Propaganda video designed to venerate the democrats by demonizing republicans and more importantly blaming the "free market" for being a failure.
The fact is, both democrats and republicans are government and government is what is the cause of all our financial problems. If government didn't involve themselves in economics, we would have a free market.
So all of you people who blame the "free market" need to do some research before spreading lies to the ignorant masses.
Good point made here. However, the Free Market model that Congressman Ron Paul has promoted since the 1980's advocates bank failure opposed to bank bailouts. Additionally, he would have to work with the Senate and House (as President), maintaining banking Regulations that might have prevented the housing bubble. For decades he has admonished Congress & the President to abolish the Federal Reserve Banking System. The Fed was supposed to prevent boom/bust cycles, but instead seems to create them.
for years Dems and Reps have been the different side of the same coin. I think Ron Paul might be different. lets get him in the white house and find out
You should have said politicians instead of Republicans because neither party is for the middle class. It's all an illusion just so you can feel like you made a difference by voting for the other side. Real change will come when both parties are thrown to the curve and replaced with a party that follows libertarian values and listen exclusively to what the people say rather than their lobbyist buddies who fill their pockets full of money.
There hasn't been a truly free market for decades. Corporations rule and corporations make the rules. You cant open a simple tea shop without their say so.
It's not true the free market failed us - we failed it. Free market never decided failing banks needed to be saved using working businesses money ... we did. Pls don't lie to people. Democracy failed, not the free market.
Order derived through submission and maintained by terror is not much of a safe guaranty; yet that is the only "order" that governments have ever maintained. True social harmony grows naturally out of solidarity of interests. In a society where those who always work never have anything, while those who never work enjoy everything, solidarity of interests is non-existent; hence social harmony is but a myth. Suport truth and transperancy in government. Help Ron Paul End the fed in 2012
@dancthegr Wow, where did you get that statistic. The higher the education the higher the degree of a liberal point of view.
However, that can be offset by earning large sums of money. Greed is a natural instinct of humanity. It's one that has to be educated out of us. Do children not innately want all toys for themselves. They hate to share don't they. Good parents teach their children to share their toys.
The 'free markets' are nothing more than a corporatist system from one hundred years ago, it has become a word replaced by 'free markets' that make everyone resent it so much. Indoctrination of socialism done: Use the word 'free markets' to scare the crap out of anyone. (Paraphrasing, of course.)
Currently government force is making Joe six pack pay money to bankers and all that is required is to take that force away. Applying new force (regulation) will only force more money out of Joe 6 packs pockets into some rich dude's pocket. The initiation of force is always wrong and corrupts everyone who wears that ring. The ring has to be thrown in mount doom.
@modelmark Banks were bailed out to save a depression similar to the great one. The people that make up our government didn't "want" to do it, it was the lesser of two shitty situations.
You bitch about that, and then you bitch about more regulation, which it was deregulation that led to this damn problem in the first place.
I like your point about force and corruption, but everything prior is just fucked up thinking.
@wentafew you make a number of claims without basis or evidence. The people printing money to buy power and influence, claim to do this to save the world from depression. Just like the invasion of Iraq was on the claim of imminent destruction by WMD. That claim is self promotion.Would you believe a counterfeiter who claims he wants to give the economy a boost?
'deregulation lead to this mess': no evidence. Kotlikoff counted 115 regulators for the financial industry.
@modelmark Are you talking conspiracy theories??? There is plenty of evidence to support the fact that the deregulation of the financial sector led to the sale of toxic securitizations, that were loaded with bloated high risk home mortgages. It is no coincidence that the housing market and financial markets collapsed together, in addition to the EU being affected because they bought into so many of these trusts.
The rest of what you say is an incoherent attempt at some sort of analogy.
A-They were forced to by government regulators (community reinvestment act)
B-They sold off risk to Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, who funded political candidates and got a bailout when it collapsed.
C-The Fed is a gvt protected money printing monopoly, which created tons and tons of money which found it's way into everything, blowing serial bubbles.
@modelmark That's certainly a FoxNews argument, and I disagree. The community reinvestment act was "designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to help meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities" -wikipedia Where does that say lenders HAD to give subprime mortgages to people who could not afford them?
This gave lenders an excuse to take advantage of incentives that were provided by the lenders for giving these loans.
@wentafew There is no such thing as a Fox news argument in philosophy. You fail.
The gvt gave steep fines to banks that did not lend to risky borrowers. If I can prove that to you, would that convince you? Or do you stick with your point of view that 115 regulators have to be increased to 116 and all will be fine?
My sense is that you have an opinion first based on the bigotry of your upbringing and seek arguments later. In that case bringing on arguments based on logic and evidence is pointless
@modelmark You're not speaking philosophy you are speaking fact. Why are you mixing the two. Your "Argument" just so happens to be the Fox News typical Conservative status quo. Sorry I assumed you got the information from them rather than being original.
Yes, please direct me to the evidence of banks that were fined for not providing subprime mortgages to people that could not afford the loans.
@wentafew I live in a country where we do not have Fox news and I don't know who Glen Beck is. By claiming such persistent nonsense about me, you betray something about yourself:that your arguments are second handed. You expect my argument to fall by calling it a Glen Beck argument, because your arguments fall by exposing their creator. My arguments do not rest on a creator. They rest on facts, consistency and logic.
@modelmark Yes I am a FoxNews bigot. It is actually opposite my upbringing, and how you see your opinion more logical than mine makes no sense. I think looking at the incentives behind a problem carries a lot more weight than your assumptions. Hell, Levitt & Dubner wrote a fantastic book on incentive based motives called Freakonomics. Check it out.
@wentafew I read freakonomics 1 and 2. You are out of you leage. You could not even name the assumptions I made for my argument.
Calling something a fox news argument is just so far removed from logic and so bigoted, that discussion is pointless. To be more accurate:there was never any discussion. If you can point to a flaw in my logic or a false assumption, I'd like to hear it. But I do not think you get passed:"that is such a Justin Bieber argument"
@modelmark You have to look at the incentives. I agree Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are guilty, as well as, Country Wide, Washington Mutual and more. The banks packaged these high risk loans with lower risk loans (securitization) and then resold those loans to investors around the world. They made money, a shit load, and they weren't forced to do it. The lending agents were encouraged, as well, with large bonuses. Bigger the loan, bigger the bonus and no one cared if buyers could afford them.
@wentafew why doesn't it work if you give loans to bums for a big bonus? In normal life people do not have to be prevented from giving loans to bums. The reason is that they run full risk, the reason for that is that they can not expect a bailout. No tax slave funded coerced bailout, no risky loans.
@modelmark So please.... Take your Glenn Beck ideology and look a little further. Point C is conspiracy. The primary bubble was housing, and it was brought on by reasons I have already laid out. Thank Bush for the weak dollar not the printing of money. He did it to try and increase exports, when all it did was make a developing situation in the financial sector worse.
@wentafew Calling something a Glen Beck ideology is not an argument. You have to learn a thing or two about thinking in argumentation based on logic and evidence.
@modelmark Lol, you are the weirdest SOB I have ever talked to. Did you like take a philosophy course and get really inspired or something. I have provided just as much evidence as you. How you see your argument as superior is a matter of opinion. What facts have you thrown down? The ones here. Saying lenders were forced to lend by governments is an opinion at best. It's flat out false. Banks were encouraged banks to be more diverse in their lending.
@wentafew not an opinion:there were fines accompanying the CRA. If you do not pay the fine, you get a court date, if you ignore that, you will get an armed policemen on your doorstep. If you resist arrest, you will be shot.
The money printing monopoly is defended by gvt violence. If you doubt it, go print some money or develop an alternative currency like the liberty dollar.
What if I smoke and you are forced to get the negative consequences? What if I borrow and you are forced collateral?
@modelmark Please show me any bank or lending institution that was taken to court or fined due to the CRA. The CRA didn't even govern all lending institutions, yet those outside it's grasp continued to push subprime mortgages. The CRA is nothing more than an excuse for bad lending practices. I'm not saying it was a non factor. It provided an incentive for many lending institutions to push bad loans. There were benefits to having good CRA numbers. Furthermore, the CRA has been around for decades.
@modelmark So what you're saying is all coercion is bad? Was forcing the south to stop slavery a bad thing? Was forcing an amendment to give women the right to vote a bad thing? Is encouraging banks to lend to minorities a bad thing?
The fact that no bank was fined or taken to court demonstrates that they were not FORCED to write that many bad loans.
Your extreme philosophical view of coercion is as pointless as the argument that everyone functions in self-interest.
@wentafew Coercion can't be good, because then we should all be coercing and that can't be done in reality.
'the south' was never coerced, only people coerce. If you liberate a slave by force, it is not coercion, because the slave owner started coercing. What Lincoln did was ofcourse enslaving himself, as he close news papers by force, threatened and drafted people to murder for him, started a war that killed many. He only abolished slavery in states he had no power.It was a tax war.
@modelmark Does a parent not coerce a child for his or her own benefit? Without some degree of coercion there would be complete anarchy. You're getting way too philosophical. That much philosophy becomes circular and it reaches for a theoretical ideal rather than a world of realities.
Coercion is a necessary tool of Capitalism. It is what supports the inequalities built into the system. Are you arguing for a Utopian socialist society where everyone is equal and everything is shared?
@wentafew There are clear observable biological differences between an adult and a child. They warrant different rules. However between adults, I see no differences that warrant one to rule another. Yes that means anarchy (no rulers) is a true principle and subjugation is not.
I am not arguing for socialism, the party leaders control all property and the rest is a slave. Capitalism gets their, but not the hell hole of coorperatism we have now.Conclusions are not important now, the method is.
@wentafew if at the barest terms you want to say any law or rule is coercion then sure the CRA is coercion. However, it had minimum standards that banks went WAY beyond. Would minorities have equality without some degree of coercion to force the white male dominant world of finance to lend to them? Would segregation still exist without some degree of coercion?
@modelmark It was incentive driven, not coercion. Hence my connection to Freakonomics, which explores the economy of incentive driven motives in various aspects of life. But, I know those books are soooo amateur that it puts me way out of your highly sophisticated philosophical and advanced argumentative mind.
@modelmark Then you talk about Fannie and Freddie and exclude ALL of the other lenders involved. They were not soul conspirators. That is another "flaw" in your so perfectly laid out argument.
And I repeat about C, you do not make a clear connection between the printing of money and a bubble in the housing market.
I am glad you took a couple philosophy classes and have been inspired by your instructor. However, talk like a normal human being.
This is why I find it ironic that the working class votes Republican. The Republican Party just talks about same sex marriage, abortion and the Seperation of Church and State to distract the religious working class. You say Obama is wrong. Ok. Let me here what you would want to happen. Not what you don't want to happen for once.
@MasterAdam100 Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the FDIC, and the Fair Housing Act are why the government is in the business of backing stupid loans, and they were all set up by the Democrats.
@MasterAdam100 a number of Obama's cabinet (and indeed of previous Democrat administrations) are Wall St. men. Republican or Democrat, it really makes little difference, they are both bought and paid for. Goldman Sachs was the biggest contributor to Obama's campaign in 08.
I won't be voting out any Dems..which I helped vote in..when they are the only party for the American people...especially when they got healthcare reform passed, when they helped save hundreds of thousands of jobs by voting for the Obama stimulus, when THEY are for corporate reform! When the alternative is a bunch of whiny losers who only want America to FAIL
@zenbrenzz "they helped save hundreds of thousands of jobs by voting for the Obama stimulus"
Please take the time to watch this 3 min video [watch?v=UPmo2e-bAMQ] and consider the counterargument that's being made. You don't have to agree, just think about it.
Government regulates trade and commerce. Theoretically it should include only buy->sell transactions. Grow->sell, buy->modify->sell, buy->use, barter exchange, etc. are not commercial transactions. However, currently it regulates everybody & everything, because we are all engaged in commerce by simply using THEIR debt notes (legal tender). As we use THEIR debt notes as "money", they farm us, because owners "work hard" providing us with benefits of using their know-how credit system.
Speaking of LOSERS, anyone who is still brain dead enough to think that Republicans are any less guilty of selling out America to global corporate interests then the democrats is a moron, and should jump off a cliff asap.
Nonsense... there has been just as many democrats in washington as republicans and for years both parties have been stealing the people blind. These folks are career politicians and they are all to blame. Wall street is controlled by the establishment, the bankers who control wall street, control the politicians who sold us under the bus via personal gain.
@RamsesReturns Then we have no one to blame but ourselves. Quit voting for Dems or Pubs, or better, quit voting altogether and force change through passive resistance.
There are good politicians who fight for the people. To lump them all into one category is like saying "All Americans are greedy assholes." The problem is who has the financial power to advertise their candidates? You compound this with the fact that average American's are uneducated and love to be sold shit.
The 2008 meltdown could have been totally prevented, but in 1998 Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, and lacky Larry Summers conspired to prevent proper regulation of Wall Street, banks, and the derivative market.
Brooksley Born, head of the CFTC, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, specifically WARNED of the coming disaster and tried to impose regulations but was stopped by the three stooges.
"We didn't truly know the dangers of the market, because it was a dark market," says Brooksley Born, the head of the CFTC, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, who not only warned of the potential for economic meltdown in the late 1990s, but also tried to convince the country's key economic powerbrokers to take actions that could have helped avert the crisis.
"They were totally opposed to it," Born says. "That puzzled me. What was it that was in this market that had to be hidden?" Frontline
There is no free market! and the bank failure occurred under the watchful eye of plenty of government regulations and agencies... So you're perpetuating an enormous lie. Furthermore, the Democrats for the past 10 years have been receiving more campaign contributions than the Republilcans, so who's friends with who? Not to mention Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are Democrat babies and were central to the banking fraud and failure... Get your facts straight friend.
@eluminated this is only because democrats are in the majority. If republicans were in the majority, campaign contributions would be in reverse favored the republicans.
@biguy617 OK... and? I don't see how this refutes anything I've said... Are you saying that because Dems are the majority it's ok for them to be accepting large sums of money that influences the way they vote?
Blame free market... Except that we haven't had a free market banking system since the banking act of 1913.
Sachs is being investigated for playing by the rules Congress wrote. Not that I think what they did is right. But why is no one investigating Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, They are just as responsible for the bad loans that became the catalyst for this horrible mess.
Recommended reading for those who think they know better.
The Creature from Jekyll Island : A 2nd look at the fed reserve
That was amusing. It's always nice to be able to laugh at the silliness of humans... laugh even while the country is being anally raped by the powerful elite. Wouldn't it be awesome if we could all win by losing.
Senate Republicans have shown their TRUE colors. They're all in the pockets of Wall Street & the big Banks.
They have promised banks to gut the authority of the new Consumer Financial Protection Agency, and they want to continue giving Wall Street investment banks who make risky unregulated gambles like Goldman Sachs, FDIC deposit insurance and low interest government money.
They are blocking financial reform & selling us out for $millions in campaign contributions from the fat cats.
@goog2k Uhh, the Dems get more in campaign contributions from Wall St. than the Repubs and it's been that way for quite a few years now. How many ex Wall St execs are working in the Obama admin btw?.... And why not ask why all the other government agencies like the SEC aren't doing the job they're paid to do before we rush to create NEW agencies? Would you pay three people to do the exact same job?
@eluminated I agree Democrats got more Wall Street money (trying to buy influence) than Republicans in the last election but most Democrats are trying to fix the situation handed them by Bush. It was Bush's SEC & FBI who didn't enforce what laws there were.
Almost all economists say the new law will help. Check YouTube for Paul Krugman et al.
If you think this is bad, just wait until the next election after the Supreme Court removed restrictions on "corporate" campaign financing.
"Of the people, by the corporations, and for the corporations."
The new Supreme Court decision will allow a corporation to run false attack ads against anyone they wish. That means they can now EXTORT every politician in the U.S. to do whatever they want for profit.
If you think you're getting screwed by health insurance companies, Wall Street, and credit card companies now -- just wait. All consumer protection will be the first to go.
@goog2k Sure you can blame Bush's SEC but you also have to blame Barnie Frank and other Dems for denying there even was a housing bubble or any need to investigate the actions of Fannie and Freddie all the way upto the crash. The bubble and the crash were created by gov't intrusion in the market, not a lack of regulations.
@eluminated If you are knowledgeable at all, you know it was the Ayn Rand worshiper Alan Greenspan who sucked everyone into the "deregulation" mania which caused the gutting of the Glass-Steagall Act which created most of the problems. (He has admitted as much.)
He said, "Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders' equity are in a state of shocked disbelief."
@goog2k Haha! Well I'll defend the devil himself before I say anything good about anyone from the Fed! THEY are truly the source of all of this.. But I think Geitner leaving the NY Fed to be the head of Obama's Treasury Dept proves how deep both sides are in this (talk about oops!) ... My point is that to blame Repubs for this is to look at the situation with one eye closed.
@goog2k And yes, the SC ruling on corporate donations is down right criminal itself, but of course the donations given to repubs will be overemphasized while those given to dems will be ignored. You yourself just excused the dems for their corporate ties with the "trying to buy influence" explanation. Well that's what lobbyists DO! That's what corporate donations are FOR! lol.. You can't blame one side and excuse the other for doing the exact same thing.
Totally on target once again.
revbookburn 2 months ago
Propaganda video designed to venerate the democrats by demonizing republicans and more importantly blaming the "free market" for being a failure.
The fact is, both democrats and republicans are government and government is what is the cause of all our financial problems. If government didn't involve themselves in economics, we would have a free market.
So all of you people who blame the "free market" need to do some research before spreading lies to the ignorant masses.
Ron Paul 2012!
jjenson2006 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
vote ron paul 2012
quinngoes 3 months ago
I love how much like Mitch McConnell that actually looks.
Saeyabor 4 months ago
Good point made here. However, the Free Market model that Congressman Ron Paul has promoted since the 1980's advocates bank failure opposed to bank bailouts. Additionally, he would have to work with the Senate and House (as President), maintaining banking Regulations that might have prevented the housing bubble. For decades he has admonished Congress & the President to abolish the Federal Reserve Banking System. The Fed was supposed to prevent boom/bust cycles, but instead seems to create them.
njiuma 4 months ago
for years Dems and Reps have been the different side of the same coin. I think Ron Paul might be different. lets get him in the white house and find out
IzInAZ 5 months ago
You should have said politicians instead of Republicans because neither party is for the middle class. It's all an illusion just so you can feel like you made a difference by voting for the other side. Real change will come when both parties are thrown to the curve and replaced with a party that follows libertarian values and listen exclusively to what the people say rather than their lobbyist buddies who fill their pockets full of money.
EETechs 8 months ago
@EETechs I disagree about the libertian part. But it is true that neither party supports the middle/lower class.
chigeh 7 months ago
There hasn't been a truly free market for decades. Corporations rule and corporations make the rules. You cant open a simple tea shop without their say so.
sidewallfusion 9 months ago
It's not true the free market failed us - we failed it. Free market never decided failing banks needed to be saved using working businesses money ... we did. Pls don't lie to people. Democracy failed, not the free market.
dggm19 9 months ago
Order derived through submission and maintained by terror is not much of a safe guaranty; yet that is the only "order" that governments have ever maintained. True social harmony grows naturally out of solidarity of interests. In a society where those who always work never have anything, while those who never work enjoy everything, solidarity of interests is non-existent; hence social harmony is but a myth. Suport truth and transperancy in government. Help Ron Paul End the fed in 2012
dapop1001 11 months ago
Comment removed
UltraValican 9 months ago
Im bi losing
CoronaMage 11 months ago
its ironic that people with degrees are more likely to vote republican- with things like this
dancthegr 1 year ago
@dancthegr Wow, where did you get that statistic. The higher the education the higher the degree of a liberal point of view.
However, that can be offset by earning large sums of money. Greed is a natural instinct of humanity. It's one that has to be educated out of us. Do children not innately want all toys for themselves. They hate to share don't they. Good parents teach their children to share their toys.
wentafew 11 months ago
@wentafew wikipeada so don't bank on it
dancthegr 11 months ago
@dancthegr really, where can I look that up on wikipedia?
wentafew 11 months ago
The 'free markets' are nothing more than a corporatist system from one hundred years ago, it has become a word replaced by 'free markets' that make everyone resent it so much. Indoctrination of socialism done: Use the word 'free markets' to scare the crap out of anyone. (Paraphrasing, of course.)
Denon333dash888 1 year ago
Currently government force is making Joe six pack pay money to bankers and all that is required is to take that force away. Applying new force (regulation) will only force more money out of Joe 6 packs pockets into some rich dude's pocket. The initiation of force is always wrong and corrupts everyone who wears that ring. The ring has to be thrown in mount doom.
modelmark 1 year ago
@modelmark Banks were bailed out to save a depression similar to the great one. The people that make up our government didn't "want" to do it, it was the lesser of two shitty situations.
You bitch about that, and then you bitch about more regulation, which it was deregulation that led to this damn problem in the first place.
I like your point about force and corruption, but everything prior is just fucked up thinking.
wentafew 11 months ago
@wentafew you make a number of claims without basis or evidence. The people printing money to buy power and influence, claim to do this to save the world from depression. Just like the invasion of Iraq was on the claim of imminent destruction by WMD. That claim is self promotion.Would you believe a counterfeiter who claims he wants to give the economy a boost?
'deregulation lead to this mess': no evidence. Kotlikoff counted 115 regulators for the financial industry.
modelmark 11 months ago
@modelmark Are you talking conspiracy theories??? There is plenty of evidence to support the fact that the deregulation of the financial sector led to the sale of toxic securitizations, that were loaded with bloated high risk home mortgages. It is no coincidence that the housing market and financial markets collapsed together, in addition to the EU being affected because they bought into so many of these trusts.
The rest of what you say is an incoherent attempt at some sort of analogy.
wentafew 11 months ago
@wentafew what is your evidence then?
I say that banks handed out risky loans because:
A-They were forced to by government regulators (community reinvestment act)
B-They sold off risk to Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, who funded political candidates and got a bailout when it collapsed.
C-The Fed is a gvt protected money printing monopoly, which created tons and tons of money which found it's way into everything, blowing serial bubbles.
Now, that is evidence and that is an argument.
modelmark 11 months ago
@modelmark That's certainly a FoxNews argument, and I disagree. The community reinvestment act was "designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to help meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities" -wikipedia Where does that say lenders HAD to give subprime mortgages to people who could not afford them?
This gave lenders an excuse to take advantage of incentives that were provided by the lenders for giving these loans.
wentafew 11 months ago
@wentafew There is no such thing as a Fox news argument in philosophy. You fail.
The gvt gave steep fines to banks that did not lend to risky borrowers. If I can prove that to you, would that convince you? Or do you stick with your point of view that 115 regulators have to be increased to 116 and all will be fine?
My sense is that you have an opinion first based on the bigotry of your upbringing and seek arguments later. In that case bringing on arguments based on logic and evidence is pointless
modelmark 11 months ago
@modelmark You're not speaking philosophy you are speaking fact. Why are you mixing the two. Your "Argument" just so happens to be the Fox News typical Conservative status quo. Sorry I assumed you got the information from them rather than being original.
Yes, please direct me to the evidence of banks that were fined for not providing subprime mortgages to people that could not afford the loans.
wentafew 11 months ago
@wentafew I live in a country where we do not have Fox news and I don't know who Glen Beck is. By claiming such persistent nonsense about me, you betray something about yourself:that your arguments are second handed. You expect my argument to fall by calling it a Glen Beck argument, because your arguments fall by exposing their creator. My arguments do not rest on a creator. They rest on facts, consistency and logic.
modelmark 11 months ago
@modelmark Yes I am a FoxNews bigot. It is actually opposite my upbringing, and how you see your opinion more logical than mine makes no sense. I think looking at the incentives behind a problem carries a lot more weight than your assumptions. Hell, Levitt & Dubner wrote a fantastic book on incentive based motives called Freakonomics. Check it out.
wentafew 11 months ago
@wentafew I read freakonomics 1 and 2. You are out of you leage. You could not even name the assumptions I made for my argument.
Calling something a fox news argument is just so far removed from logic and so bigoted, that discussion is pointless. To be more accurate:there was never any discussion. If you can point to a flaw in my logic or a false assumption, I'd like to hear it. But I do not think you get passed:"that is such a Justin Bieber argument"
modelmark 11 months ago
@modelmark You have to look at the incentives. I agree Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are guilty, as well as, Country Wide, Washington Mutual and more. The banks packaged these high risk loans with lower risk loans (securitization) and then resold those loans to investors around the world. They made money, a shit load, and they weren't forced to do it. The lending agents were encouraged, as well, with large bonuses. Bigger the loan, bigger the bonus and no one cared if buyers could afford them.
wentafew 11 months ago
@wentafew why doesn't it work if you give loans to bums for a big bonus? In normal life people do not have to be prevented from giving loans to bums. The reason is that they run full risk, the reason for that is that they can not expect a bailout. No tax slave funded coerced bailout, no risky loans.
modelmark 11 months ago
@modelmark So please.... Take your Glenn Beck ideology and look a little further. Point C is conspiracy. The primary bubble was housing, and it was brought on by reasons I have already laid out. Thank Bush for the weak dollar not the printing of money. He did it to try and increase exports, when all it did was make a developing situation in the financial sector worse.
wentafew 11 months ago
@wentafew Calling something a Glen Beck ideology is not an argument. You have to learn a thing or two about thinking in argumentation based on logic and evidence.
modelmark 11 months ago
@modelmark Lol, you are the weirdest SOB I have ever talked to. Did you like take a philosophy course and get really inspired or something. I have provided just as much evidence as you. How you see your argument as superior is a matter of opinion. What facts have you thrown down? The ones here. Saying lenders were forced to lend by governments is an opinion at best. It's flat out false. Banks were encouraged banks to be more diverse in their lending.
wentafew 11 months ago
@wentafew not an opinion:there were fines accompanying the CRA. If you do not pay the fine, you get a court date, if you ignore that, you will get an armed policemen on your doorstep. If you resist arrest, you will be shot.
The money printing monopoly is defended by gvt violence. If you doubt it, go print some money or develop an alternative currency like the liberty dollar.
What if I smoke and you are forced to get the negative consequences? What if I borrow and you are forced collateral?
modelmark 11 months ago
@modelmark Please show me any bank or lending institution that was taken to court or fined due to the CRA. The CRA didn't even govern all lending institutions, yet those outside it's grasp continued to push subprime mortgages. The CRA is nothing more than an excuse for bad lending practices. I'm not saying it was a non factor. It provided an incentive for many lending institutions to push bad loans. There were benefits to having good CRA numbers. Furthermore, the CRA has been around for decades.
wentafew 11 months ago
@wentafew If you comply the gvt does not take you to court. If you do not resist arrest they will not shoot you.
If you think laws are not coercive control of some people over some other people, you have some different definitions.
CRA was around for decades, but enforcement only started with Clinton.
Please don't argue that other people are not coerced to pay through bailouts of the reckless behavior of others.
modelmark 11 months ago
@modelmark So what you're saying is all coercion is bad? Was forcing the south to stop slavery a bad thing? Was forcing an amendment to give women the right to vote a bad thing? Is encouraging banks to lend to minorities a bad thing?
The fact that no bank was fined or taken to court demonstrates that they were not FORCED to write that many bad loans.
Your extreme philosophical view of coercion is as pointless as the argument that everyone functions in self-interest.
wentafew 11 months ago
@wentafew Coercion can't be good, because then we should all be coercing and that can't be done in reality.
'the south' was never coerced, only people coerce. If you liberate a slave by force, it is not coercion, because the slave owner started coercing. What Lincoln did was ofcourse enslaving himself, as he close news papers by force, threatened and drafted people to murder for him, started a war that killed many. He only abolished slavery in states he had no power.It was a tax war.
modelmark 11 months ago
@modelmark Does a parent not coerce a child for his or her own benefit? Without some degree of coercion there would be complete anarchy. You're getting way too philosophical. That much philosophy becomes circular and it reaches for a theoretical ideal rather than a world of realities.
Coercion is a necessary tool of Capitalism. It is what supports the inequalities built into the system. Are you arguing for a Utopian socialist society where everyone is equal and everything is shared?
wentafew 11 months ago
@wentafew There are clear observable biological differences between an adult and a child. They warrant different rules. However between adults, I see no differences that warrant one to rule another. Yes that means anarchy (no rulers) is a true principle and subjugation is not.
I am not arguing for socialism, the party leaders control all property and the rest is a slave. Capitalism gets their, but not the hell hole of coorperatism we have now.Conclusions are not important now, the method is.
modelmark 11 months ago
@wentafew if at the barest terms you want to say any law or rule is coercion then sure the CRA is coercion. However, it had minimum standards that banks went WAY beyond. Would minorities have equality without some degree of coercion to force the white male dominant world of finance to lend to them? Would segregation still exist without some degree of coercion?
wentafew 11 months ago
@modelmark It was incentive driven, not coercion. Hence my connection to Freakonomics, which explores the economy of incentive driven motives in various aspects of life. But, I know those books are soooo amateur that it puts me way out of your highly sophisticated philosophical and advanced argumentative mind.
wentafew 11 months ago
@modelmark Then you talk about Fannie and Freddie and exclude ALL of the other lenders involved. They were not soul conspirators. That is another "flaw" in your so perfectly laid out argument.
And I repeat about C, you do not make a clear connection between the printing of money and a bubble in the housing market.
I am glad you took a couple philosophy classes and have been inspired by your instructor. However, talk like a normal human being.
I'm waiting on evidence of fines on banks.
wentafew 11 months ago
thanks goldmans sachs, paulson, geinther, bernake and don't let me forget the one who brought it all upon us GREENSPAN
bohemianh 1 year ago
This is why I find it ironic that the working class votes Republican. The Republican Party just talks about same sex marriage, abortion and the Seperation of Church and State to distract the religious working class. You say Obama is wrong. Ok. Let me here what you would want to happen. Not what you don't want to happen for once.
MasterAdam100 1 year ago 23
@MasterAdam100 Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the FDIC, and the Fair Housing Act are why the government is in the business of backing stupid loans, and they were all set up by the Democrats.
davidrodgersNJ 11 months ago
@davidrodgersNJ You just keep on parroting that until your dog believes it.
xyzoneon 10 months ago
@xyzoneon I'm a financial economist, and I don't have a dog.
davidrodgersNJ 10 months ago
@davidrodgersNJ Prove it.
xyzoneon 10 months ago
@xyzoneon How about if you kiss my ass?
davidrodgersNJ 10 months ago
@davidrodgersNJ No thanks, Liar. Try your boyfriend.
xyzoneon 10 months ago
@MasterAdam100 a number of Obama's cabinet (and indeed of previous Democrat administrations) are Wall St. men. Republican or Democrat, it really makes little difference, they are both bought and paid for. Goldman Sachs was the biggest contributor to Obama's campaign in 08.
ivangrozny27 9 months ago
I won't be voting out any Dems..which I helped vote in..when they are the only party for the American people...especially when they got healthcare reform passed, when they helped save hundreds of thousands of jobs by voting for the Obama stimulus, when THEY are for corporate reform! When the alternative is a bunch of whiny losers who only want America to FAIL
zenbrenzz 1 year ago 12
@zenbrenzz "they helped save hundreds of thousands of jobs by voting for the Obama stimulus"
Please take the time to watch this 3 min video [watch?v=UPmo2e-bAMQ] and consider the counterargument that's being made. You don't have to agree, just think about it.
studentofsmith 1 year ago
@zenbrenzz They suck too. They're all on the take. 99% of the politicians in Washington belong in prison.
CanadaIndieFilm 3 months ago in playlist More videos from markfiore
Shoes for industry!
MaxNuclear 1 year ago
Government regulates trade and commerce. Theoretically it should include only buy->sell transactions. Grow->sell, buy->modify->sell, buy->use, barter exchange, etc. are not commercial transactions. However, currently it regulates everybody & everything, because we are all engaged in commerce by simply using THEIR debt notes (legal tender). As we use THEIR debt notes as "money", they farm us, because owners "work hard" providing us with benefits of using their know-how credit system.
Farmerofganja 1 year ago
Speaking of LOSERS, anyone who is still brain dead enough to think that Republicans are any less guilty of selling out America to global corporate interests then the democrats is a moron, and should jump off a cliff asap.
mookixox 1 year ago
Nonsense... there has been just as many democrats in washington as republicans and for years both parties have been stealing the people blind. These folks are career politicians and they are all to blame. Wall street is controlled by the establishment, the bankers who control wall street, control the politicians who sold us under the bus via personal gain.
RamsesReturns 1 year ago
@RamsesReturns Then we have no one to blame but ourselves. Quit voting for Dems or Pubs, or better, quit voting altogether and force change through passive resistance.
There are good politicians who fight for the people. To lump them all into one category is like saying "All Americans are greedy assholes." The problem is who has the financial power to advertise their candidates? You compound this with the fact that average American's are uneducated and love to be sold shit.
wentafew 11 months ago
The 2008 meltdown could have been totally prevented, but in 1998 Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, and lacky Larry Summers conspired to prevent proper regulation of Wall Street, banks, and the derivative market.
Brooksley Born, head of the CFTC, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, specifically WARNED of the coming disaster and tried to impose regulations but was stopped by the three stooges.
See the new explosive expose online:
PBS Frontline: THE WARNING.
goog2k 1 year ago
"We didn't truly know the dangers of the market, because it was a dark market," says Brooksley Born, the head of the CFTC, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, who not only warned of the potential for economic meltdown in the late 1990s, but also tried to convince the country's key economic powerbrokers to take actions that could have helped avert the crisis.
"They were totally opposed to it," Born says. "That puzzled me. What was it that was in this market that had to be hidden?" Frontline
goog2k 1 year ago
This is so awesome and so true! 5*****
JixMa 1 year ago
There is no free market! and the bank failure occurred under the watchful eye of plenty of government regulations and agencies... So you're perpetuating an enormous lie. Furthermore, the Democrats for the past 10 years have been receiving more campaign contributions than the Republilcans, so who's friends with who? Not to mention Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are Democrat babies and were central to the banking fraud and failure... Get your facts straight friend.
eluminated 1 year ago
@eluminated this is only because democrats are in the majority. If republicans were in the majority, campaign contributions would be in reverse favored the republicans.
biguy617 1 year ago
@biguy617 OK... and? I don't see how this refutes anything I've said... Are you saying that because Dems are the majority it's ok for them to be accepting large sums of money that influences the way they vote?
eluminated 1 year ago
@eluminated No I don't think it is ok. I am just saying that campaign contributions vary on who is in the majority
biguy617 1 year ago
@biguy617 Oh, well then yeah, I agree :) It's the system that's corrupt and both parties are to blame... That's why we need to vote them ALL out!
eluminated 1 year ago
we don't live in a free market! we live with a financial system that is set up to enrich bankers
soundmoneyfan 1 year ago
Blame free market... Except that we haven't had a free market banking system since the banking act of 1913.
Sachs is being investigated for playing by the rules Congress wrote. Not that I think what they did is right. But why is no one investigating Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, They are just as responsible for the bad loans that became the catalyst for this horrible mess.
Recommended reading for those who think they know better.
The Creature from Jekyll Island : A 2nd look at the fed reserve
hppyhckr 1 year ago
"Boy, that Timberlake is one Shitty deal" -- Goldman Sachs.
(Quick, let's sell some more to those dumb pension plans.)
goog2k 1 year ago
That was amusing. It's always nice to be able to laugh at the silliness of humans... laugh even while the country is being anally raped by the powerful elite. Wouldn't it be awesome if we could all win by losing.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
Senate Republicans have shown their TRUE colors. They're all in the pockets of Wall Street & the big Banks.
They have promised banks to gut the authority of the new Consumer Financial Protection Agency, and they want to continue giving Wall Street investment banks who make risky unregulated gambles like Goldman Sachs, FDIC deposit insurance and low interest government money.
They are blocking financial reform & selling us out for $millions in campaign contributions from the fat cats.
goog2k 1 year ago
@goog2k Uhh, the Dems get more in campaign contributions from Wall St. than the Repubs and it's been that way for quite a few years now. How many ex Wall St execs are working in the Obama admin btw?.... And why not ask why all the other government agencies like the SEC aren't doing the job they're paid to do before we rush to create NEW agencies? Would you pay three people to do the exact same job?
eluminated 1 year ago
@eluminated I agree Democrats got more Wall Street money (trying to buy influence) than Republicans in the last election but most Democrats are trying to fix the situation handed them by Bush. It was Bush's SEC & FBI who didn't enforce what laws there were.
Almost all economists say the new law will help. Check YouTube for Paul Krugman et al.
If you think this is bad, just wait until the next election after the Supreme Court removed restrictions on "corporate" campaign financing.
goog2k 1 year ago
"Of the people, by the corporations, and for the corporations."
The new Supreme Court decision will allow a corporation to run false attack ads against anyone they wish. That means they can now EXTORT every politician in the U.S. to do whatever they want for profit.
If you think you're getting screwed by health insurance companies, Wall Street, and credit card companies now -- just wait. All consumer protection will be the first to go.
We haven't seen anything yet.
goog2k 1 year ago
@goog2k Sure you can blame Bush's SEC but you also have to blame Barnie Frank and other Dems for denying there even was a housing bubble or any need to investigate the actions of Fannie and Freddie all the way upto the crash. The bubble and the crash were created by gov't intrusion in the market, not a lack of regulations.
eluminated 1 year ago
@eluminated If you are knowledgeable at all, you know it was the Ayn Rand worshiper Alan Greenspan who sucked everyone into the "deregulation" mania which caused the gutting of the Glass-Steagall Act which created most of the problems. (He has admitted as much.)
He said, "Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders' equity are in a state of shocked disbelief."
Duhh???
goog2k 1 year ago
As head of the Fed, Greenspan also kept mortgage rates artificially low which drove up housing prices and caused the housing bubble.
There is a lot of blame to go around, but Greenspan deserves the most for causing the $trillion dollar meltdown.
I just recently heard that Greenspan was also hired by Paulson whos involved in the Goldman Sachs scandal.
Oops!!!
goog2k 1 year ago
@goog2k Haha! Well I'll defend the devil himself before I say anything good about anyone from the Fed! THEY are truly the source of all of this.. But I think Geitner leaving the NY Fed to be the head of Obama's Treasury Dept proves how deep both sides are in this (talk about oops!) ... My point is that to blame Repubs for this is to look at the situation with one eye closed.
eluminated 1 year ago
@eluminated Well, I definitely would not have picked Geitner or Summers but they both seem to trying to do the right thing now.
It's up to what comes out of Congress, but I think we're on the right track.
goog2k 1 year ago
@goog2k And yes, the SC ruling on corporate donations is down right criminal itself, but of course the donations given to repubs will be overemphasized while those given to dems will be ignored. You yourself just excused the dems for their corporate ties with the "trying to buy influence" explanation. Well that's what lobbyists DO! That's what corporate donations are FOR! lol.. You can't blame one side and excuse the other for doing the exact same thing.
eluminated 1 year ago
BRAVO!!! Hilarious.
goog2k 1 year ago