I have a simple question about bank deregulation.

[werepossum]

Do you have some point, beyond obfuscation and denial?

Do you ever?

The current situation is 30 years in the making, beginning with the election of RR and adoption of repub economic models, papered over with debt acquisition.

It now requires 60 votes to accomplish anything in the Senate, due to repub obstructionism en bloc. Dems have 59, several of whom are unreliable when it comes to dealing with the financial sector.

You figure it out.

Wrong - it takes 60 votes to pass anything overwhelmingly stupid or partisan. You'll have to explain to me though why Republican spending and borrowing is the problem, but Democrat spending and borrowing twice as much is the solution.

 

[Jhhnn]

Wrong - it takes 60 votes to pass anything overwhelmingly stupid or partisan. You'll have to explain to me though why Republican spending and borrowing is the problem, but Democrat spending and borrowing twice as much is the solution.

Willful blindness and denial. Repubs are currently attempting to paralyze the govt, deny Dems the ability to govern effectively in hopes of political gains from anti-incumbent sentiment. And that's after being repudiated at the polls in 2006 and again in 2008, after they crashed the economy and mired us in 2 wars of endless occupation. They've threatened filibuster of 70% of major legislation in this congressional session, and blocked dozens of routine appointments.

http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/001731.htm

Yeh, I know, it won't hold your interest because it's not full of soundbites and gotcha pandering.

I suppose that from a zealot's perspective any efforts by Dems are "overwhelmingly stupid or partisan", even attempts to appoint a nobel prize winning economist to the Federal Reserve board of directors...

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

The wars cost about under 1 Trillion. Obamacare is suppose to cost 1.2T over the next 10 years (if you believe that number). How is that not going to bankrupt us?

Willful blindness and denial. Repubs are currently attempting to paralyze the govt, deny Dems the ability to govern effectively in hopes of political gains from anti-incumbent sentiment. And that's after being repudiated at the polls in 2006 and again in 2008, after they crashed the economy and mired us in 2 wars of endless occupation. They've threatened filibuster of 70% of major legislation in this congressional session, and blocked dozens of routine appointments.

http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/001731.htm

Yeh, I know, it won't hold your interest because it's not full of soundbites and gotcha pandering.

I suppose that from a zealot's perspective any efforts by Dems are "overwhelmingly stupid or partisan", even attempts to appoint a nobel prize winning economist to the Federal Reserve board of directors...

 

[nobodyknows]

The wars cost about under 1 Trillion. Obamacare is suppose to cost 1.2T over the next 10 years (if you believe that number). How is that not going to bankrupt us?

No links to prove those figures?

Anyway, think of the space program. All the money we spent on it went back into the American economy. The same will be true of Obamacare. Not so with the wars though.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

No links to prove those figures?

Anyway, think of the space program. All the money we spent on it went back into the American economy. The same will be true of Obamacare. Not so with the wars though.

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/117xx/doc11705/08-18-Update.pdf

Congressional Budget Office, says is $709 billion.

And cost of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Deficit_impact

Was not exact on the numbers but close.

I never bought the whole "spent on it went back into the American economy" fallacy. Not saying the Iraq war was justified, but that money did make it back into the American economy. I use to work in the defense industry and I've benefited from a lot of that money.

 

[nobodyknows]

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/117xx/doc11705/08-18-Update.pdf

Congressional Budget Office, says is $709 billion.

And cost of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Deficit_impact

Was not exact on the numbers but close.

I never bought the whole "spent on it went back into the American economy" fallacy. Not saying the Iraq war was justified, but that money did make it back into the American economy. I use to work in the defense industry and I've benefited from a lot of that money.

I never said that none of the money spent of the wars came back to the US economy.

Clearly a lot.... if not nearly ALL of the Obamacare money will go right back into the US economy. There won't be any money "lost" or money spent on bribing other countries and fixing/rebuilding the shit we spent money on to destroy in the first place.

War is such a waste, what was Bush's hurry to go into Iraq anyway??

 

[ElFenix]

here's a question: would the regulations in place absolutely have stopped the melt down last year? i see it discussed as a matter-of-fact but i've never seen anyone say just what regulations that had existed would have prevented the crap from hitting the fan (and of course, there's also the question of where are we compared to had the regulations not been rolled back... what if we're still better off, even with the crap hitting the fan?)

 

[blackangst1]

Do you have some point, beyond obfuscation and denial?

Do you ever?

The current situation is 30 years in the making, beginning with the election of RR and adoption of repub economic models, papered over with debt acquisition.

It now requires 60 votes to accomplish anything in the Senate, due to repub obstructionism en bloc. Dems have 59, several of whom are unreliable when it comes to dealing with the financial sector.

You figure it out.

Well, more precisely it started with Carter and the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980. But whatever.

edit: oops I just saw another poster addressed this.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well, more precisely it started with Carter and the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980. But whatever.

edit: oops I just saw another poster addressed this.

That wasn't the act that enabled "creative" mortgages, at all, but rather the 1982 AMPTA act. In the context of fixed rate long term mortgages, which the 1980 act demanded, it meant that lenders could provide loans to people with lower credit ratings at higher interest if they so chose. All the normal rules still applied, otherwise.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/30/real_estate/congress_subprime.fortune/

None of which would have meant a lot w/o the invention of CDO's by Drexel Burnham Lambert in 1987. They're a wonderful way to obfuscate risk.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aTCaFu03ENY8

By the time 2002 rolled around, things were clearly out of control, but Bush Admin regulators and Greenspan's FRB didn't see any problems at all...

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/08/26/weekinreview/27leon_graph2.html

It didn't help that Bush's SEC allowed the biggest investment banks to increase leverage in the run-up to the peak-

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/09/regulatory-exem.html

and that the rest of the Bush team of regulators acted as cheerleaders-

http://dorkmonger.blogspot.com/2008/11/cutting-red-tape.html

Who made out? Those with the biggest propensity for double and self dealing, GS in particular-

Of the five banks at the top of Bloomberg's ranking of CDO underwriting fees, just one emerged from the catastrophe with its reputation for good risk management intact: Goldman Sachs Group Inc. The firm ranked third in CDO fees last year, earning $239 million from underwriting and selling CDOs to investors. At the same time, its derivatives traders bet correctly on a decline in the value of subprime-related securities. Goldman Sachs posted record earnings for 2007 and had no write-offs related to the CDO collapse.

From the Bloomberg link, above-

Selling CDO's out the front door to investors, shorting the hell out of 'em out the back door with derivatives... It's called fraud and looting, unless you're one of the fans of self regulated free market banking, in which case it's still looting, except that you approve of looting...

 

[blackangst1]

That wasn't the act that enabled "creative" mortgages, at all, but rather the 1982 AMPTA act.

Never said or implied that it was. My post was in reference to the OP - banking deregulation in general. So the rest of your point is moot.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Wow, if only some progressive party could have controlled Congress for the last three and half years, and had the White House too for the last year and a half.

SHAZAM!!! You have finally left the dark side! Let the light od goodiness shine on you all of your days.

 

[sandorski]

More Choice, Lower Prices, and Prosperity forever more!!

Or none of the above.

 

[bamacre]

More Choice, Lower Prices, and Prosperity forever more!!

Or none of the above.

Regulations decrease choices, increase prices, and lower prosperity.

 

[sandorski]

Regulations decrease choices, increase prices, and lower prosperity.

Except for when they do the opposite.

 

[bamacre]

Except for when they do the opposite.

When that happens, tell me about it.

 

[sandorski]

When that happens, tell me about it.

Open a History book.

 

[bamacre]

Open a History book.

Yours, or a real one? :biggrin::biggrin:

 

[sandorski]

Yours, or a real one? :biggrin::biggrin:

Either. You think those Regulations were just dreamed up for Shits and Giggles?

 

[werepossum]

That wasn't the act that enabled "creative" mortgages, at all, but rather the 1982 AMPTA act. In the context of fixed rate long term mortgages, which the 1980 act demanded, it meant that lenders could provide loans to people with lower credit ratings at higher interest if they so chose. All the normal rules still applied, otherwise.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/30/real_estate/congress_subprime.fortune/

None of which would have meant a lot w/o the invention of CDO's by Drexel Burnham Lambert in 1987. They're a wonderful way to obfuscate risk.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aTCaFu03ENY8

By the time 2002 rolled around, things were clearly out of control, but Bush Admin regulators and Greenspan's FRB didn't see any problems at all...

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/08/26/weekinreview/27leon_graph2.html

It didn't help that Bush's SEC allowed the biggest investment banks to increase leverage in the run-up to the peak-

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/09/regulatory-exem.html

and that the rest of the Bush team of regulators acted as cheerleaders-

http://dorkmonger.blogspot.com/2008/11/cutting-red-tape.html

Who made out? Those with the biggest propensity for double and self dealing, GS in particular-



From the Bloomberg link, above-

Selling CDO's out the front door to investors, shorting the hell out of 'em out the back door with derivatives... It's called fraud and looting, unless you're one of the fans of self regulated free market banking, in which case it's still looting, except that you approve of looting...

And of course, when Dodd and Frank were leading the Democrat charge to prevent any reforms, they were merely bamboozled by Bush, the smartest super villein to ever put on Spandex.

Everybody sing! Second verse, same as the first!

 

[Jhhnn]

And of course, when Dodd and Frank were leading the Democrat charge to prevent any reforms, they were merely bamboozled by Bush, the smartest super villein to ever put on Spandex.

Everybody sing! Second verse, same as the first!

Oh, please. In 2003, BushCo just wanted to change the GSE regulators, not actually reform the system. Repubs had the majority in both houses, and it never got out of committee. As it was, repub lawmakers just used it to establish plausible deniability, something you apparently embrace wholeheartedly.

And it wasn't the GSE's that caused the meltdown, but rather the investment banks-

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html

Enabled by a SEC rule change in 2004 requested by the biggest investment houses, wiht Paulson as head of GS. Unsurprisingly, he became treasury secretary 2 years later...

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/secs-2004-rule-let-banks-pile-up-new-risk/

Shee-it, Sherlock, they knew the rescue wagon was there waiting for the inevitable fall, and played it accordingly. What some of them didn't realize was that GS would prosper by shorting the rest of 'em into the dirt...

Dodd and Frank were basically well intentioned chumps, understandably leery of any changes proposed by the Bush Whitehouse, who regularly offered up trickbags... The changes proposed in 2003 wouldn't have even slowed things down...

 

[ElFenix]

Enabled by a SEC rule change in 2004 requested by the biggest investment houses, wiht Paulson as head of GS. Unsurprisingly, he became treasury secretary 2 years later...

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/secs-2004-rule-let-banks-pile-up-new-risk/

Shee-it, Sherlock, they knew the rescue wagon was there waiting for the inevitable fall, and played it accordingly. What some of them didn't realize was that GS would prosper by shorting the rest of 'em into the dirt...

:hmm:

 

[hal2kilo]

Regulations decrease choices, increase prices, and lower prosperity.

So sayeth the libertopian, so shall it be.

 

[bamacre]

Either. You think those Regulations were just dreamed up for Shits and Giggles?

No, and never said that.

 

[BigDH01]

When that happens, tell me about it.

Anti-monopoly regulation?

 

[bamacre]

Anti-monopoly regulation?

That may be the one exception, and it would depend on the circumstances. But that's not what I'm talking about.