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

[The Derp]

Hey, let's make it happen more/faster!

Please explain how Dodd-Frank makes it happen "faster" than it happened pre-Dodd-Frank? You're saying Dodd-Frank speeds up the mergers and acquisitions, and I say that's bullshit because the speed up happened about 10 years before Dodd-Frank, with the repeal of Glass-Steagal.

You're trying to pretend that a trend that was happening for a decade before Dodd-Frank, suddenly started with Dodd-Frank. Then you said the trend happened "faster" with Dodd-Frank (without providing any kind of support for that assertion). I'm supposed to accept that, why?

Some do, some don't. Some small banks are even exempt from some of the moronic regulations..

Ahhhh, so now comes the bouncing ball of walking back your statement from before. So, it's not uniform like you were representing it was before, is it? So then why didn't you just say that from the get-go? Obviously because you're making this shit up as you go.

No. Other idiotic regulations, not the capital requirements.

Of which you cannot name or cite a single one. Not one. Which is astonishing because you were complaining earlier about the 20,000 of pages of regulations. Surely you could find actual regulations in there other than the net capital rule and fines for fraud. I mean, you've only have 7 years to come up with something. Or is this like the mysterious Obamacare replacement plan that wasn't?

Increasing capital requirements is clearly a burden.

Only if you're using that capital to make risky bets in the securities markets. If you're not doing that, then it's not a burden. But these banks are addicted to those profits like you with crack-cocaine. The net capital rule forces those banks to either lend and be commercial banks, or gamble and be investment banks. You're here arguing that forcing a bank to have a level of capital in order to operate is a burden on the banks only because it doesn't let the banks do what they did pre-collapse and pad their profit margins with risky gambling.

Boo-fucking-hoo. If these banks can't be profitable by simply lending, then they shouldn't be banks anymore, and should fucking die.

 

[The Derp]

Loosening means making them less restrictive.

Less restrictive, how? By eliminating any uniform standard and allowing the bank to determine its own level of capitalization. Hence, "elimination".

 

[The Derp]

He wasn't fracking, he was trying to stop fracking.

He wasn't trying to stop fracking, as it was part of his "all-of-the-above" approach. He was trying to make fracking less dangerous.

He wasn't drilling, he was trying to stop drilling.

As production on federal land declined, production on private land increased. So the intention you are applying to Obama is wholly imaginary and wrong. You keep saying Obama wanted to generally stop drilling, yet you've offered no proof of that. You're trying to say that because he wanted to stop drilling on federal land, that meant he wanted to stop drilling altogether. And that, Toddster, is what makes you a sophist.

And his intent was shown by what new laws? What new rules? What new regulations?

By the fact that he encouraged natural gas production as part of his self-described "all of the above" strategy, and that he encouraged renewable energy, which resulted in renewable prices dropping like a fucking rock and employing more people than all fossil fuels combined.

American frackers increased supply, prices fell, Chu and Obama wanted the opposite.

Again, you're exercising sophistry as I noted above. You're trying to say that because he wanted to stop drilling on federal land, that meant he wanted to stop drilling altogether. And that, Toddster, is what makes you a sophist.

 

[The Derp]

After the BP spill. And more recently, below.

So the article says he was well within his power to do that thanks to the 1953 law. But again, how is that cutting production? It's cutting leases, but those leases would be for extraction that would be years down the line. So he's not cutting production now. He's not shutting offshore platforms now. He's preventing future extraction in designated areas. So again, you're misrepresenting a cut to leasing as a cut to production, when there's a distinction between them. And you know that, which makes this post of yours that much more sophist.

Yes. On land he controlled, he cut production.

NO! He cut leases, but not production. He didn't shutter operational wells because they hadn't even been built yet! Because they hadn't even explored those lands yet. He prevented future wells from being built on those lands. So it wasn't a cut to production because the production hadn't even happened yet. Seriously? THIS shit is how you're making your argument? Weak sauce, dude. Weak fuckin' sauce.

Yes, production increased in areas he didn't control.

So then he didn't cut production. He didn't even cut production on federal lands. He just prevented future production on those lands. So why are you misrepresenting the truth? Is it because you recognize these distinctions and are determined to make the false argument anyway? What gives?

His fights to stop new pipeline construction would have cut, but not ended, private production.

LOL! The pipeline has nothing to do with production. The pipeline was about letting TransCanada sell their crude on the global market because the pipeline currently there oversupplies the US PADD II region, causing price discounting for US refineries. KXL would erase that oversupply because instead of going to PADD II where there are only domestic refinery buyers, it can go to the gulf where it can be sold and shipped anywhere in the global market, fetching a higher price because there are more buyers. TransCanada even fucking said so themselves in their permit application.

Anyone who supports KXL is a fucking idiot.

 

[The Derp]

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

Actually, you made the claim that Obama sought to raise energy prices, and you haven't support that claim with anything. So it's on you, not me.

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

He was right. What reduced energy prices were a combination of fracking and renewables. Not drilling for oil.

 

[The Derp]

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.

What's stunning about this shit post is that you claimed that 20,000 pages of regulations were an attack on the banks. When asked to cite just one example from those 20,000 pages, you clam up. And then you admit the argument you're making isn't even yours!

 

[The Derp]

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

What I said was that they wanted to self-regulate because that way, they could set their own arbitrary levels of net capital in order to plunge deeper into the securities markets. Which is exactly what they did.

Both. Revenue doesn't meet capital requirements.

Well, if your revenue isn't meeting your capital requirements then you've got a revenue problem, not a capital requirement problem. Why were the banks fighting so hard in 2004 to have self-regulating power when it came to the net capital rule? Ask yourself that question, and what answer do you come to? Be honest. Was it because they wanted to increase lending? Or was it because they wanted to gamble in the profitable-at-the-time securities markets?

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

So you didn't even bother to explain how the net capital rule makes it a burden on Bank of America to lend when BoA took in $22B in revenue and $11B in profits last quarter!

Obviously, you know as much as I do that those banks are addicted to the profits in the derivatives markets, and requiring a capital amount limits the amount they can then gamble with in those very markets. Notice how lending has nothing to do with this?????

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

Well, hold on a second. What was it these banks were leveraging themselves for? What was the purpose? It wasn't to issue loans...it was to....what....??? Come on. You know the answer. So simple solution; the banks go through detox and kick their addiction to securities gambling and return to traditional lending. Right now, you're arguing that these banks can only be profitable if there's no net capital rule which then allows them to over-leverage as much as they want so they can play in the casinos. I'm saying if a commercial bank can only be profitable by doing that, then the bank is not a commercial bank anymore, and I don't give a shit what their burdens are.

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?

It shows Bank of America is a piece of shit company that cannot sustain its business without its addiction to gambling. And if that's the case, then BREAK IT THE FUCK UP and send it to Gambler's Anonymous. You want to reward reckless behavior by allowing a bank to over-leverage itself because that's the only way it can achieve profits?! Talk about picking winners and losers! Egads!

Prove it.

What do you fucking think the Financial Collapse was all about!?

You're going to sit there on your fat ass and pretend that there wasn't a massive spike in the derivatives markets!?

 

[Spare_change]

Why don't you grow up and go out into the real world and find out the truth ... you just keep repeating the same leftist pablum ad nauseum.

Kill yourself.

nahhh ---- I live only to educate idiots like you. My goal is to draw you out into the sunshine so you can see the light.

Seems to be working when this is the best you can do.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Meet reserve requirements. Meet withdrawal requests.

OK, and that's a bad thing, why?

You're working from the assumption that banks over-leveraged themselves in order to not issue more loans.

And that's precisely what happened. They over-leveraged themselves to purchase securities they would then gamble on. That's why they did what they did.

Prove it.

You want me to prove gambling on securities is more profitable than lending? Ummm, OK (from Financial Times, 2007):

Banks are increasingly reliant on the business of turning mortgages and other kinds of debt into complex bond-like products to generate a significant share of their profits, according to research to be published Monday. Banks globally saw revenues of almost $30bn from asset-backed securities business in 2006, which analysts at JPMorgan estimate is as big as the revenues generated by equity derivatives or cash equities trading.​

So clearly, securities are the most profitable thing for these banks.

If every bank had to hold every loan to maturity, they would lend less.

So you're...arguing for credit default swaps? Really?

Proof of your claim. "They eliminated capital requirements"

Self-regulating eliminates the requirement because it puts the decision on the bank as to what acceptable ratio they want. That's what "self-regulating" means. It means "not regulating".

OK, and that's a bad thing, why?

I didn't say it was a bad thing.
I said it doesn't impact capital levels.

They over-leveraged themselves to purchase securities they would then gamble on.

Cool story bro.

Banks are increasingly reliant on the business of turning mortgages and other kinds of debt into complex bond-like products to generate a significant share of their profits,

Those are securities they were selling. You said they increased leverage to buy securities.
Were you lying or just wrong?

If every bank had to hold every loan to maturity, they would lend less.

So you're...arguing for credit default swaps? Really?

Nice non-sequitur. DURR.

Self-regulating eliminates the requirement because it puts the decision on the bank as to what acceptable ratio they want.

If only you had proof. Perhaps finding the actual published rule? Naaaaah

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hey, let's make it happen more/faster!

Please explain how Dodd-Frank makes it happen "faster" than it happened pre-Dodd-Frank? You're saying Dodd-Frank speeds up the mergers and acquisitions, and I say that's bullshit because the speed up happened about 10 years before Dodd-Frank, with the repeal of Glass-Steagal.

You're trying to pretend that a trend that was happening for a decade before Dodd-Frank, suddenly started with Dodd-Frank. Then you said the trend happened "faster" with Dodd-Frank (without providing any kind of support for that assertion). I'm supposed to accept that, why?

Some do, some don't. Some small banks are even exempt from some of the moronic regulations..

Ahhhh, so now comes the bouncing ball of walking back your statement from before. So, it's not uniform like you were representing it was before, is it? So then why didn't you just say that from the get-go? Obviously because you're making this shit up as you go.

No. Other idiotic regulations, not the capital requirements.

Of which you cannot name or cite a single one. Not one. Which is astonishing because you were complaining earlier about the 20,000 of pages of regulations. Surely you could find actual regulations in there other than the net capital rule and fines for fraud. I mean, you've only have 7 years to come up with something. Or is this like the mysterious Obamacare replacement plan that wasn't?

Increasing capital requirements is clearly a burden.

Only if you're using that capital to make risky bets in the securities markets. If you're not doing that, then it's not a burden. But these banks are addicted to those profits like you with crack-cocaine. The net capital rule forces those banks to either lend and be commercial banks, or gamble and be investment banks. You're here arguing that forcing a bank to have a level of capital in order to operate is a burden on the banks only because it doesn't let the banks do what they did pre-collapse and pad their profit margins with risky gambling.

Boo-fucking-hoo. If these banks can't be profitable by simply lending, then they shouldn't be banks anymore, and should fucking die.

Please explain how Dodd-Frank makes it happen "faster"

Whatever the "natural rate" of takeovers or mergers happens to be, adding layer upon layer of additional and expensive regulations will result in a higher rate.

You're trying to pretend that a trend that was happening for a decade before Dodd-Frank, suddenly started with Dodd-Frank.

Not at all, not even a little.
Banks have been taken over and merged like a mother fucker for decades.
I know because liberals have been whining about it for decades.

So, it's not uniform like you were representing it was before, is it?

I said it was uniform? Cool! Just give me the post number.

Of which you cannot name or cite a single one.

Why name a single one when Dodd-Frank is over 20,000 pages.
Add the Volcker rule to that pile while you're at it. Basel III, Stress Tests, and wait.....there's more!

Only if you're using that capital to make risky bets in the securities markets. If you're not doing that, then it's not a burden.

A plain vanilla bank, simply taking in deposits and writing mortgages will lend less (that means write fewer mortgages) at a 10% capital requirement level than they did at an 8% capital requirement level.
Want them to write even fewer? Make the requirement 12%.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Loosening means making them less restrictive.

Less restrictive, how? By eliminating any uniform standard and allowing the bank to determine its own level of capitalization. Hence, "elimination".

Less restrictive, how?

Lower requirements allow more loans. You've loosened the previous restriction on the size of their loan book.

Hence, "elimination".

Post the new rule.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He wasn't fracking, he was trying to stop fracking.

He wasn't trying to stop fracking, as it was part of his "all-of-the-above" approach. He was trying to make fracking less dangerous.

He wasn't drilling, he was trying to stop drilling.

As production on federal land declined, production on private land increased. So the intention you are applying to Obama is wholly imaginary and wrong. You keep saying Obama wanted to generally stop drilling, yet you've offered no proof of that. You're trying to say that because he wanted to stop drilling on federal land, that meant he wanted to stop drilling altogether. And that, Toddster, is what makes you a sophist.

And his intent was shown by what new laws? What new rules? What new regulations?

By the fact that he encouraged natural gas production as part of his self-described "all of the above" strategy, and that he encouraged renewable energy, which resulted in renewable prices dropping like a fucking rock and employing more people than all fossil fuels combined.

American frackers increased supply, prices fell, Chu and Obama wanted the opposite.

Again, you're exercising sophistry as I noted above. You're trying to say that because he wanted to stop drilling on federal land, that meant he wanted to stop drilling altogether. And that, Toddster, is what makes you a sophist.

He wasn't trying to stop fracking

LOL!

He must have been a real help to fracking. Any examples of his help?

He was trying to make fracking less dangerous.

Did his "trying" involve slowing or reducing fracking?
Maybe piling on new regulations?

As production on federal land declined, production on private land increased. So the intention you are applying to Obama is wholly imaginary and wrong.

He intended to slow production and exploration on federal land. Even as he was leaving office.
Was he successful?

You're trying to say that because he wanted to stop drilling on federal land,

Hold on, his "all of the above" strategy involved stopping drilling on Federal land? LOL!
So why does he get credit for stuff he couldn't stop and no blame for the stuff he stopped?

Is it because I'm right and you're wrong?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

After the BP spill. And more recently, below.

So the article says he was well within his power to do that thanks to the 1953 law. But again, how is that cutting production? It's cutting leases, but those leases would be for extraction that would be years down the line. So he's not cutting production now. He's not shutting offshore platforms now. He's preventing future extraction in designated areas. So again, you're misrepresenting a cut to leasing as a cut to production, when there's a distinction between them. And you know that, which makes this post of yours that much more sophist.

Yes. On land he controlled, he cut production.

NO! He cut leases, but not production. He didn't shutter operational wells because they hadn't even been built yet! Because they hadn't even explored those lands yet. He prevented future wells from being built on those lands. So it wasn't a cut to production because the production hadn't even happened yet. Seriously? THIS shit is how you're making your argument? Weak sauce, dude. Weak fuckin' sauce.

Yes, production increased in areas he didn't control.

So then he didn't cut production. He didn't even cut production on federal lands. He just prevented future production on those lands. So why are you misrepresenting the truth? Is it because you recognize these distinctions and are determined to make the false argument anyway? What gives?

His fights to stop new pipeline construction would have cut, but not ended, private production.

LOL! The pipeline has nothing to do with production. The pipeline was about letting TransCanada sell their crude on the global market because the pipeline currently there oversupplies the US PADD II region, causing price discounting for US refineries. KXL would erase that oversupply because instead of going to PADD II where there are only domestic refinery buyers, it can go to the gulf where it can be sold and shipped anywhere in the global market, fetching a higher price because there are more buyers. TransCanada even fucking said so themselves in their permit application.

Anyone who supports KXL is a fucking idiot.

So the article says he was well within his power to do that thanks to the 1953 law.

As far as I know, he didn't do anything illegal when he was trying to cripple our energy production.

But again, how is that cutting production? It's cutting leases, but those leases would be for extraction that would be years down the line.

Yes, a lease denied today will cut production in the future, not production today.

He's not shutting offshore platforms now. He's preventing future extraction in designated areas.

Right. If he could have cut production instantly, I'm sure he would have tried that too.

On 30 April 2010 President Barack Obama ordered the federal government to hold the issuing of new offshore drilling leases and authorized investigation of 29 oil rigs in the Gulf in an effort to determine the cause of the disaster.[269][270] Later a six-month offshore drilling (below 500 feet (150 m) of water) moratorium was enforced by the United States Department of the Interior.[271] The moratorium suspended work on 33 rigs

Deepwater Horizon oil spill - Wikipedia

It looks like this slowed production that was perhaps only months away from coming online.

He prevented future wells from being built on those lands. So it wasn't a cut to production because the production hadn't even happened yet.

If it takes 2 years for a site to be surveyed, well built and oil extracted, and he stops the first step from occurring, he doesn't get credit for production being lower in 2 years?
Or is that too far in the future for you to understand?

The pipeline has nothing to do with production. The pipeline was about letting TransCanada sell their crude on the global market

Are you under the impression that Obama allowed a bunch of pipelines to be built while resisting only one?
FYI, without a pipeline, production is slowed because it's more expensive, slower to ship it out by truck or train.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

Actually, you made the claim that Obama sought to raise energy prices, and you haven't support that claim with anything. So it's on you, not me.

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

He was right. What reduced energy prices were a combination of fracking and renewables. Not drilling for oil.

What reduced energy prices were a combination of fracking and renewables.

You know that they frack for oil, don't you?
You know that fracking involves drilling, don't you?

Hydraulic fracturing (also fracking, fraccing, frac'ing, hydrofracturing or hydrofracking) is a well stimulation technique in which rock is fractured by a pressurized liquid. The process involves the high-pressure injection of 'fracking fluid' (primarily water, containing sand or other proppants suspended with the aid of thickening agents) into a wellbore to create cracks in the deep-rock formations through which natural gas, petroleum, and brine will flow more freely.

Hydraulic fracturing - Wikipedia

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

What's stunning about this shit post is that you claimed that 20,000 pages of regulations were an attack on the banks. When asked to cite just one example from those 20,000 pages, you clam up. And then you admit the argument you're making isn't even yours!

What's stunning about this shit post is that you claimed that 20,000 pages of regulations were an attack on the banks.

You think 20,000 pages are an encouragement instead of an attack? DURR.

When asked to cite just one example from those 20,000 pages, you clam up.

Text of H.R. 4173 (111th): Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Passed Congress/Enrolled Bill version) - GovTrack.us

Take your pick.

And then you admit the argument you're making isn't even yours!

The argument that onerous regulations are a larger burden for small banks than for the largest banks has probably been around since before my grandparents were born.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

What I said was that they wanted to self-regulate because that way, they could set their own arbitrary levels of net capital in order to plunge deeper into the securities markets. Which is exactly what they did.

Both. Revenue doesn't meet capital requirements.

Well, if your revenue isn't meeting your capital requirements then you've got a revenue problem, not a capital requirement problem. Why were the banks fighting so hard in 2004 to have self-regulating power when it came to the net capital rule? Ask yourself that question, and what answer do you come to? Be honest. Was it because they wanted to increase lending? Or was it because they wanted to gamble in the profitable-at-the-time securities markets?

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

So you didn't even bother to explain how the net capital rule makes it a burden on Bank of America to lend when BoA took in $22B in revenue and $11B in profits last quarter!

Obviously, you know as much as I do that those banks are addicted to the profits in the derivatives markets, and requiring a capital amount limits the amount they can then gamble with in those very markets. Notice how lending has nothing to do with this?????

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

Well, hold on a second. What was it these banks were leveraging themselves for? What was the purpose? It wasn't to issue loans...it was to....what....??? Come on. You know the answer. So simple solution; the banks go through detox and kick their addiction to securities gambling and return to traditional lending. Right now, you're arguing that these banks can only be profitable if there's no net capital rule which then allows them to over-leverage as much as they want so they can play in the casinos. I'm saying if a commercial bank can only be profitable by doing that, then the bank is not a commercial bank anymore, and I don't give a shit what their burdens are.

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?

It shows Bank of America is a piece of shit company that cannot sustain its business without its addiction to gambling. And if that's the case, then BREAK IT THE FUCK UP and send it to Gambler's Anonymous. You want to reward reckless behavior by allowing a bank to over-leverage itself because that's the only way it can achieve profits?! Talk about picking winners and losers! Egads!

Prove it.

What do you fucking think the Financial Collapse was all about!?

You're going to sit there on your fat ass and pretend that there wasn't a massive spike in the derivatives markets!?

What I said was that they wanted to self-regulate

You said that capital requirements were eliminated. You just can't prove it.

Well, if your revenue isn't meeting your capital requirements then you've got a revenue problem.

Apache Corporation had revenue of $12.8 billion in 2014 and $6.5 billion in 2015.
Apache Corporation had a loss of $5.1 billion in 2014 and a loss of $12 billion in 2015.

You think they have a revenue problem?
Which year depleted their capital more?

So you didn't even bother to explain how the net capital rule makes it a burden on Bank of America to lend

Because you still can't do simple math.

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?

It shows Bank of America is a piece of shit company

With a loan book of $917 billion. That means they loaned $917 billion.
If they did that with an 8% capital requirement and the requirement goes to 10% then 12% then 15%, what happens to their loan book? Do the math.

What do you fucking think the Financial Collapse was all about!?

Banks writing crappy mortgages and losing a bunch of money when homeowners stopped paying.

You're going to sit there on your fat ass and pretend that there wasn't a massive spike in the derivatives markets!?

Why would I pretend that? Your straw man has nothing to do with my posts on this thread.

 

[Spare_change]

Meet reserve requirements. Meet withdrawal requests.

OK, and that's a bad thing, why?

You're working from the assumption that banks over-leveraged themselves in order to not issue more loans.

And that's precisely what happened. They over-leveraged themselves to purchase securities they would then gamble on. That's why they did what they did.

Prove it.

You want me to prove gambling on securities is more profitable than lending? Ummm, OK (from Financial Times, 2007):

Banks are increasingly reliant on the business of turning mortgages and other kinds of debt into complex bond-like products to generate a significant share of their profits, according to research to be published Monday. Banks globally saw revenues of almost $30bn from asset-backed securities business in 2006, which analysts at JPMorgan estimate is as big as the revenues generated by equity derivatives or cash equities trading.​

So clearly, securities are the most profitable thing for these banks.

If every bank had to hold every loan to maturity, they would lend less.

So you're...arguing for credit default swaps? Really?

Proof of your claim. "They eliminated capital requirements"

Self-regulating eliminates the requirement because it puts the decision on the bank as to what acceptable ratio they want. That's what "self-regulating" means. It means "not regulating".

OK, and that's a bad thing, why?

I didn't say it was a bad thing.
I said it doesn't impact capital levels.

They over-leveraged themselves to purchase securities they would then gamble on.

Cool story bro.

Banks are increasingly reliant on the business of turning mortgages and other kinds of debt into complex bond-like products to generate a significant share of their profits,

Those are securities they were selling. You said they increased leverage to buy securities.
Were you lying or just wrong?

If every bank had to hold every loan to maturity, they would lend less.

So you're...arguing for credit default swaps? Really?

Nice non-sequitur. DURR.

Self-regulating eliminates the requirement because it puts the decision on the bank as to what acceptable ratio they want.

If only you had proof. Perhaps finding the actual published rule? Naaaaah

I'm curious - how come we never hear about the government strong arming lending institutions to give high-risk loans to unqualified applicants in order to get the affirmative action numbers they needed to qualify for government guarantees on loans to veterans, etc.?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Meet reserve requirements. Meet withdrawal requests.

OK, and that's a bad thing, why?

You're working from the assumption that banks over-leveraged themselves in order to not issue more loans.

And that's precisely what happened. They over-leveraged themselves to purchase securities they would then gamble on. That's why they did what they did.

Prove it.

You want me to prove gambling on securities is more profitable than lending? Ummm, OK (from Financial Times, 2007):

Banks are increasingly reliant on the business of turning mortgages and other kinds of debt into complex bond-like products to generate a significant share of their profits, according to research to be published Monday. Banks globally saw revenues of almost $30bn from asset-backed securities business in 2006, which analysts at JPMorgan estimate is as big as the revenues generated by equity derivatives or cash equities trading.​

So clearly, securities are the most profitable thing for these banks.

If every bank had to hold every loan to maturity, they would lend less.

So you're...arguing for credit default swaps? Really?

Proof of your claim. "They eliminated capital requirements"

Self-regulating eliminates the requirement because it puts the decision on the bank as to what acceptable ratio they want. That's what "self-regulating" means. It means "not regulating".

OK, and that's a bad thing, why?

I didn't say it was a bad thing.
I said it doesn't impact capital levels.

They over-leveraged themselves to purchase securities they would then gamble on.

Cool story bro.

Banks are increasingly reliant on the business of turning mortgages and other kinds of debt into complex bond-like products to generate a significant share of their profits,

Those are securities they were selling. You said they increased leverage to buy securities.
Were you lying or just wrong?

If every bank had to hold every loan to maturity, they would lend less.

So you're...arguing for credit default swaps? Really?

Nice non-sequitur. DURR.

Self-regulating eliminates the requirement because it puts the decision on the bank as to what acceptable ratio they want.

If only you had proof. Perhaps finding the actual published rule? Naaaaah

I'm curious - how come we never hear about the government strong arming lending institutions to give high-risk loans to unqualified applicants in order to get the affirmative action numbers they needed to qualify for government guarantees on loans to veterans, etc.?

Because then people would see how the government fucked up.

 

[The Derp]

I'm curious - how come we never hear about the government strong arming lending institutions to give high-risk loans to unqualified applicants in order to get the affirmative action numbers they needed to qualify for government guarantees on loans to veterans, etc.?

Because it never happened.

 

[The Derp]

You think 20,000 pages are an encouragement instead of an attack? DURR.

You made a claim that Dodd-Frank attacked banks, then small banks, then small businesses, then medium and small banks, then all business. I asked you to give just one example from Dodd-Frank that did what you claimed and you couldn't even come up with one thing. One passage. One part. You fell back on that which you already knew: the banks were fined for their fraud (Was Dodd-Frank actually responsible for the fines, or were those done outside Dodd-Frank?), and the net capital rule which protects banks.

Take your pick

Actually no, lazybones. It's on you to do the work to find something in that bill that supports your premise. Just posting the bill itself does not do that. If you're resorting to this deflection, then what's obvious is that you don't know anything about the bill, and are just repeating something you were told, ultimately not thinking for yourself. You made the claim, you back it up. It actually requires you to read the bill and understand it. I am not so sure you're up to it. I think you lack the effort and skill.

The argument that onerous regulations are a larger burden for small banks than for the largest banks has probably been around since before my grandparents were born.

Right, but what those "onerous regulations" are, you can't say because you don't know. When asked to cite even one example, you can't. Instead dumbly putting the link up to the bill itself -a bill you haven't read and will never read- in a true act of laziness and expect others to do the work for you. That's because you're an entitled brat whose parents did a shit job raising you. You say this is conventional wisdom, but you don't ask why it is conventional wisdom. When drilling down into that, we come to find out that your "conventional wisdom" is really just a bunch of bullshit you accepted without question. Which doesn't make it wisdom, but rather dogma.