Republicans so worried about the debt, yet they cause most of it.

[The Derp]

You think an overnight loan from the Discount Window increases a bank's capital?

No, it's just what they did in order to avoid the public humiliation of having to get a bailout.

So besides failing math and Econ 101, you also failed Accounting 101.

Toddster, at this point with all your goalpost-shifting, it really falls on deaf ears when you claim to have knowledge on this subject when you don't. Why did those banks and businesses go to the Fed's Discount Window? Do you even know?

$1 billion in capital supports how much in loans at an 8% capital requirement?
How much in loans at a 10% capital requirement? Use a calculator.
Post your answer.

LOL! So again, you're just using made-up standards now in order to lend your shitty argument credibility. The fact is that bank revenue has surpassed that of pre-Bush collapse. So this isn't about a capital requirement to loan, this is about a capital requirement to buy securities, which is why the capital requirement was replaced with self-regulation in 2004 in the first place.

And just another FYI, capital requirements are now much higher than pre-2004.

Prove it. And capital requirements aren't the only thing in play here. Banks have increased their revenues, which means the capital requirement going up is on revenue, which also went up. So the pool from which the capital requirement comes is bigger, which means more gross capital is there. Banks aren't lending because lending isn't as profitable for them as gambling in the secondary markets. That's why they removed the net capital rule in the first place. Not to lend more, but to buy more.

You said it was eliminated. Your NYT link said, " It was unanimous. The decision, changing what was known as the net capital rule, was completed and published in The Federal Register a few months later"

Yes, the rule was changed and that change was the rule's elimination and replacement with self-regulation, where the net capital rule is arbitrarily decided by each bank, on its own, and doesn't even have to apply to any standard. That's the elimination of the rule, whether you want to accept it or not. So once again, you are trying to make this an argument over semantics and not results. The result of the self-regulation was the elimination of the net capital rule, relying on banks themselves to set their own rules according to their own standards. Which is the same thing as not having a net capital rule at all.

That's how Laissez-faire Conservatism works.

The NYT says the change was published. You should find it and post it.
Who knows, maybe it will actually back up your claim? LOL!

Yes, the NYT also says the change was that the banks ended up self-regulating, effectively eliminating the rule.

 

[The Derp]

Securities that BofA sells require no capital on the books of BofA.

Right, but the ones they buy certainly do, and BoA did a ton of buying in those markets.

Banks held lots of crappy mortgages. Ones they wrote, ones they bought from other originators, even securitized ones they bought. It was in all the papers.

Crappy mortgages or crappy mortgage-backed securities? Because the crappy mortgages were issued by private bank lenders, bought by private banks, packaged by private banks, insured by AIG, and then sold in the secondary and tertiary markets where the whole process repeats itself dozens, hundreds, thousands, maybe even millions of times with just one single toxic subprime loan.

And how did the banks manage to purchase so many of these toxic assets? BY REMOVING THE NET CAPITAL RULE AND REPLACING IT WITH SELF-REGULATION.

Revenue doesn't meet capital requirements..

You sure about that? Let's see your math there. Use BoA as an example. I'll even get you started. In Q2 2017, BoA got $23B in revenue, and $11B in profits. So explain to me how from that you come to the conclusion that there isn't enough capital for the bank to do any lending? Go ahead. Show your work.

You never explained what happens if capital requirements go from 8% to 10%.

Nothing happens when a bank like BoA is bringing in $22B a quarter in revenue and $11B in profits.

In 2004, they got capital requirements reduced so they could greedily make more loans.
Now making fewer loans is greed? You're making less sense than usual.

NO! FUCKING WRONG! They didn't make more loans in 2004, they bought more securities. That's why they replaced the net capital rule with self-regulation. That's why the securities bubble exploded in 2004. It wasn't "to lend more", it was "to buy more". They were over-leveraging themselves in order to buy more securities with which they will gamble in those markets because those markets were more profitable for them than just lending.

This is what I mean when I talk about how you speak out of your ass. You know that the reason banks replaced the net capital rule with self-regulation was so that they could over-leverage themselves to play in the securities markets, yet you are still lying about why the net capital rule was changed. Why? Why are you still lying? Do you think that the banks removed the net capital rule to do more loans, or to buy more securities?

 

[sartre play]

As less & less people control more of everything it will get worse for working people. GE use to mostly make things then they moved more into the money market, now there stock is down 25% every thing seems to be going towards instant gains, not long term viability.

 

[The Derp]

Repealing regulations creates/saves jobs ...

Regulations aren't why coal jobs are disappearing. They're disappearing because robots are taking them, natural gas is more plentiful, and extracting coal from the ground is messy, dangerous work that results in deaths.

 

[The Derp]

I'm not whining about bank mergers, liberals are. Waaahhh too big to fail. DURR.

You said that the regulations in Dodd-Frank were going to cause big banks to merge and acquire smaller ones. Well, that was happening prior to Dodd-Frank. So your argument that Dodd-Frank causes it is bullshit.

Nope.I want people to realize that excessive regulations harm small and medium sized banks more than huge banks.

But that's not what you said before. We can certainly debate the effects on small and medium banks, but nothing Dodd-Frank did causes bigger banks to buy up and merge with smaller ones. And we wanted to break up the banks following the Bush Collapse. You all opposed that completely.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Another imaginary claim not in the article.

It's mentioned at least three fucking times. So you didn't read the article, did you? If you did, you'd have seen the quotes:

1. In loosening the capital rules, which are supposed to provide a buffer in turbulent times,
the agency also decided to rely on the firms’ own computer models for determining the riskiness of investments, essentially outsourcing the job of monitoring risk to the banks themselves.

...

2. The commission’s decision effectively to outsource its oversight to the firms themselves fit squarely in the broader Washington culture of the last eight years under President Bush.

...

3. “It’s a fair criticism of the Bush administration that regulators have relied on many voluntary regulatory programs,” said Roderick M. Hills, a Republican who was chairman of the S.E.C. under President Gerald R. Ford. “The problem with such voluntary programs is that, as we’ve seen throughout history, they often don’t work.”​

They are both things you made up. Both imaginary.

No, they're not. You just don't know what words mean when you read them. That's because you're a sophist.

It's mentioned at least three fucking times.

Self-regulation isn't mentioned even once.

the agency also decided to rely on the firms’ own computer models for determining the riskiness of investments, essentially outsourcing the job of monitoring risk to the banks themselves.

That's a big change from your original claims, "they eliminated capital requirements" and "they self regulate".
Lift with your knees when you move those goalposts.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"Replaced" and "self-regulation" hat are two things not in your article?

It was mentioned at least three times. You obviously do not comprehend what you read, or you lied about reading it. In either case, you can suck it.

1. In loosening the capital rules, which are supposed to provide a buffer in turbulent times, the agency also decided to rely on the firms’ own computer models for determining the riskiness of investments, essentially outsourcing the job of monitoring risk to the banks themselves.

...

2. The commission’s decision effectively to outsource its oversight to the firms themselves fit squarely in the broader Washington culture of the last eight years under President Bush.

...

3. “It’s a fair criticism of the Bush administration that regulators have relied on many voluntary regulatory programs,” said Roderick M. Hills, a Republican who was chairman of the S.E.C. under President Gerald R. Ford. “The problem with such voluntary programs is that, as we’ve seen throughout history, they often don’t work.”​

Yup, Obama clearly wanted lower prices for energy. DERP!

So, as usual, there's more than meets the eye to what you say. So, that's what Obama was saying within the context of a cap-and-trade plan (which never happened), that costs would go up because of the costs to retrofit the plants to be less polluting. So, how is that "an attack on fossil fuels"? Because they already do that in the Northeast & New England and their energy prices came down.

In loosening the capital rules

Loosening? I thought they were eliminated?
Wasn't that your claim? Eliminated?

So, that's what Obama was saying within the context of a cap-and-trade plan (which never happened), that costs would go up

Obama wanted cap and trade. Cap and trade makes energy more expensive.
It's clear that he wanted energy prices to rise.

So, how is that "an attack on fossil fuels"?

Was he pushing for regulations to make wind and solar energy more expensive?
Or were his regulation desires only attacking fossil fuels?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yup, Obama clearly wanted lower prices for energy. DERP!

So, again, your argument shifted from "Obama caused higher energy prices" to "Obama wanted higher energy prices".

Another goalpost shift on your part as information comes down the pike that undermines your argument.

Your original claim was that "Obama raised energy prices". When I posted from Scientific American and the EIA that energy prices reached record lows in 2016, your argument then became "well...Obama wanted higher energy prices". But that wasn't what you were asserting before. You were asserting with absolute certainty that Obama caused energy prices to go higher. THAT WASN'T TRUE, WAS IT? So you changed your argument, mid-stream, to whine about how Obama wanted to do something, but didn't. Even though what Obama did resulted in the lowest energy costs in two decades.

So basically, you're a piece of shit who changes his arguments in order to preserve an ego so fragile, it shatters like a glass menagerie, leaving behind a humiliated and impotent man who will most likely take that rage out on a crowd of people at a public event.

So, again, your argument shifted from "Obama caused higher energy prices" to "Obama wanted higher energy prices".

He clearly wanted higher energy prices.
His Energy Secretary wanted $9-$10 gasoline in the US.
Do appoint someone who feels that way if you want lower gas prices? DURR!

Now, just because he wanted higher prices, tried to get laws and regulations in place to make them higher, doesn't mean he was successful. Like so many other things he tried, Obama failed here as well.

Even though what Obama did resulted in the lowest energy costs in two decades.

What do you feel he "did to lower energy costs"?
Any specific law? Any specific regulation?

Or was it his awesome speech, "Let's try all of the above", that lowered costs? LOL!

 

[The Derp]

Self-regulation isn't mentioned even once.

So now you're off the deep end in this. Clearly, the three statements I quoted all reference the self-regulation that was put in place after that April 2004 meeting. You're just denying them now for your own egotistical purposes.

1. In loosening the capital rules, which are supposed to provide a buffer in turbulent times,
the agency also decided to rely on the firms’ own computer models for determining the riskiness of investments, essentially outsourcing the job of monitoring risk to the banks themselves. <-----SELF -REGULATION
...

2. The commission’s decision effectively to ****outsource its oversight to the firms themselves****(<-----SELF-REGULATION) fit squarely in the broader Washington culture of the last eight years under President Bush.
...
3. “It’s a fair criticism of the Bush administration that regulators have relied on many voluntary regulatory programs,” said Roderick M. Hills, a Republican who was chairman of the S.E.C. under President Gerald R. Ford. “The problem with such voluntary programs is that, as we’ve seen throughout history, they often don’t work.” Voluntary programs = self regulation.​

So now we're in the Conservative world of words not meaning what they mean. Where critical thinking is absent and reactionary thinking is all that remains.

You're now taking the sophist position that unless the words are specifically arranged in that order, then it isn't true. But all that does is reveal to everyone that you lack critical thinking skills.

So why are you pretending to be dumb? Or is this just who you are as a person?

That's a big change from your original claims, "they eliminated capital requirements" and "they self regulate".
Lift with your knees when you move those goalposts.

PROJECTION ALERT! So now what you're doing is projecting on me, which is another tactic of a sophist. You're projecting your own pathetic ever-changing positions for no other reason than to protect your fragile ego.

the agency also decided to rely on the firms’ own computer models for determining the riskiness of investments, essentially outsourcing the job of monitoring risk to the banks themselves.​

Tell me what you think that phrase means if not that regulators deferred to the banks to determine what levels of capitalization was comfortable for them. WHICH IS WHAT SELF-REGULATION IS.

Here's a helpful bit of advice for you; if you're going to go to those shameless lengths, just kill yourself. Because that type of shiity behavior is indicative of someone so mentally unbalanced and fragile, that the simplest thing can propel them to take a gun and shoot up a crowd of innocent people because you feel humiliated and impotent. If you're projecting your own shitty issues on me, then we're done here. Grow up or kill yourself. I don't care which.

 

[The Derp]

Loosening? I thought they were eliminated?
Wasn't that your claim? Eliminated?

So this is where critical thinking skills come into play. Clearly you lack those skills. If you replace a capitalization requirement with one that the capitalization is up to the banks to determine, then you've eliminated the capitalization requirement.

All your semantic and pedantic shittiness doesn't change that.

Obama wanted cap and trade. Cap and trade makes energy more expensive.

WRONG! Cap and trade does not make energy more expensive, as we saw since 2009 when the Northeastern states entered into their own cap-and-trade pact, which ended up reducing costs by half a billion, as the study linked there shows and says:

Energy consumers overall – households, businesses, government users, and others – have enjoyed a net gain of $460 million, as their overall energy bills drop over time.​

So another one of your shitty, preconceived notions and "conventional wisdom" is once again dashed and destroyed by facts. Facts I'm sure you will deny in favor of your dogmatic, cult beliefs in Conservative policy.

Was he pushing for regulations to make wind and solar energy more expensive?

Nope. And he wasn't pushing for any forms of energy to be more expensive. As we saw that in 2016 energy prices hit 20-year lows. A fact you simultaneously accept and deny, inexplicably, depending on how your shit argument is faring.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Reducing leases on Federal land restricting offshore drilling both reduced supply.
Unfortunately, for Obama's higher price wishes, frackers on private land gave us greater supply.

Oil production reached record levels during Obama, so your first claim is entirely, 100% A LIE. Secondly, you base your position that Obama wanted higher energy prices just because, and you support that with a half-edited clip of candidate Obama in 2007 talking about cap-and-trade. Yet, energy prices during Obama reached record lows as crude from Alberta was oversupplied to the US PADD II region, causing price discounting for oil, and natural gas production boomed which led to a drop in the price per barrel. Overall, Obama reduced energy prices to their lowest levels in 20 years, and did it with no help whatsoever from you impotent, humiliated little men.

He tried. He really wanted higher prices.

Wait, wait, wait. Back up a second. So your original claim then, that "Obama caused higher energy prices", was all bullshit!? So if that original claim was bullshit, why would this claim not be bullshit too? You keep insisting on something yet all you can do is cobble together a questionably-edited clip from candidate Obama talking about cap-and-trade in 2007 (which the Northeast did and as a result saved half a billion dollars). You say he wanted higher energy prices by virtue of pollution controls on plants, which the NE already does and actually lowered energy costs.

Nowhere in that clip did Obama say he wanted higher energy prices. What he said was that cap-and-trade rules would result in higher costs because of the controls required to meet pollution standards. But here's the thing, the northeast did this plan and they saw lower energy costs afterward. So whatever Obama was hypothesizing back in 2007 was obviously corrected by the practice of Northeastern States beginning in 2011.

You would know this if you bothered to actually read anything about it. But you don't read. You just repeat what you're told, without question. That's because you're a zealot.

He had less than zero to do with the low prices.

AHHHHH! So now you're admitting that energy prices were lower! Well that's a reversal of your previous assertion that energy prices were higher during Obama. So since your initial claim is crap, doesn't that make your other claims crap too?

First correct thing you've said all day. He tried, he failed, we won.

You "won" how? Obama got lower energy costs when you said they were higher. So you were wrong on that point. So now you're trying to move the goalposts all to preserve your fucking ego.

Get. Over. Yourself.

Oil production reached record levels during Obama, so your first claim is entirely, 100% A LIE.

Obama didn't reduce leases? Didn't restrict offshore drilling? Prove it.

Overall, Obama reduced energy prices to their lowest levels in 20 years,

But I think the other reason President Obama doesn't spend more time beating the drum on this crude oil production surge is that it is readily apparent that it happened despite his administration, and not because of it. President Obama coincidentally happened to enter office just as the shale oil boom in the U.S. was getting started.

In fact, the vast majority of the increase in U.S. oil production occurred on private land. On land that the U.S. government controls, it was a different story. The EIA reported in 2015 that while U.S. oil and gas production overall were surging, production of natural gas on federal lands was declining. Oil production is at about the same level as it was during his first year in office

The Irony Of President Obama's Oil Legacy

cap-and-trade in 2007 (which the Northeast did and as a result saved half a billion dollars).

You think they saved money because of cap-and-trade?
I'd love to see the logic behind that fantasy claim. Never mind, there is no logic.

But here's the thing, the northeast did this plan and they saw lower energy costs afterward.

Cap-and-trade, an expensive regulatory mess, lowered their costs or was it fracking?

AHHHHH! So now you're admitting that energy prices were lower!

Obama's push for higher prices failed. Thanks to frackers.
Just another Obama failure.

You "won" how?

I won when Obama failed to make our energy prices higher. You won too, idiot.

 

[The Derp]

He clearly wanted higher energy prices.

Clearly? According to whom, you!? Well, your credibility is non-existent so why should I take your word for it? What have you done to establish that level of trust and credibility, anyway?

His Energy Secretary wanted $9-$10 gasoline in the US.

When did Chu say that?

Do appoint someone who feels that way if you want lower gas prices? DURR!

Well, since you (predictably) didn't source that claim, I'm sure there's more to it than what you're saying here. Given your habit of deliberately omitting parts of information that undermine your case, you're gonna have to do the hard work of sourcing and then detailing your claim. I doubt you can do it because you would have already. So I think you heard something form someone else, and are just repeating it without bothering to question it yourself. That's the kind of sloppy work you do here.

What do you feel he "did to lower energy costs"?
Any specific law? Any specific regulation?
Or was it his awesome speech, "Let's try all of the above", that lowered costs? LOL!

Whatever you think Obama may or may not have said doesn't matter because energy prices under Obama reached a 20-year low when you claimed that he raised energy prices. You still haven't acknowledged you were wrong about that. So since you were so wrong about your insistence that he raised energy prices, why the fuck would you be right about anything else you say?

 

[jillian]

and yet want to give the rich tax cuts, (how ignorant is that) They must have brain damage.

and what will happen to global terrorism they ask , since they do not want to do anything about gun laws in the US, who by the way most mass shooters are white males and US citizens and even some vets, who in the hell cares.

rightwingnuts only worry about the debt when democrats run things. then suddenly it's the most pressing issue in the world.

when they get their little plutocrat hands on things, suddenly debt doesn't matter.

ask dick cheney. nothing as changed and I don't know why we'd expect the wingers to do anything but destroy the economy... which is what they always do when they get power. then democrats have to clean up their messes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

While doing what he could to make them higher.

Your opinion, of course. What Obama did actually resulted in the lowest energy prices in 20 years. So something isn't gelling between your argument and the facts. You assert Obama caused higher prices (you were wrong), then you asserted Obama wanted to cause higher energy prices (questionable claim supported only by a questionably-edited clip), then you admitted energy prices were at their lowest in 20 years (finally), then you tried to foist an imagined position on Obama so you can save face on a message board thread.

We couldn't and didn't drill our way to lower prices?

Not for oil, no. The price per barrel of oil was driven down primarily by natural gas and renewables, and by an oversupply of Tar Sands sludge to the US PADD II region. An oversupply that leads to price discounting for US refineries. Price discounting you want to eliminate by redirecting that sludge to the Gulf. So why do you want to raise energy prices?

Drilling for natural gas gave us lower prices? Drilling for natural gas gave us lower prices?

So now your argument is reduced to simply one of semantics. Typical. Drilling, fracking, whatever you want to call it ended up producing lower oil and energy prices overall. You asserted, rather stupidly and arrogantly, that Obama caused higher energy prices. That was bullshit, of course, so now you have decided to make a semantic argument about something Obama said way back as a candidate. But in all this time, did you admit you were wrong about your claim that Obama caused higher energy prices? Nope. No admission of error there. Instead, you shift the goalposts to get your argument on more firm footing, only to have the ground pulled out from under you, yet again. So your argument, that went from a bold assertion that Obama caused higher energy prices, has now been reduced to you asserting Obama wanted higher energy prices, even though energy prices reached a 20 year low. You seem incapable of explaining how Obama wanted higher energy prices but ended up getting lower ones, only that he was vaguely wrong about something. What that something is has now become a semantic argument on your part. All to distract us from the truth; that you made a bullshit claim you've since been trying to walk back.

hat's an interesting claim. What was the demand for oil in 2009? In 2017? Link?

The demand for oil dropped thanks to Obama's "all of the above" energy strategy that you claimed he didn't have, even though he said it.

Your opinion, of course.

I eagerly await the list of laws and regulations Obama put into place to reduce gas and oil prices.

Drilling, fracking, whatever you want to call it ended up producing lower oil and energy prices overall.

Thanks for admitting Obama was wrong when he said "we can't drill our way to lower prices"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's true for all businesses.
In the context of this thread, it's true for all banks.

Yes we know you're a caveman in that you grunt "ungh...regulations = bad!" Someone told you that untruth and you bought it. So who told you this and why did you buy it? We know you didn't come to this conclusion on your own, that you got it from someone else. So from whom did you get this position and why did you blindly accept it? So in your world, any regulation is a bad regulation, right? Is that your position? Because it sure seems to be.

And we know you think that if 1000 pages of regulations are good, 100,000 pages are better.
1,000,000 pages is better still.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How else do we get the average across fleets to hit 54 MPG?

Once again, if you bothered to open the link I provided, you'd see there are plenty of hybrid models out there that get 54 MPGs. But you didn't click the link because you're a pussy. People give you links, and you either don't open them (proving you're an ignoramus) or you do open them, but sloppily and hastily scan over them without comprehending that which you read because any challenge to your preconceived notions is met with outright denial for the sake of your ego.

That's because you're not nearly as clever or informed as you want people to think.

Your suggestion is we all buy tiny expensive hybrids.

They're not tiny, A) (ever been in a Ford Flex?). And B) they're not expensive. You can get a used Toyota Prius for around $10K. So I am not sure what sort of cars you are looking at, but I suspect this is just you being a lazy motherfucker who lacks the capabilities to be informed about a topic.

It's amazing that everyone doesn't already do that, I mean why would the fleet average be about 27 MPG?

The reason people don't do it already is because of liars like you who lie about everything, and because people are stupid they believe you. Just like they believed all the Russian trolls on Facebook and Twitter during the campaign. It takes a special kind of idiot to buy Conservative bullshit.

Yeah, he flapped his gums and did everything he could to kill coal and discourage offshore drilling and fracking.

Wait a second! So you claimed Obama didn't want to drill and frack and all that stuff. Now you're saying he did in fact say that, but was secretly working to do the opposite. Coal was dying long before Obama was President, pal. It was so bad that they literally have to remove mountaintops to find coal because they can't dig for it anymore safely. I don't understand your fascination with coal. I think you just obsess over it because you know it causes conflict in debate, and you're all about your own ego.

So once again, as the facts come in, your position changes. At this point, I don't expect you to have a consistent position from post-to-post. Heck, I don't expect you to have a consistent position within your own posts.

Once again, if you bothered to open the link I provided, you'd see there are plenty of hybrid models out there that get 54 MPGs.

How many of those do you need to sell to offset truck mileage?
CAFE is across the fleet.

So you claimed Obama didn't want to drill and frack and all that stuff. Now you're saying he did in fact say that, but was secretly working to do the opposite.

No, his work against drilling and fracking was right out there in the open.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You think an overnight loan from the Discount Window increases a bank's capital?

No, it's just what they did in order to avoid the public humiliation of having to get a bailout.

So besides failing math and Econ 101, you also failed Accounting 101.

Toddster, at this point with all your goalpost-shifting, it really falls on deaf ears when you claim to have knowledge on this subject when you don't. Why did those banks and businesses go to the Fed's Discount Window? Do you even know?

$1 billion in capital supports how much in loans at an 8% capital requirement?
How much in loans at a 10% capital requirement? Use a calculator.
Post your answer.

LOL! So again, you're just using made-up standards now in order to lend your shitty argument credibility. The fact is that bank revenue has surpassed that of pre-Bush collapse. So this isn't about a capital requirement to loan, this is about a capital requirement to buy securities, which is why the capital requirement was replaced with self-regulation in 2004 in the first place.

And just another FYI, capital requirements are now much higher than pre-2004.

Prove it. And capital requirements aren't the only thing in play here. Banks have increased their revenues, which means the capital requirement going up is on revenue, which also went up. So the pool from which the capital requirement comes is bigger, which means more gross capital is there. Banks aren't lending because lending isn't as profitable for them as gambling in the secondary markets. That's why they removed the net capital rule in the first place. Not to lend more, but to buy more.

You said it was eliminated. Your NYT link said, " It was unanimous. The decision, changing what was known as the net capital rule, was completed and published in The Federal Register a few months later"

Yes, the rule was changed and that change was the rule's elimination and replacement with self-regulation, where the net capital rule is arbitrarily decided by each bank, on its own, and doesn't even have to apply to any standard. That's the elimination of the rule, whether you want to accept it or not. So once again, you are trying to make this an argument over semantics and not results. The result of the self-regulation was the elimination of the net capital rule, relying on banks themselves to set their own rules according to their own standards. Which is the same thing as not having a net capital rule at all.

That's how Laissez-faire Conservatism works.

The NYT says the change was published. You should find it and post it.
Who knows, maybe it will actually back up your claim? LOL!

Yes, the NYT also says the change was that the banks ended up self-regulating, effectively eliminating the rule.

No, it's just what they did in order to avoid the public humiliation of having to get a bailout.

Didn't help their capital position. Not even a little. Idiot.

Why did those banks and businesses go to the Fed's Discount Window? Do you even know?

Liquidity, not capital. Moron.

So again, you're just using made-up standards

If the math is too hard for you, substitute your own numbers. Maybe ask an adult?

Yes, the rule was changed and that change was the rule's elimination and replacement with self-regulation,

You should prove your claim by finding the actual published rule.

 

[The Derp]

Obama didn't reduce leases? Didn't restrict offshore drilling? Prove it.

Ummm...reducing leases doesn't mean that overall production was reduced. Mostly because it takes years before exploratory drilling and then extraction actually produces crude from the ground. Do you...do you think that as soon as a lease is given drilling starts immediately?! LOL! What a fucking idiot!

So you're insisting that Obama cut production by reducing leases, however production didn't decline by lease reduction. In fact, production didn't decline at all. And since the time between when a lease is issued and when a well starts producing oil could be years, you cannot say that reducing leases on land resulted in reduced production...mostly because production didn't decline under Obama. You're trying to pretend that it did. But you're a liar in that sense.

In fact, the vast majority of the increase in U.S. oil production occurred on private land. On land that the U.S. government controls, it was a different story. The EIA reported in 2015 that while U.S. oil and gas production overall were surging, production of natural gas on federal lands was declining. Oil production is at about the same level as it was during his first year in office

So production on federal lands was declining, but production everywhere else was rising. So then OBAMA DIDN'T REDUCE PRODUCTION, he just reduced production on federal lands. You were trying to represent that it was a reduction of production everywhere, but that wasn't true, was it? So you made a statement, realized it wasn't true, rather than admit you spoke out of turn you decide to redefine the parameters to mean just production from federal lands. So that there is a clear and undeniable goalpost shift on your part. Yes, Obama reduced production on federal lands, however production overall increased and the price per barrel dropped.

So why did you feel the need to alter what the truth was? Simple; you suck, your argument sucks, and you are desperate to have a point land when all your other points haven't.

You think they saved money because of cap-and-trade?
I'd love to see the logic behind that fantasy claim. Never mind, there is no logic.

I don't think it, I KNOW IT. Here's the study showing that the North east saved $460M thanks to Cap-and-Trade.

Energy consumers overall – households, businesses, government users, and others – have enjoyed a net gain of $460 million, as their overall energy bills drop over time.​

Uh-oh, Spaghetti-O's! There's the proof, in black and white, demolishing yet another piece of your stupid "conventional wisdom".

Once again, louder for those in the back:

Energy consumers overall – households, businesses, government users, and others – have enjoyed a net gain of $460 million, as their overall energy bills drop over time.​

Now watch as you pretend words don't mean what they mean.

And one more time, for the folks in the cheap seats:

Energy consumers overall – households, businesses, government users, and others – have enjoyed a net gain of $460 million, as their overall energy bills drop over time.​

p-and-trade, an expensive regulatory mess, lowered their costs or was it fracking?

Wait, so now you're admitting the costs went down? Well, that's another about-face on your part. You just spent the better part of a few posts arguing cap-and-trade increases costs when the reality is that it lowers them. And it's not my conclusion, it's the conclusion from the study of the Northeast's cap-and-trade pact.

Do yourself a favor and get informed. Don't just repeat what your fellow troglodytes say.

Obama's push for higher prices failed. Thanks to frackers.
Just another Obama failure.

LOL! So it's clear now that you're not trying to convince me, but rather you're trying to convince yourself because as more and more facts come in, your position gets weaker and weaker.

I won when Obama failed to make our energy prices higher. You won too, idiot.

Obama never set out to make energy prices higher, and you're only basing that opinion on your questionable interpretation of a questionably-edited clip where Obama was talking about cap-and-trade from 2007.

 

[g5000]

Trump will increase the debt by trillions, and his pseudocon tards will be completely silent about it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Securities that BofA sells require no capital on the books of BofA.

Right, but the ones they buy certainly do, and BoA did a ton of buying in those markets.

Banks held lots of crappy mortgages. Ones they wrote, ones they bought from other originators, even securitized ones they bought. It was in all the papers.

Crappy mortgages or crappy mortgage-backed securities? Because the crappy mortgages were issued by private bank lenders, bought by private banks, packaged by private banks, insured by AIG, and then sold in the secondary and tertiary markets where the whole process repeats itself dozens, hundreds, thousands, maybe even millions of times with just one single toxic subprime loan.

And how did the banks manage to purchase so many of these toxic assets? BY REMOVING THE NET CAPITAL RULE AND REPLACING IT WITH SELF-REGULATION.

Revenue doesn't meet capital requirements..

You sure about that? Let's see your math there. Use BoA as an example. I'll even get you started. In Q2 2017, BoA got $23B in revenue, and $11B in profits. So explain to me how from that you come to the conclusion that there isn't enough capital for the bank to do any lending? Go ahead. Show your work.

You never explained what happens if capital requirements go from 8% to 10%.

Nothing happens when a bank like BoA is bringing in $22B a quarter in revenue and $11B in profits.

In 2004, they got capital requirements reduced so they could greedily make more loans.
Now making fewer loans is greed? You're making less sense than usual.

NO! FUCKING WRONG! They didn't make more loans in 2004, they bought more securities.
That's why they replaced the net capital rule with self-regulation. That's why the securities bubble exploded in 2004. It wasn't "to lend more", it was "to buy more". They were over-leveraging themselves in order to buy more securities with which they will gamble in those markets because those markets were more profitable for them than just lending.

This is what I mean when I talk about how you speak out of your ass. You know that the reason banks replaced the net capital rule with self-regulation was so that they could over-leverage themselves to play in the securities markets, yet you are still lying about why the net capital rule was changed. Why? Why are you still lying? Do you think that the banks removed the net capital rule to do more loans, or to buy more securities?

Right, but the ones they buy certainly do

You said they wanted lower capital to sell more. Were you lying?

Crappy mortgages or crappy mortgage-backed securities?

Both.

Revenue doesn't meet capital requirements.

You sure about that?

Yes, because revenue isn't capital, you moron.

BoA got $23B in revenue, and $11B in profits.

Retained profits add to capital. Congrats.
Next time you won't make the same stupid mistake.

So explain to me how from that you come to the conclusion that there isn't enough capital for the bank to do any lending?

You'd have to do the math. Compare old requirements to new requirements. You're not capable.

Nothing happens when a bank like BoA is bringing in $22B a quarter in revenue and $11B in profits.

BofA's loan book was $917 billion at the end of June 2017.
What happens if the requirement on that book goes from 8% to 10% to 12% to 15%?
What happens when a "Stress Test" requires even more?

They didn't make more loans in 2004, they bought more securities.

Prove it.
And then explain in what meaningful way is a mortgage they bought different than a mortgage they originated?