Deregulate Wall Street to solve all the problems

[EdwardBaiamonte]

]
]
Yeah. Thats it. Deregulate the crooks. Let them do what they want. .

dear try to pay attention. Wall Street can't make a penny unless you buy a mortgage or derivitive or something from them.

Do you want regulations so the government studies every product and clears it for sale to you becuase you are too dumb to know anything yourself?

A liberal will so stupid as to think only magical government can control corruption because he lacks the IQ to understand capitalism.

Is any other conclusion possible??

 

[Rshermr]

^^^^^^^^^^
Hilarious.

Yeah. Thats it. Deregulate the crooks. Let them do what they want. Like we did in 1999. Took them 8 years to blow up the economy. But then, that was only once. Oh, except for that nasty little mess in 1929. But then, the market worked well for the next 75 years, right. Oh, thats right. There were regulations in plase until 99
Whats that old saying about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is called being crazy. But then, cons tend to always believe the con dogma, and never look at any other reasoning.

You're forgetting the S&L Crisis in the late 1980s and the recession in the early 1980s, both of whichhappened with Glass-Steagell in place.
But details were never the strong points of lib-tards.

Just a couple minor points, Rabbi. Glass Steagall did not regulate S&Ls, nor did it have anything to do with recessions in the general economy. Perhaps, Rabbi, you should admit that you have problems with details. Back to fox, rabbi. More your speed. No need for those pesky facts.

 

[Rshermr]

amonte;5715865]

]
]
Yeah. Thats it. Deregulate the crooks. Let them do what they want. .

dear try to pay attention. Wall Street can't make a penny unless you buy a mortgage or derivitive or something from them.
Ed, me boy, they do not need to sell mortgages nor do they need to sell derivatives. They made astounding profits selling stocks, bonds, and other securities BEFORE they sold mortgages and derivitives. And ed, me boy, if you do not know that, then it would be you that is not paying attention, would it not???

Do you want regulations so the government studies every product and clears it for sale to you becuase you are too dumb to know anything yourself?
No, ed, me boy. You are making stupid con statements, straight from your local tea party. What I do not want, which you conveniently ignore, is for the economy to tank again, ed.
A liberal will so stupid as to think only magical government can control corruption because he lacks the IQ to understand capitalism.
Ed, me boy, if only you had any actual understanding of capitalism, you would make more sense. You are a complete ignoramous. No knowledge of anything except how to say tea party talking points.

iIs any othr conclusion possible??

Yes, you need to read the following:
http://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/It-s-Official-Watching-Fo-in-General_News-120522-817.html

 

[The Rabbi]

Yeah. Thats it. Deregulate the crooks. Let them do what they want. Like we did in 1999. Took them 8 years to blow up the economy. But then, that was only once. Oh, except for that nasty little mess in 1929. But then, the market worked well for the next 75 years, right. Oh, thats right. There were regulations in plase until 99
Whats that old saying about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is called being crazy. But then, cons tend to always believe the con dogma, and never look at any other reasoning.

You're forgetting the S&L Crisis in the late 1980s and the recession in the early 1980s, both of whichhappened with Glass-Steagell in place.
But details were never the strong points of lib-tards.

Just a couple minor points, Rabbi. Glass Steagall did not regulate S&Ls, nor did it have anything to do with recessions in the general economy. Perhaps, Rabbi, you should admit that you have problems with details. Back to fox, rabbi. More your speed. No need for those pesky facts.

The point, missed by you, is that banking crises happened with G-S and without. IOW, the legislation was totally ineffective.
Now get your head back up there.

 

[Rshermr]

You're forgetting the S&L Crisis in the late 1980s and the recession in the early 1980s, both of whichhappened with Glass-Steagell in place.
But details were never the strong points of lib-tards.

Just a couple minor points, Rabbi. Glass Steagall did not regulate S&Ls, nor did it have anything to do with recessions in the general economy. Perhaps, Rabbi, you should admit that you have problems with details. Back to fox, rabbi. More your speed. No need for those pesky facts.

The point, missed by you, is that banking crises happened with G-S and without. IOW, the legislation was totally ineffective.
Now get your head back up there.

Which COMMERCIAL banking crisis ANYTHING LIKE the one in 2007 are you seeing in our history, Rabbi???
It was you who alluded to the S&L mess, and the recession of 1980. Not me. I simply corrected you that GS never regulated either situation.
Funny, I did not see you acknowledge your error. Must have missed it.
Here is a link to a list of all banking crisis that have occurred for the past hundred years or so. You may notice, if YOUR head is up, that none were to banks regulated by GS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banking_crises#20th_century

 

[The Rabbi]

Just a couple minor points, Rabbi. Glass Steagall did not regulate S&Ls, nor did it have anything to do with recessions in the general economy. Perhaps, Rabbi, you should admit that you have problems with details. Back to fox, rabbi. More your speed. No need for those pesky facts.

The point, missed by you, is that banking crises happened with G-S and without. IOW, the legislation was totally ineffective.
Now get your head back up there.

Which COMMERCIAL banking crisis ANYTHING LIKE the one in 2007 are you seeing in our history, Rabbi???
It was you who alluded to the S&L mess, and the recession of 1980. Not me. I simply corrected you that GS never regulated either situation.
Funny, I did not see you acknowledge your error. Must have missed it.
Here is a link to a list of all banking crisis that have occurred for the past hundred years or so. You may notice, if YOUR head is up, that none were to banks regulated by GS.
List of banking crises - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That would be the Latin American debt crisis of the 1970s. Citibank has been bailed out 3 times in the last 35 years.
Glass-Steagell did not prevent banking crises while it was in force, nor did its absence cause this one.

 

[Rshermr]

The point, missed by you, is that banking crises happened with G-S and without. IOW, the legislation was totally ineffective.
Now get your head back up there.

Which COMMERCIAL banking crisis ANYTHING LIKE the one in 2007 are you seeing in our history, Rabbi???
It was you who alluded to the S&L mess, and the recession of 1980. Not me. I simply corrected you that GS never regulated either situation.
Funny, I did not see you acknowledge your error. Must have missed it.
Here is a link to a list of all banking crisis that have occurred for the past hundred years or so. You may notice, if YOUR head is up, that none were to banks regulated by GS.
List of banking crises - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That would be the Latin American debt crisis of the 1970s. Citibank has been bailed out 3 times in the last 35 years.
Glass-Steagell did not prevent banking crises while it was in force, nor did its absence cause this one.

Some proof of your claims would be great. If you have any. By the way, citibank is a multinational corp. And you cite a Latin American debt crisis. Which GS did nothing to regulate, as it was looking at us operations.
Again, where are those us banking crisis that you were alluding to?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The point, missed by you, is that banking crises happened with G-S and without. IOW, the legislation was totally ineffective.
Now get your head back up there.

yes even Bill Clinton and Obama are not clamoring for GS, and neither was Dodd/Frank because there was no evidence that it had anything to do with current depression. If only it was that simple. It's something lower tier liberals latched onto by chance out of pure ignorance becuase they lack the IQ to understand how deregulation would solve all the problems.

 

[The Rabbi]

Which COMMERCIAL banking crisis ANYTHING LIKE the one in 2007 are you seeing in our history, Rabbi???
It was you who alluded to the S&L mess, and the recession of 1980. Not me. I simply corrected you that GS never regulated either situation.
Funny, I did not see you acknowledge your error. Must have missed it.
Here is a link to a list of all banking crisis that have occurred for the past hundred years or so. You may notice, if YOUR head is up, that none were to banks regulated by GS.
List of banking crises - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That would be the Latin American debt crisis of the 1970s. Citibank has been bailed out 3 times in the last 35 years.
Glass-Steagell did not prevent banking crises while it was in force, nor did its absence cause this one.

Some proof of your claims would be great. If you have any. By the way, citibank is a multinational corp. And you cite a Latin American debt crisis. Which GS did nothing to regulate, as it was looking at us operations.
Again, where are those us banking crisis that you were alluding to?

GS didnt regulate mortgages either.

You really suck at this, btw.

 

[Rshermr]

The point, missed by you, is that banking crises happened with G-S and without. IOW, the legislation was totally ineffective.
Now get your head back up there.

yes even Bill Clinton and Obama are not clamoring for GS, and neither was Dodd/Frank because there was no evidence that it had anything to do with current depression. If only it was that simple. It's something lower tier liberals latched onto by chance out of pure ignorance becuase they lack the IQ to understand how deregulation would solve all the problems.

Ed says: yes even Bill Clinton and Obama are not clamoring for GS, and neither was Dodd/Frank because there was no evidence that it had anything to do with current depression. If only it was that simple.
Ed, me boy, I have only two things to say about that statement: 1. 1929, and 2. 2008.
Ed says: It's something lower tier liberals latched onto by chance out of pure ignorance becuase they lack the IQ to understand how deregulation would solve all the problems.
Well, there you are again, insulting liberals. Please, ed, read the following which is one of many studies that show that cons are stupid. Or show me an independent study showing that liberals are.
The right's stupidity spreads, enabled by a too-polite left | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian

 

[Rshermr]

That would be the Latin American debt crisis of the 1970s. Citibank has been bailed out 3 times in the last 35 years.
Glass-Steagell did not prevent banking crises while it was in force, nor did its absence cause this one.

Some proof of your claims would be great. If you have any. By the way, citibank is a multinational corp. And you cite a Latin American debt crisis. Which GS did nothing to regulate, as it was looking at us operations.
Again, where are those us banking crisis that you were alluding to?

GS didnt regulate mortgages either.

You really suck at this, btw.

No, GS did not regulate mortgages. It regulated Commercial Banks. Which is what I said, you clown.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I have only two things to say about that statement: 1. 1929, and 2. 2008

an idiot liberal tries to change the subject and hopes it isn't obvious!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Or show me an independent study showing that liberals are[stupid]

The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness by Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr. and M.D. (Oct 30, 2006)
(61 customer reviews)



dear the liberals opppose the Constitution. Is that stupid??

dear the liberal spied for Stalin. Is that stupid??

dear the liberal gave Stalin the bomb. Is that stupid??

dear the liberal tried to get everyone into homes the Republican free market said they could not afford and caused a depression. Is that stupid?

dear, the liberal created the Great Society that amounted to a near genocide against American blacks. IS that stupid.

Dear the liberal sought to control the economy through the Federal Reserve and caused the Great Dperession. Is that stupid???


see why we are positive a liberal will be slow, very very slow??

 

[The Rabbi]

Some proof of your claims would be great. If you have any. By the way, citibank is a multinational corp. And you cite a Latin American debt crisis. Which GS did nothing to regulate, as it was looking at us operations.
Again, where are those us banking crisis that you were alluding to?

GS didnt regulate mortgages either.

You really suck at this, btw.

No, GS did not regulate mortgages. It regulated Commercial Banks. Which is what I said, you clown.

Since the crisis was caused by mortgage lending then GS would not have prevented it.
QED.
You're done. Get back under your rock.

 

[Rshermr]

GS didnt regulate mortgages either.

You really suck at this, btw.

No, GS did not regulate mortgages. It regulated Commercial Banks. Which is what I said, you clown.

Since the crisis was caused by mortgage lending then GS would not have prevented it.
QED.
You're done. Get back under your rock.

Rabbi, you are apparently unable to listen. So, let me say it clear to you, and this time pay attention. Gs did the following: It limited commercial bank securities activities and affiliations between commercial banks and securities firms. It prohibited commercial banks from collaborating with full-service brokerage firms or participating in investment banking activities.
The problem with you logic when you say "Since the crisis was caused by mortgage lending then GS would not have prevented it" was that the problem was not mortgages, as they were during GS, but with the commercial banks and investment banks who were selling mortgages and MBS instruments.
Check this out if you care to understand anything, though I think your deal is to argue for con talking points without actually researching the problem. The following is an article from a part of Money Magazine, which states that MBS instruments were the cause of the crash that occurred in 2008.

HowStuffWorks "Subprime Mortgage-backed Securities"

So I do not have a rock, idiot, I simply try to understand the truth. Dipshit.

More importantly, check this out. It may help you understand yourself.
The right's stupidity spreads, enabled by a too-polite left | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

, which states that MBS instruments were the cause of the crash that occurred in 2008.

actually they were merely a symptom of the liberal housing bubble that was consciously pumped up by the eternal liberal dream of controlling the economy and providing welfare entitlements so everyone could own a home that the Republican free market said they could not afford.

 

[Toro]

I am generally sympathetic to repealling GS but the problem really wasn't GS. Even if commercial and investment banks were completely separate, the way MBS worked was that the buyers could put back the mortgages before a certain time if they became nonperforming. The banks originated the mortgages who sold them to the investment banks. The only really big bank to which the cross selling applied in a big way was Citi. Otherwise, it was Wachovia selling to Goldman, BofA selling to Lehman, etc. Then, when the loans started to fail, they started being put back to the banks. This had nothing to do with GS.

But the real problem was that Wall Street kept the equity pieces of CMBS, CDOs, etc on their balance sheets. So when the loans started to fail, like termites, defaults began to eat through the lower tranches of the structured products. I do not know why this would not have happened had GS been in place. Now, I think the OP is incredibly naive and devoid of understanding about how modern day finance works, but the repeal of GS had little to do with the Financial Crisis.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I am generally sympathetic to repealling GS but the problem really wasn't GS. Even if commercial and investment banks were completely separate, the way MBS worked was that the buyers could put back the mortgages before a certain time if they became nonperforming. The banks originated the mortgages who sold them to the investment banks. The only really big bank to which the cross selling applied in a big way was Citi. Otherwise, it was Wachovia selling to Goldman, BofA selling to Lehman, etc. Then, when the loans started to fail, they started being put back to the banks. This had nothing to do with GS.

But the real problem was that Wall Street kept the equity pieces of CMBS, CDOs, etc on their balance sheets. So when the loans started to fail, like termites, defaults began to eat through the lower tranches of the structured products. I do not know why this would not have happened had GS been in place. Now, I think the OP is incredibly naive and devoid of understanding about how modern day finance works, but the repeal of GS had little to do with the Financial Crisis.

1) it was a huge bit of deregulation that the liberal can't resist trying to exploit, no matter how insane it is to do so

2) Wall street kept the stuff on their book as if to prove they were not crooks but , like the rest of us, simple folks who had no idea what was about to happen.

They all did it so they all behaved as reasonable business people it would seem. Why did it happen in housing/banking rather than beer or steel?? Because those markets were not distorted by liberal government. Imagine if much of the Federal government had been organized to get people all the beer and steel they wanted but could not afford??

 

[uscitizen]

Its really very simple. The liberals have taught everyone that they've got it under regulatory control so everyone hands over their money and it gets stolen.

In a free Republican/libertarian/capitalist economy everyone would in effect be a regulator. They would demand assurances; if Wall Street did not provide them Wall Street would disappear.

That is a totally insane viewpoint.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Its really very simple. The liberals have taught everyone that they've got it under regulatory control so everyone hands over their money and it gets stolen.

In a free Republican/libertarian/capitalist economy everyone would in effect be a regulator. They would demand assurances; if Wall Street did not provide them Wall Street would disappear.

That is a totally insane viewpoint.

any reason or just a typical dumb liberal who does not know to have a reason???