Final Lesson on Wall Street Bailouts

[Brutus]

1) much of Wall Street went bankrupt

2) the bailouts prevented a world wide depression

3) all or most of the bailout money was repaid

4) bail out amount was less than $1billion

5) the liberals hate business and Wall Street so pretend Wall Street caused the problem in the first place when all in the know, know liberal regulation caused the problem.

6) In fact the real bailout was to Fanny/Freddie; it was or will be for $1.5-$3 trillion and won't ever be paid back!!

 

[Toro]

I do generally agree with the OP but Wall Street and the financial industry played a significant role in the financial crisis, benefited enormously from riding on the backs of the US taxpayer and are now paying themselves enormous amounts of money once again while unemployment remains high and wages are stagnant. So I don't blame people for being pissed at Wall Street.

 

[Brutus]

I do generally agree with the OP but Wall Street and the financial industry played a significant role in the financial crisis,

actually you're mistaken. Wall Street was a symptom not a cause. All agree that liberal regulation was the cause.

benefited enormously from riding on the backs of the US taxpayer

lets not forget that half of Wall Street went bankrupt thanks to liberal regulation. Remember what liberal regulation did to the USSR and Red China. Its fitting that the liberal had to bail out the mess they caused.

and are now paying themselves enormous amounts of money once again while unemployment remains high and wages are stagnant. So I don't blame people for being pissed at Wall Street.

who cares if they are pissed. The issue is, are they smart enough to end the liberal socialist regulation so it won't happen again.

 

[Toro]

I do generally agree with the OP but Wall Street and the financial industry played a significant role in the financial crisis,

actually you're mistaken. Wall Street was a symptom not a cause. All agree that liberal regulation was the cause.

benefited enormously from riding on the backs of the US taxpayer

lets not forget that half of Wall Street went bankrupt thanks to liberal regulation. Remember what liberal regulation did to the USSR and Red China. Its fitting that the liberal had to bail out the mess they caused.

and are now paying themselves enormous amounts of money once again while unemployment remains high and wages are stagnant. So I don't blame people for being pissed at Wall Street.

who cares if they are pissed. The issue is, are they smart enough to end the liberal socialist regulation so it won't happen again.

All do not agree that "liberal" regulation was the cause. In fact, few agree. The only people who agree with that are highly biased conservative ideologues whom one would expect to make that argument since they are attempting to deflect blame for their role in the crisis. I would expect nothing less.

After spending nearly 20 years in the capital markets, I can only conclude that the Efficient Market Hypothesis is a joke.

 

[Brutus]

All do not agree that "liberal" regulation was the cause.

"First consider the once controversial view that the crisis was largely caused by the Fed's holding interest rates too low for too long after the 2001 recession. This view is now so widely held that the editorial pages of both the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal agree on its validity!"...John B. Taylor( arch conservative, author of the Taylor Rule)


" The Federal reserve having done so much to create the problems in which the economy is now mired, having mistakenly thought that even after the housing bubble burst the problems were contained, and having underestimated the severity of the crisis, now wants to make a contribution to preventing the economy from sinking into a Japanese Style malaise....... - "Joseph Stiglitz"

 

[Brutus]

After spending nearly 20 years in the capital markets, I can only conclude that the Efficient Market Hypothesis is a joke.

of course as a liberal you can't understand. Here's a liberal version that maybe you can. Imagine the libtards made all the popular drugs and gave them to all the drug companies in unlimited quanity. The drug companies would then be in a competitive race to move those drugs anyway they could to whomever they could.

Now imagine the libturds printed money in unlimited quanities and gave it to the banks! Now you understand the great recession.

 

[Toronado3800]

All do not agree that "liberal" regulation was the cause.

"First consider the once controversial view that the crisis was largely caused by the Fed's holding interest rates too low for too long after the 2001 recession. This view is now so widely held that the editorial pages of both the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal agree on its validity!"...John B. Taylor( arch conservative, author of the Taylor Rule)


" The Federal reserve having done so much to create the problems in which the economy is now mired, having mistakenly thought that even after the housing bubble burst the problems were contained, and having underestimated the severity of the crisis, now wants to make a contribution to preventing the economy from sinking into a Japanese Style malaise....... - "Joseph Stiglitz"

Brutus, you are finding what you want in the quotes.

Pick a regulation you are for or against and we will debate it.

 

[Brutus]

All do not agree that "liberal" regulation was the cause.

"First consider the once controversial view that the crisis was largely caused by the Fed's holding interest rates too low for too long after the 2001 recession. This view is now so widely held that the editorial pages of both the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal agree on its validity!"...John B. Taylor( arch conservative, author of the Taylor Rule)


" The Federal reserve having done so much to create the problems in which the economy is now mired, having mistakenly thought that even after the housing bubble burst the problems were contained, and having underestimated the severity of the crisis, now wants to make a contribution to preventing the economy from sinking into a Japanese Style malaise....... - "Joseph Stiglitz"

Brutus, you are finding what you want in the quotes.

This view is now so widely held that the editorial pages of both the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal agree on its validity!"..

I didn't find it, I read it!!!!!!!!!!!!! do you read??

Pick a regulation you are for or against and we will debate it.

1) impossible since liberals lack the IQ to debate. You just said I was finding things!!!!!! HOw do you debate if you can't read or think to read??

2) you cant debate so you're are trying to change subject from conclusions about bailouts to debate on regulations.

 

[Toronado3800]

I do generally agree with the OP but Wall Street and the financial industry played a significant role in the financial crisis,

actually you're mistaken. Wall Street was a symptom not a cause. All agree that liberal regulation was the cause.

benefited enormously from riding on the backs of the US taxpayer

lets not forget that half of Wall Street went bankrupt thanks to liberal regulation. Remember what liberal regulation did to the USSR and Red China. Its fitting that the liberal had to bail out the mess they caused.

and are now paying themselves enormous amounts of money once again while unemployment remains high and wages are stagnant. So I don't blame people for being pissed at Wall Street.

who cares if they are pissed. The issue is, are they smart enough to end the liberal socialist regulation so it won't happen again.

Stop that! You mentioned regulations first lol.

If you dont have any which contributed do you retract the statement?

 

[Brutus]

If you dont have any which contributed do you retract the statement?

any????? any what????

 

[editec]

1) much of Wall Street went bankrupt

2) the bailouts prevented a world wide depression

3) all or most of the bailout money was repaid

4) bail out amount was less than $1billion

5) the liberals hate business and Wall Street so pretend Wall Street caused the problem in the first place when all in the know, know liberal regulation caused the problem.

6) In fact the real bailout was to Fanny/Freddie; it was or will be for $1.5-$3 trillion and won't ever be paid back!!

Suuuuuuuuuuuuure it was.

 

[Truthmatters]

How is it this mess happened AFTER regulations were taken away and yet you claim it was caused by regulations?

How can people be so completely partisanly blinded like this?

 

[Brutus]

1) much of Wall Street went bankrupt

2) the bailouts prevented a world wide depression

3) all or most of the bailout money was repaid

4) bail out amount was less than $1billion

5) the liberals hate business and Wall Street so pretend Wall Street caused the problem in the first place when all in the know, know liberal regulation caused the problem.

6) In fact the real bailout was to Fanny/Freddie; it was or will be for $1.5-$3 trillion and won't ever be paid back!!

Suuuuuuuuuuuuure it was.

this is a liberals idea of an intelligent response

 

[Flopper]

I do generally agree with the OP but Wall Street and the financial industry played a significant role in the financial crisis,

actually you're mistaken. Wall Street was a symptom not a cause. All agree that liberal regulation was the cause.



lets not forget that half of Wall Street went bankrupt thanks to liberal regulation. Remember what liberal regulation did to the USSR and Red China. Its fitting that the liberal had to bail out the mess they caused.

and are now paying themselves enormous amounts of money once again while unemployment remains high and wages are stagnant. So I don't blame people for being pissed at Wall Street.

who cares if they are pissed. The issue is, are they smart enough to end the liberal socialist regulation so it won't happen again.

All do not agree that "liberal" regulation was the cause. In fact, few agree. The only people who agree with that are highly biased conservative ideologues whom one would expect to make that argument since they are attempting to deflect blame for their role in the crisis. I would expect nothing less.

After spending nearly 20 years in the capital markets, I can only conclude that the Efficient Market Hypothesis is a joke.

What many people don't realize is that much of the regulation does not come from the government itself but rather from the financial-services industry's internal "private self-regulatory organizations". This of course leads to conflicts of interest. Wall Street firms can actually go shopping for a regulator. Some big multinational financial organization can choose which country they want to act as a regulator for selected parts of their business.

The financial crisis was not due to over regulation, but rather ineffective regulation.

 

[Brutus]

The financial crisis was not due to over regulation, but rather ineffective regulation.

Yes the regulation was so ineffective in the USSR and Red China that 100 million died. THe West had been so successful because it has has so much less regulation. The final solution is to replace liberal regulation altogether with capitalist regulation.

But, sadly, the liberal will lack the IQ to understand capitalism so can't understand how capitalist regulation would work.

 

[Brutus]

How is it this mess happened AFTER regulations were taken away and yet you claim it was caused by regulations?

How can people be so completely partisanly blinded like this?

actually, regulations were not taken away; all agree that major ones caused the Great liberal recession!! A liberal will always be 100% backwards.

"First consider the once controversial view that the crisis was largely caused by the Fed's holding interest rates too low for too long after the 2001 recession. This view is now so widely held that the editorial pages of both the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal agree on its validity!"...John B. Taylor( arch conservative, author of the Taylor Rule)


" The Federal reserve having done so much to create the problems in which the economy is now mired, having mistakenly thought that even after the housing bubble burst the problems were contained, and having underestimated the severity of the crisis, now wants to make a contribution to preventing the economy from sinking into a Japanese Style malaise....... - "Joseph Stiglitz"

 

[Toro]

After spending nearly 20 years in the capital markets, I can only conclude that the Efficient Market Hypothesis is a joke.

of course as a liberal you can't understand. Here's a liberal version that maybe you can. Imagine the libtards made all the popular drugs and gave them to all the drug companies in unlimited quanity. The drug companies would then be in a competitive race to move those drugs anyway they could to whomever they could.

Now imagine the libturds printed money in unlimited quanities and gave it to the banks! Now you understand the great recession.

Go away.

 

[Flopper]

The financial crisis was not due to over regulation, but rather ineffective regulation.

Yes the regulation was so ineffective in the USSR and Red China that 100 million died. THe West had been so successful because it has has so much less regulation. The final solution is to replace liberal regulation altogether with capitalist regulation.

But, sadly, the liberal will lack the IQ to understand capitalism so can't understand how capitalist regulation would work.

Regulation in the US is a far cry from regulation in the USSR.

There are three main bodies that regulate Wall Street, the Securities Exchange Commission, the New York Stock Exchange, and the National Association of Security Dealers. The SEC is the only government organization that regulates the securities industry.

The mission of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitate capital formation. No reputable Wall Street firm would want to see the SEC shut down.

 

[william the wie]

All do not agree that "liberal" regulation was the cause. In fact, few agree. The only people who agree with that are highly biased conservative ideologues whom one would expect to make that argument since they are attempting to deflect blame for their role in the crisis. I would expect nothing less.

After spending nearly 20 years in the capital markets, I can only conclude that the Efficient Market Hypothesis is a joke.

The strong version certainly but the weak version? Benjamin Graham endorsed the weak version in congressional testimony (Janet Lowe's biography is my source). So the weak version that no one refers to is probably correct i. e. fundamental investing and following insider trading beats the market. But the vast majority of people lack the emotional discipline to beat the market even with a Value Line subscription and access to proper asset allocation. Graham's 50-50 stocks and bonds much less the later Modigliani and Browne iterations of portfolio management beat the market like a drum.

 

[Toro]

All do not agree that "liberal" regulation was the cause. In fact, few agree. The only people who agree with that are highly biased conservative ideologues whom one would expect to make that argument since they are attempting to deflect blame for their role in the crisis. I would expect nothing less.

After spending nearly 20 years in the capital markets, I can only conclude that the Efficient Market Hypothesis is a joke.

The strong version certainly but the weak version? Benjamin Graham endorsed the weak version in congressional testimony (Janet Lowe's biography is my source). So the weak version that no one refers to is probably correct i. e. fundamental investing and following insider trading beats the market. But the vast majority of people lack the emotional discipline to beat the market even with a Value Line subscription and access to proper asset allocation. Graham's 50-50 stocks and bonds much less the later Modigliani and Browne iterations of portfolio management beat the market like a drum.

Technical analysis contradicts weak form EMH.

Market efficiency waxes and wanes. Sometimes markets are very efficient, sometimes they go off the rails. Some markets are more efficient than others, and all markets trend towards efficiency over time.

However, there are simply too many "Million year events" to believe that markets really follow a Gaussian distribution. They better follow a power law distribution.