ass people and we wouldn't have those people ed.
Who gives a that private investors lost billions and billions of dollars in subprime? Do you think they're gonna go back to those type of loans? Do we need govt to tell us that eating taste bad, or putting your hand near a stove will hurt?
Apparently you dumb s do.
You have no ing clue how this happend, gtown. You and darrin are posting out of so much ignorance.
This is especially laughable. THEY did buy securities that weren't backed by the government. Why? Because those pieces of were given the same ratings AS securities backed by they government even though they were piles of garbage.But we wouldn't have this problem in a free market because no one would want to buy securities that aren't backed by govt agencies from broke ass people and we wouldn't have those people ed.
Um, LOL?Who gives a that private investors lost billions and billions of dollars in subprime? Do you think they're gonna go back to those type of loans? Do we need govt to tell us that eating taste bad, or putting your hand near a stove will hurt?
You apparently don't know about the financial crisis, how it played out, or how it was caused.It's amazing how dense you are.
Why the do you speak out of such blatantly obvious ignorance?
But we wouldn't have this problem in a free market because no one would want to buy securities that aren't backed by govt agencies from broke ass people and we wouldn't have those people ed.
Are you saying that artificially lowering interest rates didn't allow for riskier investments???
lololololololol!!!!
Not to mention that all deposits are FDIC insured, and it is because precisely this problem that Glass Steagall was invented. We created one regulation because of another.
So we took away market discipline by insuring deposits, and then found out that we needed more regulation to prevent from the effects of the first regulation.
You're ing pathetic, you have done 0 economic research besides doing a cursory glance at a Huffington Post article about the bubble.
Come back to me when you're more informed.
I said what I meant in very simple plain English. If you can't understand that people bought the crap securities because the 3 main ratings firms gave them all AAA ratings when they merited nothing of the sort then I don't know what to tell you. It has nothing to do with interest rates at all. You said that in a free market this would never happen when its pretty god damn obvious to anyone not sleeping with a free market dildo in their ass that it actually would.
When the people the free market entrusts to give them good information pretty much defraud them it will always happen. What in the does that have to do with interest rates?
But firms like AIG didn't know these securities were when they sold them. Thats why they ran about bought so many credit default swaps on the very piles of crap they were selling. Thats not indicative of a scam at all and thats not a conflict of interest, at all. But yeah, these guys wouldn't pull like this in a "free market".
because interest rates have alot to do with the ability for people to get loans and having low interest rates encourages lax restricitons on qualified applicants for loans.
Oh here, buy this AAA rated bond full of great subprime loans and ignore the fact that I"m going to buy the 40 or so credit default swaps on that bond (which I no longer have any interest in - nice!) which will pay ME once that bond that I just sold you fails. Oh, you're going to lose everything you put into that bond? Well thats only because this is not a free market, not because I'm actively selling you a crappy bond that will make me a ton of money because it fails.
Obviously financial firms making money off of selling their customers bonds that fail WHEN they fail is not a conflict of interest and only happening because of too much regulation.
If depositers don't give a what banks do with their money because it's backed by govt, how the is this going to stop banks from committing stupid lending????
the whole reason why banks can get away with it and consumers don't care is because govt encourages it.
NOTHING I said has to do with loans. You REALLY need to go read up on this then come back and talk about the subject again.
When ratings agencies pass off bad investments as good investments THAT is not the fault of ANYTHING related to the government but a complete and utter failure of the financial system. THEY KNEW exactly what they were doing.
Whats worse was listening to these guys sit in front of congress and testify that their ratings should not be used for investment decisions. UM what?
You really had the nerve to call me dense and keep with this? You don't seem to understand that I agree with you on much of this but where the disagreement lies - and at this point i'm attributing it mostly to ignorance - is that this was not the most important factor in why the financial crisis occurred.
Lets say that there were no CDS markets and that the financial ins utions had never leveraged themselves against the sub prime loans. Lets say that they actually wrote twice as many loans and thus the bubble was twice as big. If that happens, but there are no derrivates markets that are built off of the loans, do we still have the financial crisis we did? Yes or no?
Loans still get rated on the paying ability of the borrower, and are paid accordingly. You know, except when some fraudsters start passing ty rated loans as AAA loans.
There's no doubt there was certain complicity from government. Actual regulators definitely were looking the other way at some point or another. You can't pull that kind of scam without some major lack of oversight.
That said, to put the entire blame on them when bankers couldn't pump /fraudulent mortgages fast enough is just being naive.
If Bloombergs point was that the banks need regulation and thats why it was the governments fault then I agree. Too bad it wasn't so the quote you responded with is moot.
Yes, the government didn't babysit enough. Probably because they're in the financial sector's pocket. Thats not the financial sectors fault though. Its not their fault they lobbied against that regulation, is it, Darrin?
I swear its like you don't realize what the you're posting.
Darrin just basically posted that the government is complicit because they didn't regulate properly. No one here is going to argue that outside of a partisan hack. Sadly, I don't think the point he's trying to make is that there needs to be more regulation. Rather, he saw blame and government in the same sentence and couldn't copy and paste fast enough.
It should also be pointed out that not all banks were on the scam. Some of them didn't even want the TARP money and were forced to take it. Which further proves the point that those who wanted to be responsible, actually were responsible.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
