Financial Crisis Was Avoidable, Inquiry Finds

maxcok

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Posts
7,153
Media
0
Likes
125
Points
83
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Male
The system, as it is, is corrupt to the core. The crooked institutions who fomented the crisis should be permitted to fail to clean out the rot. There is no evidence that doing so would "make the 1930's look like a cakewalk". That's fear mongering right out of the international bankers' playbook. And if you have any evidence, other than the Great Depression, that that would happen, I'd sure love to see it.
Well it doesn't take a Nobel laureate to figure this one out, but I'll get back to you in a minute.

I'll provide some evidence of my own.
Oooh goody, I can't wait. Shall I take notes?

For perfect examples of either route being taken, take a look at the two "eyes": Iceland and Ireland. . . . <snip>
But you see, your example of the "two eyes" (cute :rolleyes:) is almost entirely irrelevant to this discussion, because they are comparatively tiny countries with tiny economies. In one small way they are relevant though, because even the collapse or near collapse of these two minor players created ripple effects that were felt throughout the Euro zone, to a lesser extent in the US. (Hell, even insignificant little Greece had Wall Street in conniptions for months on end.) The US, on the other hand is the world's largest economy by far and THE financial center of the known Universe, with complex interconnections throughout every other financial market. Had the US economy tanked much further than it did without emergency measures being taken across the globe (many of which I disagreed with, btw) it would have reached a tipping point and drug the entire global economy straight down the toilet without flushing.
..:Flush:
(This, by the way, is why the US needn't worry about the oft repeated specious threat of "What if China called the US on its debt? Won't that crash the US economy?" Well no, that won't and can't happen, but even if it could theoretically, China's economy would crash as well from losing its major export market. We're all interconnected. But I digress . . . . )

To return to your first question, a similar thing happened in the Great Depression, but the US was not anywhere near as indispensible to the global economy as now, nor were the vast majority of multinational corporations and the world's largest financial institutions headquartered in the US anywhere to the degree they are now, nor did they even exist in the 1930's, and what did exist was a tiny fraction of the present scale and proportion. Most importantly, there was nothing approaching the sort of multinational interconnectedness that exists between all these corporations and financial institutions. Hence, how we can extrapolate that the situation this time around, had it been allowed to continue unchecked, would have been much, much, much, much worse. Capiche? There is no doubt about it, we dodged a bullet, a death blow. For now. As if it weren't bad enough.
One has only to look at the resentment harbored against the US in particular by the rest of the world, for our irresponsible lack of regulation and shoddy oversight leading directly to the worldwide financial crisis, to understand how integral, how indespensible, the US economy is to a functioning global economy.

I'm not going to go through the list of well over 1,000 politicians who brought the economy to ruin, looking for which party each one belongs to, just to please you.
Thank god. That would not please me at all. As if you could do that. :rolleyes:

Did you miss my earlier post in this thread about political corruption and the revolving door between the public and private sectors that makes it possible? Or did you just read it and immediately throw it out because my points make your blood boil?
You grossly overestimate your effect on me and my blood. And you didn't tell me anything I don't already know and essentially agree with. Thanks for the lesson in Washington influence peddling, oh fount of knowledge and insight. Gee, I had no idea that went on, despite the fact that probably a full third of my posts in this forum rail against backdoor lobbyists, the effects of corporate influence peddling on public policy, and how our government has been bought and sold to the highest corporate bidder. How dense are you, anyway? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

The fact is that politicians of all stripes have already been bought and paid for many times over by the very people they're supposed to be regulating.
Thanks again for the astonishing revelation. It's remarkable how you continue to torpedo your own thesis. Anyone marginally conscious with an ounce of objectivity can plainly see that the revolving door corporate influence peddlers are overwhelming Republican and overwhelmingly influencing Republican lawmakers over Democrats. The Republicans are deep in the pockets of their corporate overlords. This is beyond dispute. One need only follow the money (the disparity in corporate campaign donations), listen to their rhetoric, and see the legislative agenda they push in order to plainly see this. One need only look at how they have systematically worked to dismantle not just financial regulation, but all regulations designed to protect people, the economy, and the environment over the past thirty years to see who their masters are. If one were still in doubt, one need only look at how they bitterly fought and stonewalled against revising financial regulations and consumer protections in the wake of the economic meltdown - how they are still openly advocating repeal of those and virtually all regulations designed to protect people, the economy, and the environment.

Therefore, having them construct more regulations will have little effect- or completely the opposite intended- because the entire system is corrupt and broken in the first place. There is a permanent conflict of interest in Washington and burying your head in the sand and pretending there isn't, isn't going to somehow make you right.
I'll pull my head out of the sand :)rolleyes:) when you pull your head out of your ass. Your conclusion is utterly devoid of logic. So . . . . if the system is broken and corrupt, if people, corporations, and financial institutions are greedy, what do you suggest as a solution? Less regulation? No regulation?? Leave financial institutions and corporations to their own greedy devices? Chasing short term profit, people and consequences be damned? 'Policing' themselves until the economy completely crashes and we're all living in some Mad Max world trading a gallon of gas for a loaf of bread?

The financial overhaul legislation that was passed last year in spite of solid intransigent Republican opposition is inadequate to address many of the fundamental problems that led to the financial meltdown, and that still exist in the system. Still, it's not quite the insignificant fig leaf I colorfully characterized in my earlier post. It's a step in the right direction, and better than nothing. The increasingly powerful Republicans are openly committed to dismantling or blocking implementation of these measures, leaving us back in in essentially the same condition that led to the global economic catastrophe of '08 in the first place.

So you've identified problems, you acknowledge that greed, corruption, and undue influence from powerful business interests have broken the system, but you still haven't come up with a coherent practical response to my original question. None of you "Free Market Fundamentaists" have.

So we're back to where we started, post #3 in the thread:
:confused13: How do you control greedy impulses without regulation?
 
Last edited:

maxcok

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Posts
7,153
Media
0
Likes
125
Points
83
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Male
In my youth a very wise man told me that every decision a person makes is made out of one of two emotions: fear and/or greed. I scoffed at his cynicism but soon realized that he was correct. Viewing people's actions through that lens has made me much more understanding and forgiving than I was in the past.
I think that's true on a base level and for many people.

However, one can transcend. Not every decision needs to be made on that basis.

At any rate, you're well on your way to wisdom. Pass it on.


Seems you don't know what sniping is either.
Is it this? :smile:
 
Last edited:

cruztbone

Experimental Member
Joined
May 22, 2004
Posts
1,284
Media
0
Likes
11
Points
258
Age
70
Location
Capitola CA USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
the long view of history in the US has taught us that we go through periods of less and more government control over our banking system. at the moment, we are moving rapidly towards more control, which is historically, and more importantly, justifiably correct.
 

faceking

Cherished Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Posts
7,426
Media
6
Likes
277
Points
208
Location
Mavs, NOR * CAL
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
WOW. You really think that so-called "regulation" of the financial industry has anything to do with political partisanship??

Here's a little history lesson of my own:

-Reagan deregulated the S&L industry, allowing for massive concentration of wealth in few people's (i.e. Neil Bush) hands

-Greenspan "appointed" by Reagan

-After crash, $500 billion bailout by GHW Bush

-Greenspan "reappointed" by GHW Bush

-Clinton "approved of" by banker-dominated Trilateral Commission for Democratic ticket

-Greenspan "reappointed" by Clinton several times

-Clinton heavily deregulates Wall Street regs which affect the largest companies in the S&P 500 (i.e. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act)

-Christopher Dodd, Phil Gramm (and Phil Gramm's wife), and many others work tirelessly to give bankers what they want (i.e. Repubs and Dems)

-Clinton repeals Glass-Steagall II (passed in 1933) in November of 1999 with the heavily Repub sponsored Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, as his final gift to the bankers who put him, and kept him, in office

-The largest banking mergers in history (JP Morgan and Chase Manhattan Bank, etc.) follow

-Even more power is granted to bankers under GW Bush with more "regulation", and smaller banks are squeezed out as competition

-After crash, more than $700 billion is printed and given out to banks, which then use most of the money to buy out their now penniless competitors

-The latest bailout was very much crafted by agents in both parties and then executed by Obama

I don't know about you, but I don't see much of a pattern there^^ with respect to political party. If you're not convinced by this- and you're free to check any of the above points with textbooks and encylopedias- then that's just fine. You'll believe whatever you want to believe.

Lastly, a few mega banks (18 primary dealers at last count) does not a free market make. Having the government come in and selectively regulate weaker competition, have them fail or be bought out, and then deregulate is the antithesis of a free market.

This is very well done. Tim Russert would be proud....

[although you coulda tied a bit more of the real estate burst... started by Carter... Reagan didn't touch much, GHWBush added fuel, Clinton added more fuel and BushJR and Dodds/Franks let it overboil].
 
Last edited:

maxcok

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Posts
7,153
Media
0
Likes
125
Points
83
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Male
Riiiight.
Right.

Thank you for that. I'm done with you.
I'm devastated. Let it be noted you're running away. Despite ignoring the considerable substance presented in my posts, despite being obliterated point by point, and despite all your distractive, deflective verbiage, you still haven't managed an effective response to my one concise simple question, my first post, #3 in the thread:

:confused13: How do you control greedy impulses without regulation?
As Sargon predicted in #4:

Don't expect an credible answer to that.
 
Last edited:

Big_Red

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2007
Posts
289
Media
22
Likes
145
Points
263
Location
Oshawa (Ontario, Canada)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
To repeat my answer: Let them go bankrupt, for one. And throw management pricks in jail for conning their customers and investors. Very simple, actually.

I'll add one thing: repeal the Federal Reserve Act and the 16th Amendment, and put an end to the unlimited, catastrophic, completely unsustainable and unaccountable creation of debt since Woodrow Wilson took office nearly 100 years ago.
 
Last edited:

B_crackoff

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Posts
1,726
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
73
I posted in this thread before you did, so if anyone is stalking what you perceived as "an intolerant, bitter, angry black man with no life, who's also a socialist, a leech on the government, an anti-heterosexual, and an enemy to white people", it's you. Now follow your own advice, moron. With no profile photo to look at as well as an absence of logical intellectualism to match, it's no wonder why you would think anyone here is actually following you. But since you're here, why don't you answer a question that has been posted and not addressed by you or ANYONE else who disagrees with maxcok and a supposed "intolerant, bitter, angry black man with no life, who's also a socialist, a leech on the government, an anti-heterosexual, and an enemy to white people"... "How do you control greedy impulses without regulation?"

Don't worry, I won't hold my breath. :rolleyes:
*crickets disturbed by hysterical laughter*

What a psychotic dumbfuck you are!

WHEN HAVE I EVER CALLED YOU BLACK - or anything of the above (apart from INTOLERANT - which your bigotted arse truly fucking is!). You make up your own twisted quotes to satisfy your perverse hazy sketch of your universe.

Ladies & Gentleman - Fuckhead has made up his own quotes & attributed them to others - yet again!

You can't even read meaning into a line,

... Too much regulation caused that clusterfuck.

Bugger all regulation - lots of forms to fill, but all practically designed in concert with the very companies who needed watching. Toothless sheep watching over wolves as I remember it.

I think AIG's derivatives arm which caused an $85Bn bailout was being monitored from 4,000 miles away by one man & his dog - & even the dog had as much knowledge of the business that they were doing. Scandalous.

Not one lying CEO in jail. Not one cent taken back from their bonuses.

Even Madoff didn't have his records looked at for decades. Regulation?

Dur, dur, dur - I was saying it was barely regulated at all, not agreeing with the statement. It's like you've the mind of a child.:eek:

You're a prize twat among many here.:smile:

If you stopped being so prejudiced, you'd actually comprehend what others say.

Piss off you odious, nasty little stain of excrescence.

Well, to me you come across as a very smart and respectable person.

Well if you follow this twat's logic that just makes you a dumbarse too!:rolleyes:
 

B_crackoff

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Posts
1,726
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
73
Crackers - I think you are a little bit over the limit here.

I draw the line at someone making up & ascribing defamatory quotes - again. It's 1 tenth of what he's said to others, & less than half as bad as has been said to me.

I'm just waiting for the prize winning twit mafia to put down their knitting, have their huddle & try to off me.:wink::biggrin1::cool:

I'd far rather he PM'd me rather than showing his ignorance to his equally ignorant friends - but no - he wants to show off to his pals.

There are a fair few dull crayons in a very dreary box here simply rehashing partisan nonsense - unable to discern that on a fair few occasions, we're all on the same side.:eek:
 
Last edited:

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Crackers - I think you are a little bit over the limit here.

Seriously, Driftwood, let that idiot be. Your mind is better used discussing the issues than focusing on that moron who can't read. There's a reason why the word "crack" is in his name. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

faceking

Cherished Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Posts
7,426
Media
6
Likes
277
Points
208
Location
Mavs, NOR * CAL
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
The 2008 financial crisis was... caused by widespread failures in government regulation

Okay, that part is complete bullshit. Too much regulation caused that clusterfuck. Not too little. But everything else is true. It was the greed of shareholders and management that lead to that corporate mismanagement and heedless risk-taking by Wall Street

don/'t forget bout the govt forcing banks to make risky loans....
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
don/'t forget bout the govt forcing banks to make risky loans....

And don't everyone forget this is complete bullshit. The government forced NO bank to make any loan. Just keep repeating the lie and hope it sticks one day right?
 

B_crackoff

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2010
Posts
1,726
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
73
don/'t forget bout the govt forcing banks to make risky loans....

And don't everyone forget this is complete bullshit. The government forced NO bank to make any loan. Just keep repeating the lie and hope it sticks one day right?


Certainly Financial institutions, e.g. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac ...

{paraphrase & precised}In 1992... Bush signed the Housing and Community Development Act ... so that... they..."have an affirmative obligation to facilitate the financing of affordable housing for low... and moderate-income families... they were required to meet "affordable housing goals" set annually by the Department of Housing and Urban Development ... The initial annual goal for low-income and moderate-income mortgage purchases for each GSE was 30% ...and increased to 55% by 2007.

In 1999, Fannie Mae came under pressure from... Clinton...to expand mortgages... to low and moderate income borrowers... in distressed inner city areas.

Fannie Mae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
D

deleted15807

Guest
Certainly Financial institutions, e.g. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac :sleeping::sleeping::sleeping:

Time to blame the poor and the government. More bullshit. The government encouraged homeownership however it did not 'force' or compel lenders to engage in 'NINJA' loans. Government's failure was doing what Wall Street wanted it to do which was to let them get into risky assets. Funny how all the foreclosures are not in 'distressed inner city areas' but on Main Street USA. Wink wink...'distressed city areas'. We know who they are. :rolleyes:


The Day The S.E.C. Changed the World
 
Last edited by a moderator:

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
And don't everyone forget this is complete bullshit. The government forced NO bank to make any loan. Just keep repeating the lie and hope it sticks one day right?

They'll never come to grips with that.
While it's true that Fannie & Freddie made it a requirement to provide loans to low income families, in no shape or form did the government tell institutions like Bank of America and JP Morgan Chase to make them predatory and fraudulent. That gaffe is the bank's problem and theirs alone, which is why the government is now investigating their actions for possible lawsuits. Banks these days are so scared to produce a loan for ANYONE these days. Case in point, my hubby owns a condo, makes six figures and has perfect credit... and was denied. It would make sense to anyone who pays attention that banking institutions, fueled by their zombie-like mentality to make profit, would approach an issue like this with such paranoia and dishonesty.

And it doesn't help matters when the obviously ill-informed, who are so ideologically anti-government, talk down to everyone else like they know it all while ignoring the evident money trail and where it actually ends.