patrick.net

tatupu70 says

OK let's analyze these point by point.

There's nothing to analyze, if you're insolvent, you go through BK procedures and reorganize or dissolve. If you commit fraud, you go to jail (proof will be established during the prosecution and trial phase). What happened here was the abolition of the rule of law. Repeatedly.

bob2356 says

Yet you think it's up there with the holy grail. Amazing. Are you so brainwashed that objective thinking isn't possible at all or do you simply lack any basic knowledge? Maybe, just maybe everyone else isn't wrong.

I use you as a touchstone, if you believe it is bad that is a sure fire sign that it is good.

Gee you see a bad review in glib general overtones and you decide it is garbage. IOW you found something that agrees with your religious views.

BTW I have yet to see you make an origination about anything just more of the same carping with little to "enlighten" anyone.

I will say however that that comment the other day about Rockefeller having a crony advantage by taxation was indeed enlightening.

This CRA was not "Capitolism" nor were the mimicks that followed. The banks were forced to make innovative and creative loans, at the risk of Bill Clinton and his minions stipping the bank of their FDIC status.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1998-12-01/pdf/98-31152.pdf

This shows unequivically that unless these local banks would knuckle down to CRA ponzi rules, the banks would be closed. This is effectively political extortion, and is 180 degrees away from any measure of capitolistic behavior.

Entitlemented says

This CRA was not "Capitolism" nor were the mimicks that followed. The banks were forced to make innovative and creative loans, at the risk of Bill Clinton and his minions stipping the bank of their FDIC status.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1998-12-01/pdf/98-31152.pdf

This shows unequivically that unless these local banks would knuckle down to CRA ponzi rules, the banks would be closed. This is effectively political extortion, and is 180 degrees away from any measure of capitolistic behavior.

Even if what you say is true (which it isn't), it doesn't matter. The CRA didn't CAUSE anything. You're arguing that banks were forced to make slightly riskier loans to borrowers in specific areas. So what?? Those loans has absolutely NOTHING to do with the bubble and bust.

mell says

There's nothing to analyze, if you're insolvent, you go through BK procedures and reorganize or dissolve. If you commit fraud, you go to jail (proof will be established during the prosecution and trial phase). What happened here was the abolition of the rule of law. Repeatedly.

You're very dramatic. Yes, if you commit fraud, you should go to jail. But, if you MAY have committed fraud, it's up to the prosecutor to determine whether or not to prosecute. That is the rule of law. Just because you think someone committed fraud, doesn't mean the AG has enough evidence to prove it in a court of law.

Further more, it is clear that after seeking opinions of banks, that the Fed Register document was written by lobbyists and lawyers who sought to end run good faith and softly deny the claims that the banks said the law would have, for example:

"The commenters do not feel that banks
should now be subject to requirements the FDIC did not originally impose.Moreover, the commenters point outt hat the FDIC and state banking authorities routinely review investment portfolios as part of the supervisory process and can address any deficiencies on a case-by-case basis."

How can any due diligence be surmized when broad sweeping statements on FDICs, investment portfolios of MBS, deficiency checking on case by case basis.

We now know that the opposite happened, - all of the due diligence was reduced.

In fact those who overturned the banks inputs broke the law in multiple ways. An act to create more credit to people who had issues maintaining good credit surely must violate dozens of established laws and standards. A sweeping credit law change of this magnitude should have been voted on or had a minimum of due diligence. Slick Willie knew it could not pass through legitimate means, because this law is not sound.

Now many of the poorer people already shambled by Clintons NAFTA and the Giant job losses, have their credit ruined.

I wonder how many of the poor lost their homes, and what the total value of the losses were, and whether this CRA actually locked these lower income citizens into poverty for perpetuity? How many will ever have a home now?

Bill Clinton and his cronies should stand trial for this sham - but wait, all his cronies have been paid, and his Lawyer associated runs the US - they ran out Jobs with NAFTA and are now doing another Pan Pacific NAFTA mimic which will most likely amplify the effects.

Entitlemented says

In fact those who overturned the banks inputs broke the law in multiple ways. An act to create more credit to people who had issues maintaining good credit surely must violate dozens of established laws and standards. A sweeping credit law change of this magnitude should have been voted on or had a minimum of due diligence. Slick Willie knew it could not pass through legitimate means, because this law is not sound

Wow--you have no clue how the world works. This was not a sweeping credit law change. It was a very small, very minor Act that had almost no measurable effect on anything.

Entitlemented says

I wonder how many of the poor lost their homes, and what the total value of the losses were, and whether this CRA actually locked these lower income citizens into poverty for perpetuity? How many will ever have a home now?

I wonder how many poor were able to buy homes that they wouldn't have been able to in the past and were able to build equity and enjoy the benefits of home ownership.

tatupu70 says

I've seen no evidence this happened.

tatupu70 says

Not sure how this was a money machine

C'mon now. Money be fungible. My cocaine buying account is empty and I need to keep $100k in the Save the Choodren account. But you have given me $100k to save the choodren. You know what that means.

Blurtman says

C'mon now. Money be fungible. My cocaine buying account is empty and I need to keep $100k in the Save the Choodren account. But you have given me $100k to save the choodren. You know what that means.

Again--what are you implying? The banks didn't take any money from the Fed window so there was nothing to move around.

Arguing that CRA lead to the financial crisis has now become a "Crank Red Flag"

The financial crisis was caused by all of Real Merikin's money going to loans for the Nigres and the Spics!!!!!

(From the AEI website, unsurprisingly: http://www.aei.org/publication/moving-the-market-forward-principles-for-returning-fha-to-its-traditional-mission/ )

indigenous says

Gee you see a bad review in glib general overtones and you decide it is garbage. IOW you found something that agrees with your religious views.

No, the name of the book rang a bell. I'm pretty sure it was the one I looked at and said this is bullshit. Since you are holding it up as the holy grail I looked up reviews to see what other people thought. They all thought it sucked also. I didn't see one positive review. I guess a lot of other people attend my church. Here I'll save the the next comment, pretty much everyone other than you and entilted are mutts who don't know what you meme.

tatupu70 says

But, if you MAY have committed fraud, it's up to the prosecutor to determine whether or not to prosecute. That is the rule of law. Just because you think someone committed fraud, doesn't mean the AG has enough evidence to prove it in a court of law.

Especially when they don't look for any.

thunderlips11 says

Inconvenient facts like this don't matter. It's what people thought based on what people didn't say based on the assumptions made based on the atmosphere of the implication that is the irrefutable evidence.

bob2356 says

I guess a lot of other people attend my church.

IOW it was reviewed on Mother Jones or NBC or similiar.

Soooooo, indigenous, what is your explanation for the declining share of CRA loans made over the dozenish years prior to the peak Bubble era?

thunderlips11 says

Soooooo, indigenous, what is your explanation for the declining share of CRA loans made over the dozenish years prior to the peak Bubble era?

You are assuming that what I'm talking about and actual CRA loans made correlate.

indigenous says

You are assuming that what I'm talking about and actual CRA loans made correlate.

I get it. It makes total sense. What happened is:

The government FORCED banks to make loans that they didn't want to make. This caused them to not only make these few loans against their will, but then caused them to make many, many times more loans freely with no government rules at all.

It makes perfect sense. If your boss makes you work Saturday even though you had plans, you will naturally work not only the required Saturday, but will volunteer to work Saturdays for the rest of the year. That's how it works.

tatupu70 says

I get it.

No you don't. People follow their own interest, which means loan brokers are going to make as many loans as they can. The lower CRA standards were used to lower the standards across the board and with the government backstopping the loans the bubble mentality took off.

indigenous says

bob2356 says

I guess a lot of other people attend my church.

IOW it was reviewed on Mother Jones or NBC or similiar.

No reviewer would meet your approval that didn't agree with you. All the reviews I read said it was a great book but the chapters on the bubble and crisis were at best not convincing. Even the NY Times which called the book brilliant probably said it best.

If your goal is to understand the origins of the recent financial crisis, “Fragile by Design” is probably not the book to read.

bob2356 says

Even the NY Times which called the book brilliant probably said it best.

Even the NY Times, as if that were the most conservative publication, funny stuff...

bob2356 says

No, the name of the book rang a bell. I'm pretty sure it was the one I looked at and said this is bullshit. Since you are holding it up as the holy grail I looked up reviews to see what other people thought. They all thought it sucked also. I didn't see one positive review.

Now you're bullshitting Bob... A quick look at Amazon shows that the book had a 4 out of 5 star rating. Comon, at least admit the truth, no one can take you seriously when you constantly shyt yourself.

http://www.amazon.com/Fragile-Design-Political-Princeton-Economic/dp/0691155240/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1430551618&sr=8-1&keywords=Fragile+By+Design%3A

spydah_hh says

Now you're bullshitting Bob... A quick look at Amazon shows that the book had a 4 out of 5 star rating. Comon, at least admit the truth, no one can take you seriously when you constantly shyt yourself.

http://www.amazon.com/Fragile-Design-Political-Princeton-Economic/dp/0691155240/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1430551618&sr=8-1&keywords=Fragile+By+Design%3A

Reviewers agree it's a great history of banking, but the section on the housing bubble and crises is weak at best. I only looked at that section and decided not to buy. What bullshit did you find in that?

Gee, 4 stars, I wonder why the 5th is missing. There must be something that people didn't agree with. I wonder what section that could have been? Any guesses? Let's look at the customer reviews and see. Surprise, surprise, customer reviews say the exact same thing, the authors are full of shit when they try tie the CRA to the housing crisis. So professional reviewers and customer reviewers both agree with me. Thanks for your input but I think I'll just continue to shyt on myself.

bob2356 says

Gee, 4 stars, I wonder why the 5th is missing. There must be something that people didn't agree with. I wonder what section that could have been? Any guesses? Let's look at the customer reviews and see. Surprise, surprise, customer reviews say the exact same thing, the authors are full of shit when they try tie the CRA to the housing crisis.

I scanned the reviews, the one star reviews were from mutts, who often had a one word review and didn't like the book because it did not support their talking points.

indigenous says

bob2356 says

Gee, 4 stars, I wonder why the 5th is missing. There must be something that people didn't agree with. I wonder what section that could have been? Any guesses? Let's look at the customer reviews and see. Surprise, surprise, customer reviews say the exact same thing, the authors are full of shit when they try tie the CRA to the housing crisis.

I scanned the reviews, the one star reviews were from mutts, who often had a one word review and didn't like the book because it did not support their talking points.

I didn't look at any of the 1 star reviews. But whatever. You and sqd can believe in unicorns, sugarplum fairies, and the CRA as much as you want. Just don't be upset when everyone else thinks you are an idiot. Banks gave out crappy loans because they were grabbing their fee then turfing them out to CDO's as fast as they were writing them. The banks that got caught out did a crappy job evaluating risk because they were too greedy to do it right. It's really that simple. No conspiracy needed.

bob2356 says

Just don't be upset when everyone else thinks you are an idiot.

No I know what I'm dealing with, but there are some people who haven't drank the Kool Aid who will say hmm he has a point.

You on the other hand are too far gone on the egalitarian meme...

indigenous says

bob2356 says

Just don't be upset when everyone else thinks you are an idiot.

No I know what I'm dealing with, but there are some people who haven't drank the Kool Aid who will say hmm he has a point.

You on the other hand are too far gone on the egalitarian meme...

Yep, the other one has chimed in already.

WTF is egalitarian about thinking that the banks screwed themselves rather than being the victim of some nefarious plot by the liberals that you can't even begin to document? It's the atmosphere, it's the meme, people had meetings, people went to different schools together, etc, etc, etc.. Your explanation is like listening to my 6 year old explain to me how the lamp broke itself. After listening to the CRA arguments the 9/11 truthers seem rational.

bob2356 says

WTF is egalitarian about thinking that the banks screwed themselves rather than being the victim of some nefarious plot by the liberals that you can't even begin to document?

The premise that you base all of your thinking on is that big evil business was caused all the trouble without seeing fault with economic policies. The very core of "Fragile by Design" talks about this, you however latch onto the first blurb uttered that reinforces your axiom so that you do not have to look at it.

indigenous says

bob2356 says

Who exactly do you think spent billions of dollars lobbying to get those very economic policies you complain about passed into law?

Sactly the cronys, which is what happens when you mix politics and banking, the point of "Fragile by Design.

Then you are saying business/capitalists ARE evil. They will use their money to buy political favors at the expense of the rest of the population. You avoided the question (surprise, surprise) of who spends billions every year in lobbying and campaign contributions trying to stack the deck. That's a constant throughout history since the first person sold a flint ax. Without populists to oppose them there would only be crony capitalism. Your sugar plum fairy world of free markets is a myth and always was. That's the basic flaw in libertarianism, it doesn't work in the real world where frequently the best use of capital with the best ROI is buying influence in the government.

indigenous says

bob2356 says

"Corporations are like satellites and small children. Without adult supervision they wander off and get into trouble"

Actually they go bankrupt if not for counting on being bailed out as was case with Buffet in the current thread in which they show he doubled down on being bailed out.

The quote wasn't about bankruptcy, it was about things like dumping toxins, abusing workers, trade practices, buying politicians, etc..

So who went hat in hand, actually with a huge stack of IOU's called campaign contributions in hand, for these bailouts? The government should have nationalized every bank that couldn't operate without a bailout. Break them up and sell the parts to responsible banks that didn't get into trouble.

You can't have it both ways. A world where business is free to buy government influence, which they always will if it is the cheapest way to increase profits, and a government that makes sure the free market operates without government influence is a contradiction in terms.

indigenous says

The lower CRA standards were used to lower the standards across the board and with the government backstopping the loans the bubble mentality took off.

You realize you're making an argument AGAINST deregulating markets, right?

bob2356 says

Then you are saying business/capitalists ARE evil. They will use their money to buy political favors at the expense of the rest of the population

Of course.

bob2356 says

You avoided the question (surprise, surprise) of who spends billions every year in lobbying and campaign contributions trying to stack the deck.

No doubt about it.

bob2356 says

That's the basic flaw in libertarianism, it doesn't work in the real world where frequently the best use of capital with the best ROI is buying influence in the government.

Government by definition uses force in reality it follows it's own interest, so you have a bunch of empire builders that operate under the cloak of "Public Service". This is why the least amount of government the better, as in anarcho capitalism.

bob2356 says

The quote wasn't about bankruptcy, it was about things like dumping toxins, abusing workers, trade practices, buying politicians, etc..

So we don't have enough regulation already?

bob2356 says

So who went hat in hand, actually with a huge stack of IOU's called campaign contributions in hand, for these bailouts? The government should have nationalized every bank that couldn't operate without a bailout. Break them up and sell the parts to responsible banks that didn't get into trouble.

Nope standard bankruptcy would be fine.

bob2356 says

You can't have it both ways. A world where business is free to buy government influence, which they always will if it is the cheapest way to increase profits, and a government that makes sure the free market operates without government influence is a contradiction in terms.

Like I said the least amount of government is better.

thunderlips11 says

indigenous says

The lower CRA standards were used to lower the standards across the board and with the government backstopping the loans the bubble mentality took off.

You realize you're making an argument AGAINST deregulating markets, right?

It gets back to the tyranny of the majority idea, which is why you need a republic. Charles Calomiris makes the point that since the mid 1800s the US has had IIRC 18 banking crises to Canada's zero in the same time period. The difference was in that the regulation of the banks was overseen by people who were independent of politics.

Along that line of thinking I wonder what the framers would have thought about the Fed chairman being controlled by the President? He sure is not like the SCOTUS in that regard and much subject to hubris and adulation.

indigenous says

It gets back to the tyranny of the majority idea, which is why you need a republic. Charles Calomiris makes the point that since the mid 1800s the US has had IIRC 18 banking crises to Canada's zero in the same time period. The difference was in that the regulation of the banks was overseen by people who were independent of politics.

So between this and your CRA assertion about lowering standards, you're therefore in favor of regulation now.

thunderlips11 says

So between this and your CRA assertion about lowering standards, you're therefore in favor of regulation now.

You talk as though this is a binary, it tain't

Doublethink, aka Cognitive Dissonance.

The position held by most not on the extreme ends of the horseshoe is that some bank regulation is necessary. Only Pure Marxists and Pure Anarcho-Capitalists believe in "no" regulation; the first because they wouldn't allow banks in the first place, the latter because they believe in "Wildcat Banking".

Central banking is actually a very Marxist idea. In Karl Marx' "Communist Manifesto" of 1848, central banking was explicitly advocated in Plank 5 of the 10 planks proposed by the manifesto.

All free marketeers believe the banks should abide by contract laws just like all other businesses. "Regulations" specifically and uniquely apply to banking tend to given privileges to existing banks either by granting them rights that would be illegal for any other business or individual (for example, "bank holiday" unilateral abrogation of contract) or by restricting competition.

"Wildcat banking" referred to state chartered banking. The US has had state chartered banking through most of its history. From the mid 1930 ' s to the early 1990's, it wasn't even legal for a bank to span multiple states; big banks like Citi had to have different correspondent banks in different states operating under the same logo but different corporations.

indigenous says

But because a bank is in a special situation, of lending money, it is unique. E.G. the reserve rate, of course it would solve a lot of problems if the rate was 100%.

Just curious---have you even considered what a 100% reserve rate actually means? My guess is that you haven't....

tatupu70 says

Just curious---have you even considered what a 100% reserve rate actually means? My guess is that you haven't....

Bad guess...