Thread for orphaned comments
invite response
2005 Apr 11, 5:00pm 184,714 views 117,730 comments
by Patrick ➕follow (60) 💰tip ignore
« First « Previous Comments 42,171 - 42,210 of 117,730 Next » Last » Search these comments
Who was the President of the US when the Depository Institutions Deregulation
and Monetary Control Act was passed and signed into law on March 31, 1980?
.
. .
. . .
. . .
Jimmy Carter!
Nice try. What did that have to do with deregulation of S&Ls?
Or check out:
The Garn–St Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982
People starve when you forcibly keep un-deserving businesses in business. The fat cats live at the expenses of the rest of the people. In other words, ideologues like you are perpetrating the looting and famine.
lol--when did I ever state that I'm in favor of forciby keeping undeserving businesses in business? I most definitely am not. I hated the bailouts. Or more appropriately--I hated that the bailouts were necessary.
There you just exposed your lie. By insisting that bailouts were necessary, you favored baiouts, which is precisely forcibly keeping undeserving bussinesses in business.
But I'm not naive enough to believe that's why people starve. I know you love free markets but they do not optimize societal well-being.
Of course it is the reason why people are starving. Businesses are unable to hire because the overall debt burdens and tax burdens are too high. The government bailouts were what kept the bad debts alive, to be serviced by taxes.
People's liberty and freedom (that is what "free market" is) allow room for improvement by people continuing to live in and exercise liberty and freedom. The control freaks' advocated forcible "government solutions" would only make the situation worse.
Who was the President of the US when the Depository Institutions Deregulation
and Monetary Control Act was passed and signed into law on March 31, 1980?
.. .
. . .
. . .
Jimmy Carter!Nice try. What did that have to do with deregualtion of S&Ls?
Or check out:
The Garn–St Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982
The 1980 Depository Institutions Deregulation Act was the center piece of banking deregulation and how banking deregulation got underway. The 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" was only a minor adjustment.
tatupu70
2014 Feb 3, 4:45am
by what history? You are living through a classic period during which government intervention has been exacerbating the boom-bust:
History includes more than your lifetime.
tatupu70
2014 Feb 3, 4:49am
There you just exposed your lie. By insisting that bailouts were necessary, you favored baiouts, which is precisely forcibly keeping undeserving bussinesses in business.
My lie? It's not a lie to say I hate bailouts but I hate a second Great Depression worse. To imply otherwise shows your poor logic skills.
Businesses are unable to hire because the overall debt burdens and tax burdens are too high.
Hahahaha. So, businesses don't hire to meet their expected demand, they do so based on their tax burden? Mr. CEO says--hey, we don't owe as much taxes this year. Let's hire a few more people. Sure, we don't have anything for them to do, but we have all this money laying around! We have to hire them!
People's liberty and freedom (that is what "free market" is) allow room for improvement by people continuing to live in and exercise liberty and freedom. The control freaks' advocated forcible "government solutions" would only make the situation worse.
blah, blah, blah. That has nothing to do with the point at hand.
by what history? You are living through a classic period during which government intervention has been exacerbating the boom-bust:
History includes more than your lifetime.
Don't even get me started on history. I have forgot more history books than you have read in your life time. There is a however an important advantage that first-hand experience has over the typical 3rd-hand retelling in history books (for you, that would 4th- or 5th-hand retelling in high school history textbooks): cutting out the multiplicity of erroneous interpretations.
tatupu70
2014 Feb 3, 5:10am
I have forgot more history books than you have read in your life time.
lol--are we going to get into a dick waving contest??
There is a however an important advantage that first-hand experience has over the typical 3rd-hand retelling in history books (for you, that would 4th- or 5th-hand retelling in high school history textbooks): cutting out the multiplicity of erroneous interpretations.
Are you going to ever get to a point or are you just going to continue hurling meaningless insults? Your posts are getting more and more trollish...
My lie? It's not a lie to say I hate bailouts but I hate a second Great Depression worse. To imply otherwise shows your poor logic skills.
You prefer bailouts over letting free market eliminate the incompetents. That's what makes you favor bailouts (over free market cleansing). As for "second Great Depression," idiotic government internvention and bailouts are what's causing the 2nd Great Depression, just like they caused the 1st Great Depression!
Hahahaha. So, businesses don't hire to meet their expected demand, they do so based on their tax burden? Mr. CEO says--hey, we don't owe as much taxes this year. Let's hire a few more people. Sure, we don't have anything for them to do, but we have all this money laying around! We have to hire them!
Which part of after-tax profit entering into the business calculation don't you understand? Businesses are not only balking at hiring due to taxes and regulations, in case you didn't know, they are actively un-hiring existing employees due to taxes and regulations: e.g. the cut backs of hours and head counts due to Obamacare, which according to SCOTUS is a tax!
People's liberty and freedom (that is what "free market" is) allow room for improvement by people continuing to live in and exercise liberty and freedom. The control freaks' advocated forcible "government solutions" would only make the situation worse.
blah, blah, blah. That has nothing to do with the point at hand.
That's the crucial point you wannabe control-freaks don't understand: "Free Market" is not some magic force, but simply the liberty and freedom that each individual gets to exercise.
If you are against "Free Market," you are simply an anti-liberty and anti-freedom wannabe fascist!
There is a however an important advantage that first-hand experience has over the typical 3rd-hand retelling in history books (for you, that would 4th- or 5th-hand retelling in high school history textbooks): cutting out the multiplicity of erroneous interpretations.
Are you going to ever get to a point or are you just going to continue hurling meaningless insults? Your posts are getting more and more trollish...
I already got to the point: your own experience in the last decade and half should tell you the deleterious effect of government intervention in the capital market place: the LTCM bomb (which was born of the earlier bailout of early 1990's), the NASDAQ bubble-bust, the housing bubble-bust . . . each successive bubble created by the FED to bailout the previous bubble-bust is bigger, and resulting in even bigger bust! That's why I gave you the earlier conclusion: Boom-busts are caused and exacerbated by government bailouts and interventions. If you want to blame someone for favoring booms-busts, look in the mirror!
tatupu70
2014 Feb 3, 5:18am
You prefer bailouts over letting free market eliminate the incompetents
No, I don't. I prefer that mismanaged companies go bankrupt. Not sure what is so difficult for you to understand.
Which part of after-tax profit entering into the business calculation don't you understand?
I understand it fine. I understand that it's bullshit. No company is letting demand sit unmet becuase of taxes or regulation. Once again--companies hire to meet expected demand. Tax rates don't enter the picture.
tatupu70
2014 Feb 3, 5:20am
If you are against "Free Market," you are simply an anti-liberty and anti-freedom wannabe fascist!
Wow--is that your rallying cry? It is a nice strawman. Who's against the free market?
tatupu70
2014 Feb 3, 5:24am
I already got to the point: your own experience in the last decade and half should tell you the deleterious effect of government intervention in the capital market place: the LTCM bomb (which was born of the earlier bailout of early 1990's), the NASDAQ bubble-bust, the housing bubble-bust . . . each successive bubble created by the
I know in your cult that everything is caused by either the Federal Government or the Federal Reserve, but in reality, that's not the case. In the housing bubble, for instance, the main cause was abandonment of underwriting standards. Interest rates had very little influence on those standards.
A very good argument can and has been made that it was too little government intervention that caused the issues, not too much...
You prefer bailouts over letting free market eliminate the incompetents
No, I don't. I prefer that mismanaged companies go bankrupt. Not sure what is so difficult for you to understand.
You are acting like a drug addict in denial. Preference is meaningless in isolation. When presented with a choice of between:
1. letting those mismanaged companies go bankrupt in an economic down turns;
2. letting government bail them out;
You consistently chose to bail them out. Big businesses mostly only go down in economic hard times. Your theorectical "preference" when they are not going out of business is utterly meaningless.
Which part of after-tax profit entering into the business calculation don't you understand?
I understand it fine. I understand that it's bullshit. No company is letting demand sit unmet becuase of taxes or regulation. Once again--companies hire to meet expected demand. Tax rates don't enter the picture.
Of course taxes do: many companies are delaying hiring or even un-hiring existing workers and cutting back their hours in order to cope with Obamacare, which is a form of tax according to SCOTUS. On top of that, corporate spending and consumer spending are also negatively affected by taxes, reducing demand.
Wow--is that your rallying cry? It is a nice strawman. Who's against the free market?
You are! You are for forcible bailout of big corporations at taxpayer expense. You are for raising taxes. You are for banning low-productivity workers from working. You are against the freedom and liberty of individuals, especially those barely transitioning from non-working to working.
The 1980 Depository Institutions Deregulation Act was the center piece of
banking deregulation and how banking deregulation got underway. The 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" was only a minor adjustment.
Gain St. Germain deregulated thrifts and allowed adjustable rate loans. It also allowed S&Ls to offer money market accounts and interest bearing checking/savings accounts. S&Ls were permitted to increase commerical and consumer loans, (higher risk, higher yield) vs. historically mortgage-only, fixed rate loans.
In short, it allowed S&Ls a vehicle to better comepte with commercial banks, who benefitted most from the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act.
Since it was targeted to S&Ls - and S&L's are what failed - I would say it was a fair bit more than "minor adjustment."
I know in your cult that everything is caused by either the Federal Government or the Federal Reserve, but in reality, that's not the case. In the housing bubble, for instance, the main cause was abandonment of underwriting standards. Interest rates had very little influence on those standards.
The government and the FED were very much behind the lowering of underwriting standards. Both encouraged the lowering underwriting standards, by:
1. setting precedence for bailouts when loans go bad on a massive scale;
2. all sorts of regulations and government entities to encourage loans to uncredit-worthy borrowers. This is actually on-going.
3. lawmakers suspending FASB accounting rules.
A very good argument can and has been made that it was too little government intervention that caused the issues, not too much...
You are such an idiot still wedded to the idea that "government" is like a God should/could have prevented everything. Did you not realize how vehemently the Congressional members reacted in 1996 when Greenspan merely mentioned "irrational exuberance"? Do you not wonder why crooks like Angelo Mozello still walk free outside of jails? That's how your beloved god government works.
Gain St. Germain deregulated thrifts and allowed adjustable rate loans. It also allowed S&Ls to offer money market accounts and interest bearing checking/savings accounts. S&Ls were permitted to increase commerical and consumer loans, (higher risk, higher yield) vs. historically mortgage-only, fixed rate loans.
In short, it allowed S&Ls a vehicle to better comepte with commercial banks, who benefitted most from the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act.
Since it was targeted to S&Ls - and S&L's are what failed - I would say it was a fair bit more than "minor adjustment."
No. The 1980's Act allowed banks into what had previously been S&L space. The 1982 Act was a corollary act balancing the previous act. It's the banks moving into S&L's previously protected space that eventually led to the S&L bust due to competitive pressure.
ttsmyf
2014 Feb 3, 5:48am
WOW! The UNtrustworthy are certainly in control of what information is apparent to the people!
Say hey! This was in the Wall Street Journal on March 30, 1999. Note "... how much it will buy."
Holy cow/interesting/compelling ...!
And where is it up to date??? Right here ... see the first chart shown in this thread.
Recent Dow day is Monday, February 3, 2014 __ Level is 98.5
WOW! It is hideous that this is hidden! Is there any such "Homes, Inflation Adjusted"? Yes! This was in the New York Times on August 27, 2006:
And up to date (by me) is here:
http://patrick.net/?p=1219038&c=999083#comment-999083
WOW! The UNtrustworthy are certainly in control of what information is apparent to the people!
You prefer bailouts over letting free market eliminate the incompetents
No, I don't. I prefer that mismanaged companies go bankrupt. Not sure what is so difficult for you to understand.
You are acting like a drug addict in denial. Preference is meaningless in isolation. When presented with a choice of between:
1. letting those mismanaged companies go bankrupt in an economic down turns;
2. letting government bail them out;
You consistently chose to bail them out. Big businesses mostly only go down in economic hard times. Your theorectical "preference" when they are not going out of business is utterly meaningless.
Agreed. I am not hot and fuzzy for businesses that get special deals and such, but compared to the bailed out billion dollar bonus banking cabal running around telling you to go fuck yourself because they are doing the heavenly work and this is why they are richer than you assfuck, and compared to realtors gloating again over selling third-world shit-shacks at super-inflated prices to the gullible American debtor slaves while playing them like violins against the mighty firepower of billionaire chindians in one of the most corrupt and useless "industries" (scams), any producing business (even wal-mart) should be fucking sanctified. Now go and keep on raising taxes on assholes making 200K and more!
tatupu70
2014 Feb 3, 6:59am
You are acting like a drug addict in denial. Preference is meaningless in isolation. When presented with a choice of between:
1. letting those mismanaged companies go bankrupt in an economic down turns;
2. letting government bail them out;
You consistently chose to bail them out. Big businesses mostly only go down in economic hard times. Your theorectical "preference" when they are not going out of business is utterly meaningless.
No--I really don't. 999 times out of 1000 I choose to let them fail. Probably more like 9999 times out of 10,000.
Where did you get that I consistently choose to bail them out??
Of course taxes do: many companies are delaying hiring or even un-hiring existing workers and cutting back their hours in order to cope with Obamacare, which is a form of tax according to SCOTUS. On top of that, corporate spending and consumer spending are also negatively affected by taxes, reducing demand.
Companies blame Obamacare for political reasons.
You're correct about consumer spending, but that's not what we're talking about. You said companies hire based on their corporate tax rate.
tatupu70
2014 Feb 3, 7:00am
You are! You are for forcible bailout of big corporations at taxpayer expense. You are for raising taxes. You are for banning low-productivity workers from working. You are against the freedom and liberty of individuals, especially those barely transitioning from non-working to working.
You can keep saying this, but you're still wrong.
tatupu70
2014 Feb 3, 7:06am
The government and the FED were very much behind the lowering of underwriting standards. Both encouraged the lowering underwriting standards, by:
1. setting precedence for bailouts when loans go bad on a massive scale;
2. all sorts of regulations and government entities to encourage loans to uncredit-worthy borrowers. This is actually on-going.
3. lawmakers suspending FASB accounting rules.
Come on--you're smarter than this.
1. Please show me the details on the precedence. I'm assuming it happened BEFORE the underwriting standards were abandoned--otherwise, it can't be a cause, right?
2. I hope you're not going down the CRA road. It has been clearly shown that the GSEs were late to the game and NOT the cause of the poor underwriting.
3. Again--when did lawmakers suspend FASB accounting rules? I'm pretty sure it was AFTER the crash so not sure how that caused the bubble. Unless bankers are psychic...
tatupu70
2014 Feb 3, 7:08am
You are such an idiot still wedded to the idea that "government" is like a God should/could have prevented everything. Did you not realize how vehemently the Congressional members reacted in 1996 when Greenspan merely mentioned "irrational exuberance"? Do you not wonder why crooks like Angelo Mozello still walk free outside of jails? That's how your beloved god government works.
Why do you keep building up these strawmen?? How about you let me post what I think, and then you can tell me what YOU think. All you've done today is try to tell me what I believe/think. Thanks for the effort, but I'm well aware of my own opinions.
They will all move to the Bay Area and drive up housing even more.
Bulls make money, bears make money, pigs get slaughtered. Carry on.
RentingForHalfTheCost
2014 Feb 3, 8:24am
Looks like RFHTC gets a blowjob! Oh, oh no, that was last week's bet. Doggonit, that was so close.
Money lost is money lost. Last week or this week. The bet is still about everyone having to sit down at the table of consequences. Since 2008 there hasn't been one policy or plan that I have seen that has tried to address the credit bubble problem. Now as they remove the bogus training wheels on the economy we are again faced with the same issues. Good luck to us all. Down is the new Up in the market. There is only one way to play this and that is all cash and shorts. Bonds are stocks are dead money finally. Anyone that thinks different is going to lose their shirts. Enough said.
So, zzyzzx, what is the point of the picture of the black kids?
Really? You don't get it? Well, with all the conspiracy theories that you buy into - it doesn't surprise me. I'd explain it to you but it would take too long.
RentingForHalfTheCost
2014 Feb 3, 8:27am
Who needs a job when your SFBA house functions as an ATM machine. Why anyone would want to work for Dell is beyond me anyway.
Vicente
2014 Feb 3, 8:34am
Once upon a time the promise was, a large chunk of the middle class would be flush with well-paid Tech Jobs. That dream is dead.
Linking/cross-blogging the TBF? The place where end-times, paranoia, and general doom and gloom is dished out many times a day and tries to pass it off as rational thoughts or logical conclusions while making money off of people with legitimate fears and concerns?
I know, just wait till tomorrow, the predictions will happen someday. Has he EVER been right about anything? Never mind, I don't care enough to want to know.
You are acting like a drug addict in denial. Preference is meaningless in isolation. When presented with a choice of between:
1. letting those mismanaged companies go bankrupt in an economic down turns;
2. letting government bail them out;
You consistently chose to bail them out. Big businesses mostly only go down in economic hard times. Your theorectical "preference" when they are not going out of business is utterly meaningless.
No--I really don't. 999 times out of 1000 I choose to let them fail. Probably more like 9999 times out of 10,000.
Where did you get that I consistently choose to bail them out??
Were you against bailing out AIG? Were you against bailing out GM? Were you against bailing out Citi? Were you against bailout BoA? There are not 40,000 large corporations like those in the whole world for you to make that nonsense 99.99% claim. You are just for the bailing out of the top 0.01% at the expense of the other 99.99%.
Of course taxes do: many companies are delaying hiring or even un-hiring existing workers and cutting back their hours in order to cope with Obamacare, which is a form of tax according to SCOTUS. On top of that, corporate spending and consumer spending are also negatively affected by taxes, reducing demand.
Companies blame Obamacare for political reasons.
You're correct about consumer spending, but that's not what we're talking about. You said companies hire based on their corporate tax rate.
I did not say corporate tax rate only. Stop crying to create strawman and sidetrack the debate. Taxes get in the way of doing business, regardless what type of tax. No, companies don't just blame Obamacare for political reasons. They are cutting back hours in order to comply with Obamacare mandates.
You are! You are for forcible bailout of big corporations at taxpayer expense. You are for raising taxes. You are for banning low-productivity workers from working. You are against the freedom and liberty of individuals, especially those barely transitioning from non-working to working.
You can keep saying this, but you're still wrong.
I'm correct. You are just in denial.
The government and the FED were very much behind the lowering of underwriting standards. Both encouraged the lowering underwriting standards, by:
1. setting precedence for bailouts when loans go bad on a massive scale;
2. all sorts of regulations and government entities to encourage loans to uncredit-worthy borrowers. This is actually on-going.
3. lawmakers suspending FASB accounting rules.
Come on--you're smarter than this.
1. Please show me the details on the precedence. I'm assuming it happened BEFORE the underwriting standards were abandoned--otherwise, it can't be a cause, right?
The bailout of banks in the early 90's after loans to 3rd world countries went bad. The bailout of banks lending to LTCM when LTCM leveraged bets went bad. The bailout of banks lending to tech companies after the tech bubble burst. Just to name a few in the decade immediately preceding the housing bubble.
2. I hope you're not going down the CRA road. It has been clearly shown that the GSEs were late to the game and NOT the cause of the poor underwriting.
CRA was mandating the kind of lending that not even the GSE would accept until the very end. Then near the very end, even the GSE's were pressured by politicians into becoming the dumping ground for the bad loans. GSE's are still underwriting bad loans with parameters predicting high default rate to this day!
3. Again--when did lawmakers suspend FASB accounting rules? I'm pretty sure it was AFTER the crash so not sure how that caused the bubble. Unless bankers are psychic...
The suspension of accounting rules is causing the bubble right now!
You are such an idiot still wedded to the idea that "government" is like a God should/could have prevented everything. Did you not realize how vehemently the Congressional members reacted in 1996 when Greenspan merely mentioned "irrational exuberance"? Do you not wonder why crooks like Angelo Mozello still walk free outside of jails? That's how your beloved god government works.
Why do you keep building up these strawmen?? How about you let me post what I think, and then you can tell me what YOU think. All you've done today is try to tell me what I believe/think. Thanks for the effort, but I'm well aware of my own opinions.
You show what you believe/think in your own writing. I was responding to the following specific quote from you:
"A very good argument can and has been made that it was too little government intervention that caused the issues, not too much..."
The assumption in your statement was of course that too little of the CORRECT KIND of government intervention. The fact of the matter was that there was plenty government intervention: the WRONG KIND. I proceeded to show you two blatant examples of WRONG KIND of government intervention. It's a folly to assume that the government officials would know what the CORRECT KIND of government intervention in the market is before consequences are known. They are far more likely to make the WRONG KIND of interventions.
They'll be back once the world realizes nothing productive can take place on a screen or keyboard smaller than a laptop. The notebook is close but still has too many limitations over the laptop...
« First « Previous Comments 42,171 - 42,210 of 117,730 Next » Last » Search these comments
patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,248,588 comments by 14,886 users - FarmersWon, HANrongli, Misc online now