Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Individuals actors operating within legal bounds do not bear the burden of responsibility for market conditions having been enabled by Government deregulation. The functions of the market itself are not personal and your attempt to place blame on certain individuals who work within the financial system is ridiculous...The conditions for real estate market failure were ripe not because of individual workers within various disconnected segments of the market, but because of the legal bounds under which they were all operating on account of failed Government leadership in proper market regulation...Smart investors on Wall Street saw the writing on the wall and made a profit for their clients by betting against the real estate market. "Shorting the market" is nothing personal, it is merely capitalizing on what the market provides.
We should also remember that no one forced individual home buyers to sign mortgage loan agreements they could not honor...IOW people who did not fail to pay their mortgages did not lose their homes, it's called personal responsibility...Banks had been practically giving away money for a decade at historically low interest rates, and Americans pounced on the real estate market which artificially inflated market prices.
Many (too many) did not bother to understand the market they were buying into, they only knew the vast amounts of money the bank would lend them suddenly meant they could afford a very expensive home at a very low interest rate...But then too many people failed to honor their mortgage agreements WHY? They either lost their job and could no longer make the payments, failed to understand that their interest rate agreement was adjustable, or they squatted and legally robbed their mortgage lender...None of which is even remotely the fault of a Wall Street investor who had the insight to bet against REITs in that environment...
HOrseshit.
You act like the banks weren't the ones pushing for this deregulation to allow them to make riskier loans. That they weren't lobbying the GSE's to back more of their risk. that the banks weren't intentionally pushing people to make loans that they knew damned well they couldn't pay off.
Hells bells, I make 20% less than what I made 5 years ago and my property has lost about 30% of its value. Now, you'd think the banks would stop pestering me with offers to refinance and such. NOPE. You think they'd stop sending me unsolicited credit card offers. NOPE.
The Banks are acting like 2008 never even happened, because they know if it happens again, they'll get bailouts again.
And not a one of them will go to jail for it.
I am not acting like any such thing...Whatever banks pushed for was made possible not by virtue of the stock market. The reason banks failed is not because investors sold off, rather investors sold off because banks failed to produce a thriving business model in a deregulated environment... Think of the market trader as the messenger, not the actual message or cause of failure.
As long as we have a black president, the right will never be united with anyone. Their party is 90% white for a reason.
Horseshit yourself.
Horseshit yourself.
Horseshit yourself.
Okay, you're right. We need to regulate the stock market with daily audits of their behavior. Sounds fair to me.
Read my previous posts about the GSA.
You don't believe that. You like to think you do but you don't rant about how evil corporations are then say you want government to stay out of our lives. The only way to stop what you are bitching about is to raise taxes dramatically on companies and pass laws to restrict their economic freedom. That's what leftists do, not someone who claims to believe in keeping government out of people's lives.
not to interfere here... just a comment. and that is, once again, it's not a "leftist" thing, it's an extremist thing on both sides. you saw how one of the loons get on here and talked about how he's "under the radar", doesn't use credit, etc... that's s also extremist.
and you don't need to drastically raise taxes on corporations. you just need to bring back the regulations that kept them being good 'citizens' and close loopholes so they pay their appropriate tax rates (which most of them aren't doing now). in general, corporations are amoral.. neither good nor evil.
men however, can be evil and use corporations to their own ends if permitted to do so.
the other thing that needs to be done is citizens united needs to be overturned, whether by court decision or by constitutional amendment.
Right. All reasonable points.
I would say this. Generally, those on the American right want more freedom and liberty from government involvement. Generally, those on the American left want more restrictions placed on corporations by governments. Now, there are always contradictions but broadly speaking, this generally holds. We can debate forever on which side is correct but I think as what we define in American political discourse, we can agree that generally, the American right wants less government involvement than the left. And I think that is generally true in economics. (Not necessarily so on social issues, mind you.) Conservatives generally want lower taxes and less regulation, liberals generally want higher taxes and more regulation, at least more than conservatives.
If you say "Corporations are screwing over the middle class and we have to fix it," the only way to fix it is through government involvement. There are generally two ways to fix this - higher taxes on imported goods and laws which restrict the behavior of corporations. Generally, conservatives do not want higher taxes and more regulations on business. Liberals are generally more sympathetic to both. We can debate all day which is right but I think this description of the American political spectrum is pretty well understood. I don't see how you can call yourself a conservative and say that corporations are screwing the country, the top 1% are bad and we have throw these people in jail, even though we don't know what laws they broke. I wouldn't say that was leftist. I would say that was extreme leftist rhetoric. There is a difference between the OWS crowd and the Tea Party. The extremists in the OWS crowd generally agree with Joe. The Tea Party does not. The Tea Party does not see the rich and corporations as evil, the extremists in the OWS do.
Dumbass Joe thinks I should go to jail and be beaten with baseball bats simply because I made profits shorting stock. What I did was not only perfectly legal, I have a fiduciary duty under the law to act in the best interests of my clients, which I did, and would do all over again. This to me is not the rhetoric of the left but of the extremist, Marxist left. The term "Marxist" gets thrown around here with a hilarious regularity, but that is the closest Marxist/Leninist sentiment I have heard yet at USMB.
Contumacious, you stupid FUCK
Horseshit yourself.
Okay, you're right. We need to regulate the stock market with daily audits of their behavior. Sounds fair to me.
not to interfere here... just a comment. and that is, once again, it's not a "leftist" thing, it's an extremist thing on both sides. you saw how one of the loons get on here and talked about how he's "under the radar", doesn't use credit, etc... that's s also extremist.
and you don't need to drastically raise taxes on corporations. you just need to bring back the regulations that kept them being good 'citizens' and close loopholes so they pay their appropriate tax rates (which most of them aren't doing now). in general, corporations are amoral.. neither good nor evil.
men however, can be evil and use corporations to their own ends if permitted to do so.
the other thing that needs to be done is citizens united needs to be overturned, whether by court decision or by constitutional amendment.
Right. All reasonable points.
I would say this. Generally, those on the American right want more freedom and liberty from government involvement. Generally, those on the American left want more restrictions placed on corporations by governments. Now, there are always contradictions but broadly speaking, this generally holds. We can debate forever on which side is correct but I think as what we define in American political discourse, we can agree that generally, the American right wants less government involvement than the left. And I think that is generally true in economics. (Not necessarily so on social issues, mind you.) Conservatives generally want lower taxes and less regulation, liberals generally want higher taxes and more regulation, at least more than conservatives.
If you say "Corporations are screwing over the middle class and we have to fix it," the only way to fix it is through government involvement. There are generally two ways to fix this - higher taxes on imported goods and laws which restrict the behavior of corporations. Generally, conservatives do not want higher taxes and more regulations on business. Liberals are generally more sympathetic to both. We can debate all day which is right but I think this description of the American political spectrum is pretty well understood. I don't see how you can call yourself a conservative and say that corporations are screwing the country, the top 1% are bad and we have throw these people in jail, even though we don't know what laws they broke. I wouldn't say that was leftist. I would say that was extreme leftist rhetoric. There is a difference between the OWS crowd and the Tea Party. The extremists in the OWS crowd generally agree with Joe. The Tea Party does not. The Tea Party does not see the rich and corporations as evil, the extremists in the OWS do.
Dumbass Joe thinks I should go to jail and be beaten with baseball bats simply because I made profits shorting stock. What I did was not only perfectly legal, I have a fiduciary duty under the law to act in the best interests of my clients, which I did, and would do all over again. This to me is not the rhetoric of the left but of the extremist, Marxist left. The term "Marxist" gets thrown around here with a hilarious regularity, but that is the closest Marxist/Leninist sentiment I have heard yet at USMB.
Thank you.
I agree with your broadly set specifications as to what right and left *generally* want. But, as you also know, the right wants strict social regulation. So it's always seemed to me they want big government when they want "big government". they also have this meme that the "founders" wanted small government, which isn't the case. they wanted a government free from church rule like there was in england. Check! and they wanted a balance among the BRANCHES of government so one wouldn't become all-powerful. Also check!
with respect to economics, yes.... 100% the right seems to want to return to the days of laissez faire economics. yet, that form of economics was the cause of incredible social and economic problems and was corrected by the new deal legislation.
i haven't seen joe to be anywhere on the left on most issues. does he have a personal animosity toward the financial markets? well, it seems so. and while I and my family benefit from a lot of what happens on the financial markets (thanks, btw for growing my son's college fund!! and mom and dad's retirement funds!), there is a lot that has hurt us as well..... mostly on a societal level.
I don't think *most* of OWS "hates" wall street. I think they just don't want our government auctioned off to wall street and corporate interests. Are there fringe elements in both tea party and OWS? of course... on the tea side are the people who "live under the radar" and think if they get an EZPass for their car, the "gubment is watching" them. on the OWS side... you get anarchists who would involve themselves in anything that would crash the system. Is joe marxist? maybe in certain aspects of his thinking...
I saw what was said about wall street guys. I'll add that I read anti-lawyer garbage constantly, too. (including shakespeare's famous "comic" line... "first kill all the lawyers"). Mostly those things get said by people who have no clue what we do... have no understanding of our respective professions and feel like our "ilk" has undue influence on their lives.
do i think the people on wall street who bundled the bad debt with good and then bet on failure should be investigated with an eye toward prosecuting illegal behavior? yes. but if what they did was legal because of de-regulation, then the answer is to regulate, not prosecute. on the other hand, the bush admin de-funding the SEC so they couldn't adequately enforce regulations was probably a really stupid idea.
so there ya go. and thank you for your response.
with respect to economics, yes.... 100% the right seems to want to return to the days of laissez faire economics. yet, that form of economics was the cause of incredible social and economic problems and was corrected by the new deal legislation.
well, it seems so. and while I and my family benefit from a lot of what happens on the financial markets (thanks, btw for growing my son's college fund!! and mom and dad's retirement funds!), there is a lot that has hurt us as well..... mostly on a societal level.
It has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with political ideology. Over and over again, it comes down, not to religion, but whether the nation and it's people should become more marxist. Even among individual religions the people divide along political lines. The two sides have grown so far apart that there is no longer a point where compromise is possible. This is not a religious divide.
It most surely is. If people actually believed in and practiced their faith we would not be in this mess, no matter what religion they ascribed to.
There is no amount of faith that would overcome the natural objection to being robbed. The most faithful isn't going to tolerate marxism. The power of authority to enforcing equality and sharing among those who work and those who refuse failed in the wholly Puritan colonies where religion was certainly not an issue at all.
Horseshit yourself.
Okay, you're right. We need to regulate the stock market with daily audits of their behavior. Sounds fair to me.
they don't need daily audits of their behavior. what is needed is to restore the regulations that existed previously and an increase in enforcment budget for the SEC. That has, as a *general* rule, kept most of the bad behavior to a minimum or at least eventually caught the bad guys.
Okay, you're right. We need to regulate the stock market with daily audits of their behavior. Sounds fair to me.
they don't need daily audits of their behavior. what is needed is to restore the regulations that existed previously and an increase in enforcment budget for the SEC. That has, as a *general* rule, kept most of the bad behavior to a minimum or at least eventually caught the bad guys.
Exactly.
Ms Jillian, I agree with you 1000%.
We need to assign a federal agent - day and night - , preferably the ones wearing brown shirts, to every banker, stockbroker, and entrepreneurs......
As always, Heil Hitler.
.
they don't need daily audits of their behavior. what is needed is to restore the regulations that existed previously and an increase in enforcment budget for the SEC. That has, as a *general* rule, kept most of the bad behavior to a minimum or at least eventually caught the bad guys.
Exactly.
Ms Jillian, I agree with you 1000%.
We need to assign a federal agent - day and night - , preferably the ones wearing brown shirts, to every banker, stockbroker, and entrepreneurs......
As always, Heil Hitler.
.
i'm sorry. perhaps your command of the english language isn't very good. i don't believe that's what i said. nor can you extrapolate that *from* what i said.
regulation of criminal activity is not a "nazi" thing. i'm sorry you thnik it's ok for people's money to be stolen or for the markets to be manipulated.
poor dear. does the derangement hurt much?
Exactly.
Ms Jillian, I agree with you 1000%.
We need to assign a federal agent - day and night - , preferably the ones wearing brown shirts, to every banker, stockbroker, and entrepreneurs......
As always, Heil Hitler.
.
i'm sorry. perhaps your command of the english language isn't very good. i don't believe that's what i said. nor can you extrapolate that *from* what i said.
regulation of criminal activity is not a "nazi" thing. i'm sorry you thnik it's ok for people's money to be stolen or for the markets to be manipulated.
poor dear. does the derangement hurt much?
Yes, of course it does.
In 2005 there were a gazillion federal agencies "regulating" the market - most prominently the Federal Reserve Board and the SEC. Yet folks continued to invest in derivatives.
You should remember that the formidable KGB could not control the Soviet Blackmarket, what makes you think that their American counterparts can?
But the question that should ask yourself is : Should the US be concerned about folks investing in derivatives or should they be concerned about their policies which make investing in derivatives profitable?
.
The derivatives that brought down the housing market were, for the most part, unregulated..
The derivatives that brought down the housing market were, for the most part, unregulated..
Derivatives are merely contractual agreements which limit risk. Overly opaque and complicated derivatives, if you want to go that far, emerged after the First Basel accord and all of its ad hoc regulations. Thus, derivatives were the result of new regulations (as opposed to deregulation). Either way, inflation is what caused speculation and the over-valuation of financial assets.
The derivative explanation is pure nonsense created by the economic illiterate left. Business cycles have little to do with regulation, though it may or may not magnify its effects (SmootHawley Tariff Act, for example); there were business cycles before derivatives, and there will be business cycles after emperor Obama severely regulates derivatives (if he regulates them at all--Bernanke knows they had nothing to do with this crises).
.
The vast bulk of derivatives did NOT result from regulation. Nor did the CDOs, RMBS, CDO squareds, CDS, etc. which were at the heart of the housing crisis. The writing of SIVs and CDS against derivatives products were generally done offshore in unregulated or lightly regulated jurisdictions. The speculation in housing and structured finance is separate from the business cycle and irrelevant to the discussion.
Markets fail sometimes. Sorry.
