• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

How we got into this financial mess...

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

deepdiver wrote:
AWDstylez wrote:
deepdiver wrote:
AWDstylez wrote:
I could have sworn that the lesson learned from this is the exact opposite.Lack of regulationis the main cause of the crisis.
Actually, the lesson learned from this is that using US financial markets for social engineering using the wealth of government (wealth confiscated from the people) to support government encouraged and sometimes mandated bad/overly risky lending practices and security instruments is a recipe for disaster.



Care to elaborate? Was that a jab at Clinton's push for increased home ownership or something more?
Clinton wasn't a legislator and congress is where the problem began albeit with Clinton's encouragement, and my earlier comment was not a jab but rather just a fact. But the story doesn't end there. Despite Greenspan telling all of congress publicly by 2001 that this would happen, the republican controlled congress over six years did nothing to fix it. N.o.t.h.i.n.g. A few individual congressmen tried to do something, most but not all were republicans including McCain, several fought hard to block something, anything, that might have averted this, in particular Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and Harry Reid. Unfortunately both sides of the aisle continued to play politics while a crescendo of disaster built.

There is plenty of blame to go around. Yes, the social engineering/socialist agendas of the left/dems started this ball rolling and created the underlying conditions where it could grow and lead to this. But, the right/republicans were too busy having an orgy of spending and power plays to bother to fix it several years ago when it could have been slowly and effectively fixed without tumbling world markets.

So the culprit was social engineering/socialistic government policy. That was willingly aided and abetted by willfully ignoring it by what I guess would be neo-cons, or what the right would call RINOs who took control of the party after W's election and strongly party-line supported and encouraged by the left/democrats.

Deregulation had nothing to do with this and anyone who says it does either doesn't understand what happened or is intentionally throwing out a red herring to evade responsibility or reality or to try to play a partisan blame game.

Both dominant parties are culpable which is why I think "We're Screwed '08" is the most appropriate campaign slogan this year as it the only slogan that covers both candidates.



While I don't disagree withyour origins for all this, you cannot deny the fact that deregulationis largely toblame forletting the sub-prime fiasco get out of hand.

I completely agree with "we're screwed '08," but since when is that anything new? The only thing that changes every election is the year. :lol:
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
imported post

AWDstylez wrote:
While I don't disagree withyour origins for all this, you cannot deny the fact that deregulationis largely toblame forletting the sub-prime fiasco get out of hand.

I completely agree with "we're screwed '08," but since when is that anything new? The only thing that changes every election is the year. :lol:
Actually I can deny that as fact. It was not deregulation that caused the problem but rather stupid regulation that caused the problem. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did not have their regulations removed, they just had them adjusted to limits that allowed them to be under capitalized and fail. While some of the media is calling the relaxed regulatory standards "de-regulation" it wasn't. It was just a (stupid and reckless) change in standards but the regulations were still in place.

If there is a regulation that everyone must carry 6 extra mags on patrol and you come to me and say, "blah blah blah here's a financial donation to your campaign" and the regulation is changed to read, "everyone must carry 6 extra mags on patrol except for AWD who only has to carry 4", you are still regulated. You have not be "de-regulated", you have just had your regulations changed. De-regulation would be saying, "and AWD who can carry how ever many he feels like that day." It was the former rather than the latter that caused this.


ETA: removed most of the quoted posts because it was annoying
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

deepdiver wrote:
Actually I can deny that as fact. It was not deregulation that caused the problem but rather stupid regulation that caused the problem. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did not have their regulations removed, they just had them adjusted to limits that allowed them to be under capitalized and fail. While some of the media is calling the relaxed regulatory standards "de-regulation" it wasn't. It was just a (stupid and reckless) change in standards but the regulations were still in place.

If there is a regulation that everyone must carry 6 extra mags on patrol and you come to me and say, "blah blah blah here's a financial donation to your campaign" and the regulation is changed to read, "everyone must carry 6 extra mags on patrol except for AWD who only has to carry 4", you are still regulated. You have not be "de-regulated", you have just had your regulations changed. De-regulation would be saying, "and AWD who can carry how ever many he feels like that day." It was the former rather than the latter that caused this.


ETA: removed most of the quoted posts because it was annoying



You got me on that one (even though it's just semantics), but I'm not talking solely about Freddie and Fannie. When I say lack of regulation I'm referencing things like little to no oversight for mark-to-market, lack of oversight of rating agencies, control of predatory lending, etc. The crisis isn't entirely focused on Freddie and Fannie, and they aren't usually what I'm talking about. The sub-prime mortgages were a problem, but it was how they were handled after the fact that turned the whole thing into a disaster.
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
imported post

AWDstylez wrote:
deepdiver wrote:
Actually I can deny that as fact. It was not deregulation that caused the problem but rather stupid regulation that caused the problem. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did not have their regulations removed, they just had them adjusted to limits that allowed them to be under capitalized and fail. While some of the media is calling the relaxed regulatory standards "de-regulation" it wasn't. It was just a (stupid and reckless) change in standards but the regulations were still in place.

If there is a regulation that everyone must carry 6 extra mags on patrol and you come to me and say, "blah blah blah here's a financial donation to your campaign" and the regulation is changed to read, "everyone must carry 6 extra mags on patrol except for AWD who only has to carry 4", you are still regulated. You have not be "de-regulated", you have just had your regulations changed. De-regulation would be saying, "and AWD who can carry how ever many he feels like that day." It was the former rather than the latter that caused this.


ETA: removed most of the quoted posts because it was annoying



You got me on that one (even though it's just semantics), but I'm not talking solely about Freddie and Fannie. When I say lack of regulation I'm referencing things like little to no oversight for mark-to-market, lack of oversight of rating agencies, control of predatory lending, etc. The crisis isn't entirely focused on Freddie and Fannie, and they aren't usually what I'm talking about. The sub-prime mortgages were a problem, but it was how they were handled after the fact that turned the whole thing into a disaster.
But it was Freddie and Fannie's policies that were the foundation for the rest of the failure. The predatory lending practices, the sub-prime lending market, the housing bubble, the over rated securities, etc almost all hinged or were created in one way or another on Freddie and Fannie. The sub-prime market, bad securities, etc would not have existed to anything remotely resembling the extent they did if not for them. Certainly there were other problems, however, they were not significant enough without the failures set in motion by Fannie and Freddie practices and policies to cause such a widespread financial failure.

There are certainly other significant factors such as the $10-13 trillion that has flowed off-shore to avoid our confiscatory corporate tax structures and tax compliance costs. It is absolutely obscene that our multi-layered federal and state tax systems have created a situation wherein it is less expensive for a company to go to a foreign country, build the infrastructure for a factory, build the factory, buy the raw materials overseas, send over management teams, hire local labor, train local labor, build the product, pay the huge shipping costs to send the product back to the US, pay tarriffs, pay distribution costs and then jack up the price to cover all that with the resulting lesser sales volume and still find that is a more profitable proposition than making the same product in Detroit. If those trillions were still here working in our national economy directly the $700 billion "bail out" would not have only been unnecessary but insignificant.

Now having said all that, given the complexity of the financial markets and that the analyses of what happened (which will be performed by people far more knowledgeable than me about these matters) there is always a possibility that I am wrong about most or all of the above ;).
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

deepdiver wrote:
But it was Freddie and Fannie's policies that were the foundation for the rest of the failure. The predatory lending practices, the sub-prime lending market, the housing bubble, the over rated securities, etc almost all hinged or were created in one way or another on Freddie and Fannie. The sub-prime market, bad securities, etc would not have existed to anything remotely resembling the extent they did if not for them. Certainly there were other problems, however, they were not significant enough without the failures set in motion by Fannie and Freddie practices and policies to cause such a widespread financial failure.

There are certainly other significant factors such as the $10-13 trillion that has flowed off-shore to avoid our confiscatory corporate tax structures and tax compliance costs. It is absolutely obscene that our multi-layered federal and state tax systems have created a situation wherein it is less expensive for a company to go to a foreign country, build the infrastructure for a factory, build the factory, buy the raw materials overseas, send over management teams, hire local labor, train local labor, build the product, pay the huge shipping costs to send the product back to the US, pay tarriffs, pay distribution costs and then jack up the price to cover all that with the resulting lesser sales volume and still find that is a more profitable proposition than making the same product in Detroit. If those trillions were still here working in our national economy directly the $700 billion "bail out" would not have only been unnecessary but insignificant.

Now having said all that, given the complexity of the financial markets and that the analyses of what happened (which will be performed by people far more knowledgeable than me about these matters) there is always a possibility that I am wrong about most or all of the above ;).



So basically you're saying nothing that happened after the origin is of any significance because if it didn't get the ball rolling in the first place we wouldn't be here? Ok, I can see that. I guess now we sit back and wait for expert analysis/coverup. lol
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
imported post

AWDstylez wrote:
deepdiver wrote:
So basically you're saying nothing that happened after the origin is of any significance because if it didn't get the ball rolling in the first place we wouldn't be here? Ok, I can see that. I guess now we sit back and wait for expert analysis/coverup. lol
Laff ... well, the thread OP was "How we got into this financial mess" rather than "What exacerbated this financial mess". ;)
 

SlackwareRobert

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2008
Messages
1,338
Location
Alabama, ,
imported post

OK, here is the OC related point......

1. The govenment has been trying to get at credit charge data for years.
2. They will 'buy' a bank, and now have access to those numbers.
3. If you charge, or debit for a gun, ammo powder, parts they will now know.


Go back to cash! :uhoh:
 

Panos1296

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
78
Location
Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
imported post

In a country with a central bank, wage and price controls, protectionism, punishing taxes, welfare, corporate subsidies, incomprehensible labor laws, and a fiat currency, please tell me how capitalismor deregulation is to blame for this mess. Thousands of pages of regulations and trillions of dollars spent and you still arent satisfied? Havent they destoyed liberty enough??
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

Panos1296 wrote:
In a country with a central bank, wage and price controls, protectionism, punishing taxes, welfare, corporate subsidies, incomprehensible labor laws, and a fiat currency, please tell me how capitalismor deregulation is to blame for this mess. Thousands of pages of regulations and trillions of dollars spent and you still arent satisfied? Havent they destoyed liberty enough??



A completely free market doesn't work. I think that's beyond debate. So what's the issue?

Yes, we have excess and sometimes idiotic regulation in some areas that don't need it and we have little to no regulation in some areas that do need it. Such is life. When you come up with a perfectly functioning market system be sure to let everyone know. *hint hint* it's not a free market

You might find this interesting: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1843168,00.html
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:
AWDstylez wrote:
I think that's beyond debate. So what's the issue?
On "beyond debate" as 'irrefutable', I wrote this to a friend this AM...
I apologize for giving our discussion last night short shrift.

You asserted "irrefutable" which, true or not, is not falsifiable and thus, arguably, not 'scientific'.

Contribute something other than semantics arguments or completely off-topic jabs, for once. It's like you can't process more than one line of data at a time.

How about this... it has been beaten to death by every economist on the planetthat a totally free market doesn't work, which is why one doesn't exist. Maybe in some alternate universe where massive corporations arebenevolent, rather than money hungry, and care about the whole of society rather than the next quarter's returns. It's probably the same alternate universe where all the pink unicorns and high quality XD's live.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

My arguments are simple (or 'simplistic' as characterized by another simpleton) because they are mine and of empiric knowledge and not of received knowledge from every economist that you trust.

Remember, when you appeal to authority the contrapositive is a personal attack.
 

jopencarry

Banned
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
107
Location
, ,
imported post

AWDstylez wrote:
Doug Huffman wrote:
AWDstylez wrote:
I think that's beyond debate. So what's the issue?
On "beyond debate" as 'irrefutable', I wrote this to a friend this AM...
I apologize for giving our discussion last night short shrift.

You asserted "irrefutable" which, true or not, is not falsifiable and thus, arguably, not 'scientific'.

Contribute something other than semantics arguments or completely off-topic jabs, for once. It's like you can't process more than one line of data at a time.

How about this... it has been beaten to death by every economist on the planetthat a totally free market doesn't work, which is why one doesn't exist. Maybe in some alternate universe where massive corporations arebenevolent, rather than money hungry, and care about the whole of society rather than the next quarter's returns. It's probably the same alternate universe where all the pink unicorns and high quality XD's live.
what the problem with "money hungry" companies? why should private people or companies give a damn about 'the whole of society". you are in the wrong country commie if your focus is on "the whole of society".

the united states was built upon the idea of personal responsibility and that the individual is paramount. NOT society. f society and f government shills

If someone doesn't like a company or thinks they are money hungry then don't buy from them. its a person's choice to patronize a company. end of story even with gasoline. its not a human right to drive a car or have gasoline freely available

you don't have any choice with government. thats why people hate it.
 

Caveman93

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2008
Messages
64
Location
Durham, North Carolina, USA
imported post

Let me tell you what is a most likely scenario in the next coming months.

1) Hyperinflation Due to a gigantic flood of printed (generated) cash into our banking network. Prices of durable goods will Triple.

2) Banks will continue hording cash because they have huge 4th Quarter Losses pending and they will need the cash to remain solvent (Hence, why they are not lending EVEN TO EACH OTHER and the market is making a withdrawal)

3) Regardless of the election outcome, there will most likely be a huge increase in random acts of crime.

4) Marshall law will be declared and our weapons will be taken from us.

If anyone would do a self investigation on what occurred to Brazil in 99-2001 you'd see the writing on the wall here folks. Your dollar will become worthless so stock up now!
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:
My arguments are simple (or 'simplistic' as characterized by another simpleton) because they are mine and of empiric knowledge and not of received knowledge from every economist that you trust.

Remember, when you appeal to authority the contrapositive is a personal attack.
I'll keep that in mind and show you how non-empirical they are in the future. The bigger issue, however,is that they're entirely off-topic. I see nothing wrong with citing authority. People become authorities for a reason. If you want to live based on empirial knowledge I suggest youstrip and go find a cave in the woods. Although you're probably the type of person, all too common around here, that barely has a highschool education and yet sees no problem with correcting the Supreme Court justices on their opinions or calling a magna cum laude Harvard Graduate "dumb". Only in American.
 

jopencarry

Banned
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
107
Location
, ,
imported post

ya'll are being played for fools. this AWDstylez kid is like 19 years old college mush brain. he bows before his community college professors
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

jopencarry wrote:
thats a great prediction. right now the dollar is actually up




Seriously, how much longer until you're re-re-re-re-rebanned?

The US dollar is up because the euro is down. It's not an upward valuation of US currency, it's a downward valuation of everyone else's.


China has amost as much of a free market as American does at this point. Hell, post bailout package they might even have less intervention. :lol: As for their economy tanking, who their biggest export? American. Where is our economy at right now? Down. Hmmm... all makes sense now.
 

Panos1296

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2008
Messages
78
Location
Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
imported post

AWDstylez wrote:
Panos1296 wrote:
In a country with a central bank, wage and price controls, protectionism, punishing taxes, welfare, corporate subsidies, incomprehensible labor laws, and a fiat currency, please tell me how capitalismor deregulation is to blame for this mess. Thousands of pages of regulations and trillions of dollars spent and you still arent satisfied? Havent they destoyed liberty enough??



A completely free market doesn't work. I think that's beyond debate. So what's the issue?

Yes, we have excess and sometimes idiotic regulation in some areas that don't need it and we have little to no regulation in some areas that do need it. Such is life. When you come up with a perfectly functioning market system be sure to let everyone know. *hint hint* it's not a free market

You might find this interesting: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1843168,00.html

How do you know a completely free market doesnt work? It is obvious this semi-national, semi-socialist system we have doesnt work. It never has and never will.

ALL, YES ALL, govt regulations have unintended consequences!! You are seeing them now.

Ask yourself, when did this country begin to have boom/bust cycles? YES, AFTER the inception of the Federal Reserve in 1913. Followed by an income tax, followed by FDR's govt takeover called the New Deal. Now the "business cycle" (it should be called the regulation cycle) is seen as a natural occurence associated with businesses. Actuallyit is the combination of govt intervention, arbitrary interest rates, and a fiat currency that causes the cycles. You cant educate yourself reading mass media publications like Time,etc... May I recommend Walter Williams, Ron Paul, Murray Rothbard and John Stossel?
 
Top