kuzi16:

laker1963:

I have only heard you and Kuzi blaming the government for the banks and their loose lending policies.

how about this:
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5503
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5487
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10074
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj29n1/cj29n1-8.pdf
http://www.openmarket.org/2009/10/23/the-solution-to-the-government-caused-housing-crisis-more-government/
http://moneyning.com/housing/government-regulation-in-the-housing-and-financial-crisis/


that was just a VERY quick search using Yahoo! and a quick search on sites i think are interesting. if you would like to read more i would be willing to look up more for you. there are people talking about it other than me and puro.

laker1963:

The arguement that the banks were FORCED to make bad investents is just silly. But that is just my opinion.

i agree. it is silly. the government set up the regulations to make it very easy to get a loan even if you couldnt afford it or it was questionable to get one. then, the FDIC and other government agencies took the risk out of making those loans by insuring them. the lending companies went out and made loans with no risk because the government would take care of them and buy them up. ... and they did. this made money for them and they wouldnt have concequences. this was unsustainable, at some point people need to get paid. the bubble burst.
again, when you regulate the risk out of investment, no good can come from it. it will always bite you in the ass.
if the government regulation wasnt there, the loans probably would not have been made because there was too much risk to their own money. it is easy to risk other peoples money. and thats what they were doing.
i hope my wording was correct. did that make any sense?

I am going to spend some time reading your links, and will comment later Kuzi.

---

laker1963:

kuzi16:

laker1963:

I have only heard you and Kuzi blaming the government for the banks and their loose lending policies.

how about this:
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5503
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5487
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10074
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj29n1/cj29n1-8.pdf
http://www.openmarket.org/2009/10/23/the-solution-to-the-government-caused-housing-crisis-more-government/
http://moneyning.com/housing/government-regulation-in-the-housing-and-financial-crisis/


that was just a VERY quick search using Yahoo! and a quick search on sites i think are interesting. if you would like to read more i would be willing to look up more for you. there are people talking about it other than me and puro.

laker1963:

The arguement that the banks were FORCED to make bad investents is just silly. But that is just my opinion.

i agree. it is silly. the government set up the regulations to make it very easy to get a loan even if you couldnt afford it or it was questionable to get one. then, the FDIC and other government agencies took the risk out of making those loans by insuring them. the lending companies went out and made loans with no risk because the government would take care of them and buy them up. ... and they did. this made money for them and they wouldnt have concequences. this was unsustainable, at some point people need to get paid. the bubble burst.
again, when you regulate the risk out of investment, no good can come from it. it will always bite you in the ass.
if the government regulation wasnt there, the loans probably would not have been made because there was too much risk to their own money. it is easy to risk other peoples money. and thats what they were doing.
i hope my wording was correct. did that make any sense?

I am going to spend some time reading your links, and will comment later Kuzi.

Hey doug, your wasting your time here. You really are.

---

FAV. Smokes are in my Profile....Reviews

phobicsquirrel:

laker1963:

kuzi16:

laker1963:

I have only heard you and Kuzi blaming the government for the banks and their loose lending policies.

how about this:
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5503
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5487
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10074
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj29n1/cj29n1-8.pdf
http://www.openmarket.org/2009/10/23/the-solution-to-the-government-caused-housing-crisis-more-government/
http://moneyning.com/housing/government-regulation-in-the-housing-and-financial-crisis/


that was just a VERY quick search using Yahoo! and a quick search on sites i think are interesting. if you would like to read more i would be willing to look up more for you. there are people talking about it other than me and puro.

laker1963:

The arguement that the banks were FORCED to make bad investents is just silly. But that is just my opinion.

i agree. it is silly. the government set up the regulations to make it very easy to get a loan even if you couldnt afford it or it was questionable to get one. then, the FDIC and other government agencies took the risk out of making those loans by insuring them. the lending companies went out and made loans with no risk because the government would take care of them and buy them up. ... and they did. this made money for them and they wouldnt have concequences. this was unsustainable, at some point people need to get paid. the bubble burst.
again, when you regulate the risk out of investment, no good can come from it. it will always bite you in the ass.
if the government regulation wasnt there, the loans probably would not have been made because there was too much risk to their own money. it is easy to risk other peoples money. and thats what they were doing.
i hope my wording was correct. did that make any sense?

I am going to spend some time reading your links, and will comment later Kuzi.

Hey doug, your wasting your time here. You really are.

im glad you take the time to look at all opinions phobic. there is some info here that you may not want to miss. who knows, if you open your mind, you may learn something. i have linked to economists, news sources, and different think tanks. there are some well thought out arguments in there. many (if not all) are well documented.
if you have a counter argument, then please feel free to present it, but dont just brush these links and my thoughts aside as worthless simply because you do not agree with them.

laker, thank you for taking the time to read them and put thought to them as to formulate a counter argument. debate and discussion is always a good thing, even if you dont agree with the other person and never will. also, thank you for taking it seriously and leaving name calling out of it. this is exactly the type of conversation people need to have.
i want you to know that i dont think you are stupid. I dont want you to think that i think you dont care about people. I know you do. i know you are passionate about subjects. I am as well.

---

Kuzi's cigar catalog blending 101 developing your palate

kuzi16:

phobicsquirrel:

laker1963:

kuzi16:

laker1963:

I have only heard you and Kuzi blaming the government for the banks and their loose lending policies.

how about this:
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5503
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5487
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10074
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj29n1/cj29n1-8.pdf
http://www.openmarket.org/2009/10/23/the-solution-to-the-government-caused-housing-crisis-more-government/
http://moneyning.com/housing/government-regulation-in-the-housing-and-financial-crisis/


that was just a VERY quick search using Yahoo! and a quick search on sites i think are interesting. if you would like to read more i would be willing to look up more for you. there are people talking about it other than me and puro.

laker1963:

The arguement that the banks were FORCED to make bad investents is just silly. But that is just my opinion.

i agree. it is silly. the government set up the regulations to make it very easy to get a loan even if you couldnt afford it or it was questionable to get one. then, the FDIC and other government agencies took the risk out of making those loans by insuring them. the lending companies went out and made loans with no risk because the government would take care of them and buy them up. ... and they did. this made money for them and they wouldnt have concequences. this was unsustainable, at some point people need to get paid. the bubble burst.
again, when you regulate the risk out of investment, no good can come from it. it will always bite you in the ass.
if the government regulation wasnt there, the loans probably would not have been made because there was too much risk to their own money. it is easy to risk other peoples money. and thats what they were doing.
i hope my wording was correct. did that make any sense?

I am going to spend some time reading your links, and will comment later Kuzi.

Hey doug, your wasting your time here. You really are.

im glad you take the time to look at all opinions phobic. there is some info here that you may not want to miss. who knows, if you open your mind, you may learn something. i have linked to economists, news sources, and different think tanks. there are some well thought out arguments in there. many (if not all) are well documented.
if you have a counter argument, then please feel free to present it, but dont just brush these links and my thoughts aside as worthless simply because you do not agree with them.

laker, thank you for taking the time to read them and put thought to them as to formulate a counter argument. debate and discussion is always a good thing, even if you dont agree with the other person and never will. also, thank you for taking it seriously and leaving name calling out of it. this is exactly the type of conversation people need to have.
i want you to know that i dont think you are stupid. I dont want you to think that i think you dont care about people. I know you do. i know you are passionate about subjects. I am as well.

I've done my share of posting links kuzi. Doesn't do any good. I just see the same circles around and around. Fact is if letting business's do things their way and without any oversight then greed is ultimately taking over. That's what has happened with this current crisis, and even after the bailouts (which I do agree with you shouldn't have been done) wall street and banks are doing the same type of things or at least trying too. I do agree that too much control is bad but with the way the current system is, checks and balances need to be done.

---

FAV. Smokes are in my Profile....Reviews

phobicsquirrel:

I've done my share of posting links kuzi. Doesn't do any good. I just see the same circles around and around.

your posts always are people that agree with you but no actual documentation on how everyone got so greedy all of a sudden. It is easy to blame "greed" when there is far more to this complex system than that.

phobicsquirrel:

Fact is if letting business's do things their way and without any oversight then greed is ultimately taking over. That's what has happened with this current crisis, and even after the bailouts (which I do agree with you shouldn't have been done) wall street and banks are doing the same type of things or at least trying too. I do agree that too much control is bad but with the way the current system is, checks and balances need to be done.

in a free market the checks and balances are risk. the government took away the risk and that let the greed to seep in. (when you arent risking your money, because the government will bail you out, who cares?) please, PLEASE, take the time to read the links before you comment. if you look at what i have been saying all along, greed did play a roll. the government let the greed happen by regulating out the risk that would have kept people from making the loans in the first place. your entire argument is that the system was not regulated when in fact it was regulated. HIGHLY regulated. the last few sets of links point that out in a very well documented way, but you refuse to even look at them or even pay any attention to what i am saying.

---

Kuzi's cigar catalog blending 101 developing your palate

kuzi16:

phobicsquirrel:

I've done my share of posting links kuzi. Doesn't do any good. I just see the same circles around and around.

your posts always are people that agree with you but no actual documentation on how everyone got so greedy all of a sudden. It is easy to blame "greed" when there is far more to this complex system than that.

phobicsquirrel:

Fact is if letting business's do things their way and without any oversight then greed is ultimately taking over. That's what has happened with this current crisis, and even after the bailouts (which I do agree with you shouldn't have been done) wall street and banks are doing the same type of things or at least trying too. I do agree that too much control is bad but with the way the current system is, checks and balances need to be done.

in a free market the checks and balances are risk. the government took away the risk and that let the greed to seep in. (when you arent risking your money, because the government will bail you out, who cares?) please, PLEASE, take the time to read the links before you comment. if you look at what i have been saying all along, greed did play a roll. the government let the greed happen by regulating out the risk that would have kept people from making the loans in the first place. your entire argument is that the system was not regulated when in fact it was regulated. HIGHLY regulated. the last few sets of links point that out in a very well documented way, but you refuse to even look at them or even pay any attention to what i am saying.

You always assume I don't read links, I do. There has been massive de-regulation done, but I do agree that the government has played a role in the current crisis, failed economic policies done by reagan, bush, clinton, and bush W. Wallstreet has been making money on massive speculations which is not investing, it's moving money around that doesn't even exist. One way you can see de-regulation is how monopolies are once again plaguing the US markets, all the mergers and buyouts of large companies. Even during the bailouts, they gobbled each other out. And yes, govt did play a role. Look at who has been in office and in key positions. Even now there are wall street thugs in the economic team that advises the president. one of my own congressmen have started to probe guitner on his policies and many democrats are moving to remove him and sommers.

---

FAV. Smokes are in my Profile....Reviews

phobicsquirrel:

There has been massive de-regulation done,

you keep saying this but have not shown what exactly was deregulated. what regulations were lifted? what legislation was passed that constitutes deregulation?
i have posted many MANY links that show the exact opposite. I have listed policies, regulations, government regulating agencies and how they work and how all those things came together to regulate risk out of the housing market.
how do you expect me to believe that there was deregulation when you never show me what was deregulated?
"look around" is not proof. I did look around. i looked long and hard and i came up with many economists that support what i am saying.

please tell me what specifically was deregulated so i can take your argument more seriously.

---

Kuzi's cigar catalog blending 101 developing your palate

and what monopolies do we have today?

---

Kuzi's cigar catalog blending 101 developing your palate

kuzi16:

and what monopolies do we have today?

Depends on the type of monopolies you are talking about. If it's the Standard Oil type or the Microsoft of last decade, then we don't have too many around.

However, there are geographic monopolies everywhere, the last stop gas stations in the middle of a remote location with no other gas stations for 50 miles has a monopoly on gas. For instance, you will find burger joints everywhere, but there probably is going to only be one restaurant serving Indian or African food in a town.

---

brsmith21:

I've heard the first step is admitting that you have a problem. Thankfully, I don't have a problem. I'll just smoke more.

kuzi16:

and what monopolies do we have today?

This is the point I was going to make. Name ONE monopoly we have today. And the monopolies we are referring to are nationwide and that have a major impact on our economy. Microsoft is a huge corporation, but is NOT a monopoly, neither are oil companies because guess what, there are several of them. Mono= ONE.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/reglisting.htm

Now take a look at this and tell me what has been deregulated in the banking industry. Also along with Banking, tell me where the auto industry was deregulated since according to you that is the cause of the economic melt down. I'm very curious what regulations were done away with to make you think deregulation occurred.

---

Jason
You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

PuroFreak:

kuzi16:

and what monopolies do we have today?

This is the point I was going to make. Name ONE monopoly we have today. And the monopolies we are referring to are nationwide and that have a major impact on our economy. Microsoft is a huge corporation, but is NOT a monopoly, neither are oil companies because guess what, there are several of them. Mono= ONE.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/reglisting.htm

Now take a look at this and tell me what has been deregulated in the banking industry. Also along with Banking, tell me where the auto industry was deregulated since according to you that is the cause of the economic melt down. I'm very curious what regulations were done away with to make you think deregulation occurred.

I'm not going to do all the leg work for you people. There was a woman in one of my economic classes that did a report on this very thing and had a very detailed presentation on it but I'm not going to put that effort into this for the sake of this debate. If you want go watch the roger more movie capitalism a love story, in that film he does a great job on covering this very thing, and lists many bills and laws that did this very thing. Frankly I've already put up many links on things, most recently healthcare and it just gets passed over. Monopolies, well let's see, we have a few major corporations that own most media networks, Microsoft is one, well almost anyway, though let's see any small company start up, as soon as it's a threat they will be bought out, there have been a lot of small business's that have developed water/battery cars that have been displaced (not really sure on what industry did though) the oil industry, pharmaceutical industry. Even if they aren't true monopolies, they have so much money, so much lobbying power that really they have full control. Look at how much the oil industry has pushed against any type of new tech being implemented for clean energy and losing dependence on Oil? Battery technology for cars has been around for years even decades, using water power to fuel a car has been tested, solar power, but all have been suppressed. Maybe using the term monopoly was a bad choice to use, but either way the power and money these few companies have make them very powerful. The health insurance industry is a great example, there are a handful of large ones (maybe 3 or 4) that run the entire show and they break up areas to maximize profits. Sure they're are smaller ones but they offer even worse coverage than the large few. That by itself isn't a true monopoly but it acts like one.

---

FAV. Smokes are in my Profile....Reviews

you didnt name a single monopoly.

---

Kuzi's cigar catalog blending 101 developing your palate

kuzi16:

please tell me what specifically was deregulated so i can take your argument more seriously.

phobicsquirrel:

I'm not going to do all the leg work for you people.

....ok. Ill do it.


i think that the article that i could find that most supports you claim of deregulation is THIS one.
written by Shah Gilani

however, the more i go over it (and i have read it a few times) it actually supports what i have been saying a bit as well. ( not completely) The most compelling argument in this article that deregulation caused this mess was this bit here:

Shah Gilani:

The ultimate prize was to be the undoing of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. Glass-Steagall, officially known as the Banking Act of 1933, mandated the separation of banks according to the types of business they conducted. Investment banks, whose securities related activities resulted in relatively large risks, were to be separate from commercial banks, whose depositors needed greater protection. The Act created deposit insurance and the government wasn’t about to allow taxpayer-backed insurance of commercial bank deposits to be exposed to securities related risks.

so i decided to read up a bit more on the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933.
where did i look first?
the link that was on the page the above quote came from. LINK
i emboldened the words in the quote where the link was located

when you follow that link it gives a summery of the act along with a bit of back ground. in that link the following could be found:

"The GSA, however, was considered harsh by most in the financial community, and it was reported that even Glass himself moved to repeal the GSA shortly after it was passed, claiming it was an overreaction to the crisis."

and

"The limitations of the GSA on the banking sector sparked a debate over how much restriction is healthy for the industry. Many argued that allowing banks to diversify in moderation offers the banking industry the potential to reduce risk, so the restrictions of the GSA could have actually had an adverse effect, making the banking industry riskier rather than safer."

and

"Although the barrier between commercial and investment banking aimed to prevent a loss of deposits in the event of investment failures, the reasons for the repeal of the GSA and the establishment of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act show that even regulatory attempts for safety can have adverse effects."


there were other notables in the Shah Gilani article.
such as this one:

Shah Gilani:

The Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980, signed into law by President Jimmy Carter, was the first major reform of the U.S. banking system since the Great Depression....

she then goes on to list a few of the things this bill did.
one thing in particular i found interesting:
Increased Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) coverage from $40,000 to $100,000.
again this is a reduction of risk.

one of the things that she didnt mention that this "deregulation act" forced all banks to abide by the Fed's rules.


back to the areticle...

Shah Gilani:

Treasury Secretary Regan ushered through the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act.

the full title of this bill was
"Garn–St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982. An Act to revitalize the housing industry by strengthening the financial stability of home mortgage lending institutions and ensuring the availability of home mortgage loans."

if you have been reading what i have been saying in the past, you will see that this was a regulatory act designed to make loans more available to more people.


Gilani also goes on to talk about the rise of the subprime lending including the quote:
"If helping struggling borrowers pursue their homeownership dreams was such a noble cause, it might have been incumbent upon the senator to not block legislation advocating the curtailment of predatory lending practices."

my question is how does one practice "predatory lending?"
my only guess is that the borrower would not be told about the way the loans work, or lied to about how they work. . this is in fact a violation of rights (fraud, theft ) there are laws that say a lender must disclose all terms of the loan.

but beyond that, it is the responsibility of the borrower to ask. it reminds me of the saying "buyer beware."
so to qualify as "predatory" one must actively conceal the terms of the loan. again, this means that those who didnt reveal the terms were violating rights, and those who did were not violating rights. the "deregulation" that allowed ARMs and interest only loans was not to blame, but rather the bank violating rights or the borrower being uninformed.

---

Kuzi's cigar catalog blending 101 developing your palate

and in contrast to all that "deregulation" mentioned in the article in my post above, here is a list of acts that regulated more enacted during the same time period (all making it easier to get a loan when you normally wouldnt be able to in a free market):
Fair Housing Act (1968)
the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (1974)
the Community Reinvestment Act (1977)
the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (1975)
the National Affordable Housing Act (1990)
the Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act (1994)
the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (1994)
the American Dream Down Payment Act (2003)

how about a list of the regulatory agencies?
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
the Federal Housing Finance Board (FHFB)
the Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB)
the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO)

---

Kuzi's cigar catalog blending 101 developing your palate

once again your right.

---

FAV. Smokes are in my Profile....Reviews