HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

Had the banks not been convinced that they would not lose money on bad loans, that is, that the government would buy them up, they would never have made the bad loans they did. Sure, why not make a bad loan if you are sure you are going to get paid, regardless if the creditor is solvent?

Get real. Banks want to make money. They don't do that by making bad loans unless a third party, which, in this case, was the government, guarantees payment.

So, we want government regulation telling banks to not make bad loans, unless the government wants them to? That's your regulation? Why not let banks decide who to loan to or not, based on the individual creditor's creditworthiness, rather than a government guarantee. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I think you're talking about those nasty Credit Default Swaps. What a financial disaster.

You are on the wrong site SickO. I ain't your pal (butt fuckin friend). Snakes in ass. You are SICK. WELCOME back. When did you get out of the mental hospital? Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

pal ... professional ass licker.

cable box took a shit ... like marshalls brain cell

So, we want government regulation telling banks to not make bad loans, unless the government wants them to? That's your regulation? Why not let banks decide who to loan to or not, based on the individual creditor's creditworthiness, rather than a government guarantee. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Total BS.

http://www.wrightrealtors.com/home/subprime.htm

pal ... professional ass licker.

cable box took a shit ... like marshalls brain cell Originally Posted by CJ7

Well you ain't licking my ass. You sick FUCK... get the fuck out of here...

Well you ain't licking my ass. You sick FUCK... get the fuck out of here... Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

He must be gay as they do that sort of thing.

Total BS.

http://www.wrightrealtors.com/home/subprime.htm Originally Posted by WTF

Do you even read what the fuc* you post?

Do you even read what the fuc* you post?

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Yes I do. And I know from which the moral hazard sprang. In economic theory, a moral hazard is a situation where there is a tendency to take undue risks because the costs are not borne by the party taking the risk.

1)The Fed with its stupidly low interest rate

2) AIG with it insuring the brunt of the toxic waste.

So as I said earlier, the repeal of G/S was in and of itself not the reason. (Though I lean to the side that says it was crazy dumb thing to do) . It was not until these investment banks found someone to insure all this funny paper (AIG) that the bubble started to blow up. That was in 2003/4/5. When the overflow to the bathtub was plugged.

Causes

The crisis can be attributed to a number of factors pervasive in both housing and credit markets, factors which emerged over a number of years. Causes proposed include the inability of homeowners to make their mortgage payments, due primarily to adjustable rate mortgages resetting, borrowers overextending, predatory lending, speculation and overbuilding during the boom period, risky mortgage products, high personal and corporate debt levels, financial products that distributed and perhaps concealed the risk of mortgage default, monetary policy, international trade imbalances, and government regulation (or the lack thereof). Two important catalysts of the subprime crisis were the influx of moneys from the private sector and banks entering into the mortgage bond market and the predatory lending practices of mortgage brokers, specifically the adjustable rate mortgage, 2-28 loan. Ultimately, though, specific to the bailout of Wall Street and the financial industry moral hazard lay at the core of many of the causes.

Get real. Banks want to make money. They don't do that by making bad loans unless a third party, which, in this case, was the government, guarantees payment.

. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

So wtf you are saying is that the government had to go in a bail out AIG because the government insured these instruments?

That is a lie. There would have been no need of a bailout if the government had previously insured them.

No there were two people at AIG that took the company's assetsand put them at risk. Neither is in jail , in fact they both made over 300 million of which nothing has been done. WE had to bail a company out with over 200 billion dollars all because a couple of guys wanted to pocket 600 million. Nothing has been done to these asshole's and that is the true moral hazzard.

And where was the federal oversight on the credit rating agencies that was required on all the bad assets?

Answer : asleep at the wheel.

And where was the federal oversight on the credit rating agencies that was required on all the bad assets?

Answer : asleep at the wheel. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

And where was the federal oversight on the credit rating agencies that was required on all the bad assets?

Answer : asleep at the wheel. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Again, you are selectively inconsistent. You bash the feds for not poking their nose in to this issue, but you vehemently oppose fed involvement other places (education, health care, etc.) That is selective hypocracy.

It should hardly ever be an issue of all or nothing, but of how much.

Somehow I have a distinct impression that if we had a different administration your tune would change. And before you pull out that "Liberal Lover" garbage, I hold the liberals equally guilty when it's a Republican in office.

Your a dumb one Old T: I oppose the expansion of government because it is so inept at what it is suppose to do. And the lack of oversight by the SEC and others is a perferct example. The SEC (and others) failed and what is the typical WAshington response? Dodd Frank. There is no proof that Dodd Frank will solve any of the underlying problems of a Government that is so big, so corrupt, so politicized, that it is dysfunctional.

What cororate America fears is SOB lawyer with a good case and a determined client. Not a government regulator. Empower consumers, not government regulators!

Why do you continue to think bigger is better (fed. government) when history says otherwise is beyond me. Some say that is the definition of insanity.

Your a dumb one Old T: I oppose the expansion of government because it is so inept at what it is suppose to do. And the lack of oversight by the SEC and others is a perferct example. . Originally Posted by Whirlaway

If you were robbed in your neighborhood and no cops were there to help you because the robber convinced the cop that he would not rob you, would you only blame the ignorant ass cop?

Would you then say fire all cops?

...Or would you want more competent cops?

You are worshipping at the feet of the robber barons.

If you were robbed in your neighborhood and no cops were there to help you because the robber convinced the cop that he would not rob you, would you only blame the ignorant ass cop?

Would you then say fire all cops?

...Or would you want more competent cops?

You are worshipping at the feet of the robber barons. Originally Posted by WTF

His response would likely depend upon whether the cop and/or the robber were democrats. Always blame the democrats; in the absence of dems, blame the most liberal republican. You don't have to know the issue, that is immaterial.

Understand now?

Why is it every Liberal thinks the only solutions are in bigger government, more complex laws, more regulations, more taxes?

It's funny; your example is exactly the problem. You have the cops showing up AFTER the crime !

Here is a novel approach. How about having a regulatory structure that isn't looking in the rearview mirror - which Dodd Frank is.

Serious strucutral reforms are required if we are to stop more financial messes. How do you think Madoff got away with his scams for so many years? It isn't because there weren't enough cops on the beat.

Dodd Frank and the rest of the regulatory changes on Wall Street are meaningless. Why? because regulation is little more than the perps writing checks out to to the Government and passing the cost on to the shareholders.

The regulators who were responsible for oversight are not held accountable. We know Madoff and his cronies were. But somehow you think Dodd Frank changes that paradigm. Your living in a fools world.

All these regulatory reforms are fighting yestreday's battles.

The next Madoff/AIG/Lehman is around the corner, and the regulators (and thier political enablers) will still be sleeping. Fat, happy and secure in knowing they will never be held accountable.

So the regulators should be held accountable but the swindlers in the companies should not be?

And just how many regulators are you willing to hire to be pro-active as you suggest--a more labor intensive task that reacting (notice: I am not saying "reactive regulation" is better, just that it takes less people therefore less "government").

And while we are at it, why don't you describe this "smaller government but more proactive regulation" think to me. I'm getting very confused with "small" and "more".

Face it, you have been caught in a contradiction and you are squirming.