"Too big to fail"

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Duwelon

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,058
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Could have fooled me, you've done nothing but show off yoru "Must Reply" complex with stupid sniping posts that provided little relavent information or actual responses to what people wrote. Just because you quote butterbean doesn't mean your oh so whitty remark actually holds any water.
Have you even read my replies in this thread? :confused:

I'm a HUGE proponent of free market ideologies, but you realize that he's talking about FDIC-insured banks here, right? You can't say something like, well without the CRA we'd have a free market! because the deposits would still be federally-insured among a gazillion other regulatory issues that also intervene on the free market. At the same time, these banks made the voluntary decision to comply with these kinds of regulations when they agreed to accept FDIC protection.
THe problem with the CRA is the number of foreclosures that it has caused. If you gave a bank 10 years ago a crystal ball and let them make choice "Fail for sure in 2008 or get out of the subprime business now", how many banks do you think would make the former choice? My point is, the banks knew the risks but they were still hamstrung by the government's meddling. They should have said "screw you CRA, we're getting into the construction business", but that's 20/20 hindsight for you.
 

mxyzptlk

Golden Member
Apr 18, 2008
1,893
0
0
Do people really believe that if they insult someone hard enough, they will come around to their point of view?

 

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
10,771
2,541
136
Remember these words?
Reagan: Government BAD deregulation GOOD.
So we now have this BAD government saving the ass of the rich CEO's.

BYW, how much of this bailout (you know, your and my $$$)
will go into the CEO's pockets?
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: boomerang
A lot of these threads here serve to remind me why Congress has so much trouble accomplishing anything. Every issue degrades down to partisanship and name-calling.

Edit: spelling
Well, in the case of Duwelon, he's anti-evolution, anti-abortion and a creationist, i think that speaks for itself.

He seems to treat politics in the same way he treats his faith, damned be the facts and reality.

Personally, i'm British so i don't have a stake in this election, it's just my observation.
You're a hateful bigot who has absolutely nothing to add to this thread what so ever.
Wow, harsh words from such a small twat?

Puttity puttity putt putt, here the little enging of anger goes around the corner and all the little kiddies can be happy again!

 

Duwelon

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,058
0
0
Originally posted by: sportage
Remember these words?
Reagan: Government BAD deregulation GOOD.
So we now have this BAD government saving the ass of the rich CEO's.

BYW, how much of this bailout (you know, your and my $$$)
will go into the CEO's pockets?
I had an idea today. The government should offer a bailout if the CEO and his directs all get terminated without any compensation or severance package. Of course, when the Fed is more eager to see the company survive than the company itself, it might not work.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: sportage
Remember these words?
Reagan: Government BAD deregulation GOOD.
So we now have this BAD government saving the ass of the rich CEO's.

BYW, how much of this bailout (you know, your and my $$$)
will go into the CEO's pockets?
I had an idea today. The government should offer a bailout if the CEO and his directs all get terminated without any compensation or severance package. Of course, when the Fed is more eager to see the company survive than the company itself, it might not work.
Yeah, and the contracts that the CEO and others have are just going to become lawsuits where they can sue for much more?

Not too bright, not too fucking bright, are ya.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,313
11,306
136
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Could have fooled me, you've done nothing but show off yoru "Must Reply" complex with stupid sniping posts that provided little relavent information or actual responses to what people wrote. Just because you quote butterbean doesn't mean your oh so whitty remark actually holds any water.
Have you even read my replies in this thread? :confused:

I'm a HUGE proponent of free market ideologies, but you realize that he's talking about FDIC-insured banks here, right? You can't say something like, well without the CRA we'd have a free market! because the deposits would still be federally-insured among a gazillion other regulatory issues that also intervene on the free market. At the same time, these banks made the voluntary decision to comply with these kinds of regulations when they agreed to accept FDIC protection.
THe problem with the CRA is the number of foreclosures that it has caused. If you gave a bank 10 years ago a crystal ball and let them make choice "Fail for sure in 2008 or get out of the subprime business now", how many banks do you think would make the former choice? My point is, the banks knew the risks but they were still hamstrung by the government's meddling. They should have said "screw you CRA, we're getting into the construction business", but that's 20/20 hindsight for you.
But, as I already said in this thread, the CRA only applied to depository institutions. At least half of all subprime loans were originated by institutions outside the CRA's scope. Most people blame the rapid growth of these institutions, like Countrywide, Accredited, New Century, Ameriquest, etc. for the subprime crisis rather than the CRA directly.
And yes, the Clinton decision in 1995 was an amendment to the CRA, but bankers wanted that, because it allowed them to sell off those loans to Fannie and Freddie. What they didn't want was the additional requirement that came with it, the HOEPA amendment to Reg Z that put a cap on rates and fees for securitized loans and which required proof of the borrower's ability to repay.

That, and no one had a crystal ball. Too many people were too busy making a lot of money to pay attention to the unpleasant big picture. I know some VERY intelligent and successful people who refused to admit even the possibility of a housing bubble until it had already imploded. And even if they could see it, refusing to be cooperate and be competitive would have meant being forced out of business by other businesses that would.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
346
126
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Duwelon
It doesn't matter if it's a big company or a small company, because the source of the problem is government meddling in the private economy.

The reason these banks are failing is because the bleeding heart liberals had this brilliant idea of forcing them to give loans to unworthy borrowers. Well, guess what, now they default on their loans and you have that idiot pelosi saying "dont' look at us!". What a MORON.

Had capitalism been allowed to do it's thing without communist idiots in the left butting in we wouldn't be in this mess today.

Liberals are so damn economically stupid it's horrifying. They have all these awesome ideas about giving OTHER PEOPLE's money away that always turn out burning everyone in the end.
The irony of you saying democrats are ignorant. Why don't you go learn the basic about which party the economy does far better under? You're not even a good parrot.
Why don't you respond to what I wrote instead of spouting off random BS, just to say that you replied?
You posted your crap ideological broadside against liberals, and then say that?

My post wasn't random BS, it was about random BS - your random BS, in particular.

My post pointed you to the sort of facts it's obvious you avoid - you say something about liberals, go compare Democratic and Republicas administrations' economies.

What it shows, I'll spoil the ending since you are not about to see the movie, is across the board better performance in all the key benchmarks, for Democrats.

Want to know who's giving away other people's money? Ask who has led the policies that for the first time in our nation's history have led to 30 years of the bottom 80% of Americans not sharing in the economic growth of the nation, while the growth goes right to the very top, and our concentration of wealth is as its highest point since the great depression.

The policies of 'wealth to the top from everyone else' hidden by the lie that the policies are good for the nation overall, in order to get the public not to oppose them.

You are not even a good parrot, as I said, as you do a half-assed spewing of propaganda, but not too well repeated. Oh, wah, those liberals giving away other people's money.

Except that the liberals are actually the only ones pushing policies to enrish the overall nation, with a share for most or all.
 

TheDoc9

Senior member
May 26, 2006
264
0
0
Want to know who's giving away other people's money? Ask who has led the policies that for the first time in our nation's history have led to 30 years of the bottom 80% of Americans not sharing in the economic growth of the nation, while the growth goes right to the very top, and our concentration of wealth is as its highest point since the great depression.

The policies of 'wealth to the top from everyone else' hidden by the lie that the policies are good for the nation overall, in order to get the public not to oppose them.

You are not even a good parrot, as I said, as you do a half-assed spewing of propaganda, but not too well repeated. Oh, wah, those liberals giving away other people's money.

Except that the liberals are actually the only ones pushing policies to enrish the overall nation, with a share for most or all.

It's probably just human greed on both sides. The elite of both dems and repubs in combination with the greed of the banking system has caused this.

The banks wanted these high risk loans because they knew they'd be able to take back the property that they financed for much less. Banks don't need to recover the entire loan, only one tenth of it under current law to break even. Then they get the property as well. If you'll notice, only the bigger banks and the government itself is swallowing up these smaller banks and funds companies.

In the case of the war the banks know that lending mass amounts of money will only help them make money off interest. Taxpayers are the collateral that has been used to secure this debt.

If and when they choose, the next step is for the central banks to contract the money supply. By how much is the key here.

The truth is that larger more centralized banking is what's going to occur here, not smaller. Just my opinion and I don't have much experience with these things, watched the money masters a few weeks ago and it was very eye opening.
 

GTKeeper

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2005
1,118
0
0
Originally posted by: Duwelon
It doesn't matter if it's a big company or a small company, because the source of the problem is government meddling in the private economy.

The reason these banks are failing is because the bleeding heart liberals had this brilliant idea of forcing them to give loans to unworthy borrowers. Well, guess what, now they default on their loans and you have that idiot pelosi saying "dont' look at us!". What a MORON.

Had capitalism been allowed to do it's thing without communist idiots in the left butting in we wouldn't be in this mess today.

Liberals are so damn economically stupid it's horrifying. They have all these awesome ideas about giving OTHER PEOPLE's money away that always turn out burning everyone in the end.
You are wrong.

No one forced banks to give loans to anyone. They devised the whole CDO / CDS mechanism.

If I know you won't pay me back money I loan you, I shouldn't loan it to you should I?
 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,466
1
76
Competition brings innovation and creativity

lack of which brings complacency and stagnation.

These companies got to big and lacked the means and desire to stay profitable
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,062
1
0
Originally posted by: Duwelon
It doesn't matter if it's a big company or a small company, because the source of the problem is government meddling in the private economy.
the government created the 'private economy' as you know it. Furthermore, governemnt in this case was not the problem.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,062
1
0
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: boomerang
A lot of these threads here serve to remind me why Congress has so much trouble accomplishing anything. Every issue degrades down to partisanship and name-calling.

Edit: spelling
Well, in the case of Duwelon, he's anti-evolution, anti-abortion and a creationist, i think that speaks for itself.

He seems to treat politics in the same way he treats his faith, damned be the facts and reality.

Personally, i'm British so i don't have a stake in this election, it's just my observation.
You're a hateful bigot who has absolutely nothing to add to this thread what so ever.
quoting irony
 

ModerateRepZero

Golden Member
Jan 12, 2006
1,573
5
81
I would say yes; it becomes harder both to advocate a free-market economy and also for such an economic system to work if we continue to bailout and/or allow big mergers to form. It's hard to say though, how much "better off", if any, the system would be if we simply allowed them to go kaput.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY