Romney doing well

[Archaea]

You are being a bit simplistic, and the correlated factors of the crisis are complex.

Yes the CRA as enforced by Clinton, as well as the loosening of lending standards, contributed.

Government's reaction to the crisis was wrong-headed, and it's no surprise because those in charge were the ones who created the problem.

The reaction of encouraging and funding foreclosures was wrong. Both Bush as initiated, and Obama and re-organized got it entirely wrong.

I can see it in the trenches. The assumption that bailing out the banks was necessary is wrong.

The assumption that allowing and encouraging them to foreclose is wrong.

The HAMP program is a joke.

There is absolutely nothing they did which stabilized anything. I am certain some banking executives, with fat profit margins, can put together a policy paper that shows how important it was for the reaction government gave.

Your basic assumptions are wrong. I see both the financial industry and government as the problem.

The problem arose by virtue of those creating the risk bore no relation to the risk.

Loans are generated by servicers or originators. They were paid a commission irrespective if the loans were collectible. The bigger the loans, the bigger the commissions, irrespective of the grade of the loans. These loans were bundled and fraudulently rated by the compromised rating agencies.

The investments into the investment trusts were often fraudulently transferred into multiple tranches showing over-funding of the investment trusts.

Hedges were done against these trusts so that the investment bankers could prosper no matter what when these became uncollectible.

So once the collapses became inevitable, the banks run to government for bailouts and to reward the banks by foreclosing, collapsing the market further.

Your answer and those of your ilk, "add more regulations and surely the wise regulators would have prevented this." Bullshit. Regulators are bought off by the large financial institutions all the time.

Don't mix insurance with banks. Don't mix commercial lending with investment lending. We hear it all the time. Government is not the answer.

However the response to the crisis is predictable but wrong-headed because you invited the people creating the problem to fix it. They only think about themselves and care nothing about the general economy.

[ute4ever]

Alright you two, this is nothing that a beer at the White House can't resolve.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

You are being a bit simplistic, and the correlated factors of the crisis are complex.

Yes the CRA as enforced by Clinton, as well as the loosening of lending standards, contributed.

Government's reaction to the crisis was wrong-headed, and it's no surprise because those in charge were the ones who created the problem.

The reaction of encouraging and funding foreclosures was wrong. Both Bush as initiated, and Obama and re-organized got it entirely wrong.

I can see it in the trenches. The assumption that bailing out the banks was necessary is wrong.

The assumption that allowing and encouraging them to foreclose is wrong.

The HAMP program is a joke.

There is absolutely nothing they did which stabilized anything. I am certain some banking executives, with fat profit margins, can put together a policy paper that shows how important it was for the reaction government gave.

Your basic assumptions are wrong. I see both the financial industry and government as the problem.

The problem arose by virtue of those creating the risk bore no relation to the risk.

Loans are generated by servicers or originators. They were paid a commission irrespective if the loans were collectible. The bigger the loans, the bigger the commissions, irrespective of the grade of the loans. These loans were bundled and fraudulently rated by the compromised rating agencies.

The investments into the investment trusts were often fraudulently transferred into multiple tranches showing over-funding of the investment trusts.

Hedges were done against these trusts so that the investment bankers could prosper no matter what when these became uncollectible.

So once the collapses became inevitable, the banks run to government for bailouts and to reward the banks by foreclosing, collapsing the market further.

Your answer and those of your ilk, "add more regulations and surely the wise regulators would have prevented this." Bullshit. Regulators are bought off by the large financial institutions all the time.

Don't mix insurance with banks. Don't mix commercial lending with investment lending. We hear it all the time. Government is not the answer.

However the response to the crisis is predictable but wrong-headed because you invited the people creating the problem to fix it. They only think about themselves and care nothing about the general economy.

Again not sure I follow you. Once again, instead of saying why the response was unacceptable you focus on the reasons that you think the crisis began. Those are two totally different issues.

As for your responses on the causes you think led to the crisis, I'm confused. You don't want regulations and believe regulators are "bought off." Okay, then what? You are upset that banks and others entered into hedging transactions. You don't like that the investment banks mixed with traditional banks. You don't like that loan originators were paid a commission even if the loan eventually went south. So what's your answer? Those are all market mechanisms, created by the market, demanded by the market, profitable because of the market. One of those (the combination of investment banks and traditional banks) didn't exist until about a decade ago BECAUSE of regulations and laws. That is, in fact, the only way to ensure they don't blend again. But you don't want regulations or laws.

Once again, realizing that this is a separate discussion from what you began with, what in the world do you propose?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Again not sure I follow you. Once again, instead of saying why the response was unacceptable you focus on the reasons that you think the crisis began. Those are two totally different issues.

As for your responses on the causes you think led to the crisis, I'm confused. You don't want regulations and believe regulators are "bought off." Okay, then what? You are upset that banks and others entered into hedging transactions. You don't like that the investment banks mixed with traditional banks. You don't like that loan originators were paid a commission even if the loan eventually went south. So what's your answer? Those are all market mechanisms, created by the market, demanded by the market, profitable because of the market. One of those (the combination of investment banks and traditional banks) didn't exist until about a decade ago BECAUSE of regulations and laws. That is, in fact, the only way to ensure they don't blend again. But you don't want regulations or laws.

Once again, realizing that this is a separate discussion from what you began with, what in the world do you propose?

No, I was parroting what those of your ilk claim as the problem, not stating what I believe.

Now, it's a royal clusterf.... There may be no workable solutions, but in some ways we need to use what few laws we have to prosecute the bastards that profited from the mess to exact social vengeance.

We need to find a way to give back the foreclosed homes and take them away from the banking industry. Compulsory principal reduction is necessary not allowing investors to reshuffle the profits. My current solution is not a conservative one. The process of real estate price stabilization is years ahead under the current method.

We need to return to the Chicago theory of financial valuation of real property and to turn away from valuations that rely upon the ability to finance.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

No, I was parroting what those of your ilk claim as the problem, not stating what I believe.

Now, it's a royal clusterf.... There may be no workable solutions, but in some ways we need to use what few laws we have to prosecute the bastards that profited from the mess to exact social vengeance.

We need to find a way to give back the foreclosed homes and take them away from the banking industry. Compulsory principal reduction is necessary not allowing investors to reshuffle the profits. My current solution is not a conservative one. The process of real estate price stabilization is years ahead under the current method.

We need to return to the Chicago theory of financial valuation of real property and to turn away from valuations that rely upon the ability to finance.

I don't agree with you at all, but I'm more confused than ever as to how you propose doing any of that without laws and regulations...

I think we're talking past each other here. Take the last word.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

Alright you two, this is nothing that a beer at the White House can't resolve.

: )

[Archaea]

We need to think outside the box.

Here is Ron Paul's solution on the debt ceiling, which just might work..

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/...ederal-reserve

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I don't agree with you at all, but I'm more confused than ever as to how you propose doing any of that without laws and regulations...

I think we're talking past each other here. Take the last word.

You're hearing what you want to hear, and not listening. My solutions are not typical, yet based upon an understanding of the system at hand. You listen to your policy wonks, and read papers against your opposition. I understand the traditional arguments you're making, but my arguments don't involve the two of you. Because you don't understand how we got here, you can't understand the solution.

You see the problem as not enough regulation. I see the origin of the problem as not enough transparency, not a lack of inefficient regulation. (regulation is almost always inefficient).

[ute4ever]

LOL

Wall Street Journal: Romney Should Be Obama's Running Mate

The Wall Street Journal today dealt a crushing blow to Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign saying he would be better running as Barack Obama’s running mate rather than as a Republican.

In a devastating editorial, the Journal called Romney “a politician who still doesn’t seem to understand how government works,” and said “his highest principle seems to be faith in his own expertise.”

....

[Tex]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

LOL

Wall Street Journal: Romney Should Be Obama's Running Mate

Funny that you should post this months-old link just days after a new (left leaning) PPP poll shows Romney and Obama neck-and-neck at 45s, and Obama losing independents 44/49.

Maybe around Thanksgiving you can post some links about the women losing the World Cup.

Heh.