Senators Warren, Mccain introduce bill to reign in banks.

[Socialist]

The glass-steagall act, empirically, stabilized and prevented disasters, anyone against it is sucking the cock of the banking elite.
Back up your statements please.

The glass-steagall act, empirically, stabilized and prevented disasters

Please, post the part of Glass-Steagall that prevented banks from writing or buying crappy mortgages. I'll wait.

We're not talking about only mortgages..
"When Glass-Steagall was repealed, many big Wall Street banks started making risky bets on "derivatives" and other exotic financial constructs which arguably fueled the onslaught of the Great Recession."

"When Glass-Steagall was repealed, many big Wall Street banks started making risky bets on "derivatives" and other exotic financial constructs

And not a single bank failed because of derivatives.
Many got in trouble, and lost hundreds of billions, on mortgages.

Of course banks didn't fail, but it contributed to the recession, and the banks/etc were very stable until the act was repealed, tell me, seriously, what harm would be done if this act was brought back? Fat cats would lose some cash? You're an idiot.

Of course banks didn't fail, but it contributed to the recession

How?

and the banks/etc were very stable until the act was repealed

LOL! You know very little about banks.

You know very little about the corruption on wall street.
The 2008 Great Recession and Deregulation

 

[Socialist]

SENATORS WARREN MCAIN INTRODUCE BILL TO REIGN IN RISKY BEHAVIOR OF WALL STREET S br MEGA BANKS FEATURE NEWS Sky Valley Chronicle Washington State News
I'm agreeing with John on something..

I'm agreeing with John on something..

And you're both wrong.

How the hell are we wrong? You have yet to back up anything, and the success of the act is empirical and proven, considering the ones who spearheaded removing it were wall street pigs.

How is that proof of anything, dumbshit? It didnt prevent the Latin American debt crisis, the oil bust crisis, the Contintental Illinois crisis, the Long Term Capital Management melt down, or a bunch of other problems.

Yes, because those are all related to banking stability or were major/affected millions of americans in horrid ways.

Yes, because those are all related to banking stability

And they all occurred under Glass-Steagall. Durr.

You know nothing about glass-steagall, nothing is perfect, but we're talking about large crisis and preventing things like the great recession, not little things here and there. Tell me, what's your argument against glass-steagall? Nothing, you're another right wing loon who sucks the cock of wall street and supports deregulation.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

(NATIONAL) -- Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) are reintroducing legislation to revive the Glass-Steagall Act, the Depression era bill which would force big banks to split their investment and commercial banking practices.

The act was first passed in 1933 to rein in what was widely viewed as predatory and risky bank behaviors that led to the economic crash that sparked the Great Depression.

The act led to decades of banking stability and no more Great Depressions.

But back in 1999 it was repealed by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act "at the urging of Wall Street heavyweights like then-Citi CEO Sandy Weill," according to BusinessInsider.com .

The repeal of Glass-Steagall resulted in, many believe, the U.S. economic crash of 2007-2008 which led to the Great Recession, the worst crash since the Great Depression from which America is still recovering.

When Glass-Steagall was repealed, many big Wall Street banks started making risky bets on "derivatives" and other exotic financial constructs which arguably fueled the onslaught of the Great Recession.

Senators Warren and McCain, along with their cosponsors, Sens. Angus King (I-Maine) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), said in a statement that the legislation would make big banks that are "too big to fail" smaller and safer and minimize the likelihood of a government (.e.g, taxpayer) bailout.

SEPARATION OF BANKING SERVICES

The bill, which Warren & McCain first introduced in the last Congress, would separate traditional banking services - things like checking and savings accounts - from financial institutions that offer services such as "investment banking" which are much riskier.

"Despite the progress we've made since 2008, the biggest banks continue to threaten our economy," said Warren, a long time Wall Street critic, in a statement. "The biggest banks are collectively much larger than they were before the crisis (Great Recession), and they continue to engage in dangerous practices that could once again crash our economy."

Sen. McCain says the repeal of Glass-Steagall led to a culture of dangerous greed and excessive risk-taking in the banking industry.

"Big Wall Street institutions should be free to engage in transactions with significant risk, but not with federally insured deposits," McCain said in a statement.

In the last Great Recession, U.S. taxpayers bailed out the big Wall Street banks in 2008 with $700 billion of their money. Without that bailout many of the big banks may well have gone out of business.

The very next year in 2009 Wall Street was having its best year ever and was handing out billions of dollars in bonuses to executives while millions of Americans were out of work and losing their homes in the depths of the Great Recession.

Also in 2009, one out of four homeowners was "under water" with their home mortgage, meaning they owed more on their homes than they were worth and, according to the then latest ABC-Washington Post poll, one out of every three Americans had either lost their job or lived in a household with someone who had lost a job.

Former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich wrote in December of 2009 that the scourge of unemployment had split America into three groups:

"(1) households in danger of losing their homes and whose kids are surviving on food stamps (that's up to one in four children in America today); (2) the vast majority of Americans who are managing but worried about keeping their jobs and homes; and (3) a small number who are taking home even more winnings than they did in the boom year 2007.

Prominent among category (3) are Wall Street bankers, many of whom are now concluding their most profitable year ever. Goldman Sachs is so flush it's preparing to give out bonuses in a few weeks totaling $17 billion. That will mean eight-figure compensation packages for lots of Goldman executives and traders.

JPMorgan Chase is rumored to have a bonus pool of around $5 billion. The three other major Wall Street banks are ratcheting up their compensation packages so their "talent" won't be poached by Goldman or JPMorgan.

Wall Street is booming again in large part because the rest of America -- categories (1) and (2), above -- bailed it out to the tune of $700 billion last year.

The Street has repaid some of that but, according to the bailout program's inspector general, much of it is gone forever.

For example, the taxpayer money that bailed out giant insurer AIG went directly through AIG to its "counterparties" like Goldman Sachs -- to whom Tim Geithner, according to the inspector general, gave away the store.

As Goldman Sachs prepares to dole out some $17 billion to its executives and traders, it's worth noting that Goldman received $13 billion a year ago from the rest of us via AIG and Geithner, no strings attached."

SENATORS WARREN MCAIN INTRODUCE BILL TO REIGN IN RISKY BEHAVIOR OF WALL STREET S br MEGA BANKS FEATURE NEWS Sky Valley Chronicle Washington State News
I'm agreeing with John on something..

I'm agreeing with John on something..

And you're both wrong.

How the hell are we wrong? You have yet to back up anything, and the success of the act is empirical and proven, considering the ones who spearheaded removing it were wall street pigs.

How the hell are we wrong?

Glass-Steagall would have done nothing to prevent the real estate bubble.

You have yet to back up anything

Goldman Sachs Eye on the Bailout ProPublica

AIG Eye on the Bailout ProPublica

and the success of the act is empirical and proven,

It didn't prevent the double recessions in the early 80s.
Didn't prevent the S&L crisis. Would have done nothing to prevent the crisis in 2008.

We're talking about crisis that had a massive effect related to banking stability.
There was more to the recession then the real estate bubble, which was fueled by greedy pigs.
"
Wall Street is booming again in large part because the rest of America -- categories (1) and (2), above -- bailed it out to the tune of $700 billion last year.

The Street has repaid some of that but, according to the bailout program's inspector general, much of it is gone forever.
"

The Street has repaid some of that but

But nothing, Wall Street and the banks repaid it all and the US Treasury made a huge profit.

 

[Socialist]

SENATORS WARREN MCAIN INTRODUCE BILL TO REIGN IN RISKY BEHAVIOR OF WALL STREET S br MEGA BANKS FEATURE NEWS Sky Valley Chronicle Washington State News
I'm agreeing with John on something..

I'm agreeing with John on something..

And you're both wrong.

How the hell are we wrong? You have yet to back up anything, and the success of the act is empirical and proven, considering the ones who spearheaded removing it were wall street pigs.

How the hell are we wrong?

Glass-Steagall would have done nothing to prevent the real estate bubble.

You have yet to back up anything

Goldman Sachs Eye on the Bailout ProPublica

AIG Eye on the Bailout ProPublica

and the success of the act is empirical and proven,

It didn't prevent the double recessions in the early 80s.
Didn't prevent the S&L crisis. Would have done nothing to prevent the crisis in 2008.

We're talking about crisis that had a massive effect related to banking stability.
There was more to the recession then the real estate bubble, which was fueled by greedy pigs.
"
Wall Street is booming again in large part because the rest of America -- categories (1) and (2), above -- bailed it out to the tune of $700 billion last year.

The Street has repaid some of that but, according to the bailout program's inspector general, much of it is gone forever.
"

The Street has repaid some of that but

But nothing, Wall Street and the banks repaid it all and the US Treasury made a huge profit.

The true cost of the bank bailout Need to Know PBS
Yeah, sure, keep believing that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The glass-steagall act, empirically, stabilized and prevented disasters

Please, post the part of Glass-Steagall that prevented banks from writing or buying crappy mortgages. I'll wait.

We're not talking about only mortgages..
"When Glass-Steagall was repealed, many big Wall Street banks started making risky bets on "derivatives" and other exotic financial constructs which arguably fueled the onslaught of the Great Recession."

"When Glass-Steagall was repealed, many big Wall Street banks started making risky bets on "derivatives" and other exotic financial constructs

And not a single bank failed because of derivatives.
Many got in trouble, and lost hundreds of billions, on mortgages.

Of course banks didn't fail, but it contributed to the recession, and the banks/etc were very stable until the act was repealed, tell me, seriously, what harm would be done if this act was brought back? Fat cats would lose some cash? You're an idiot.

Of course banks didn't fail, but it contributed to the recession

How?

and the banks/etc were very stable until the act was repealed

LOL! You know very little about banks.

You know very little about the corruption on wall street.
The 2008 Great Recession and Deregulation

Why don't you cut and paste Mr Kumar's wisdom?
Or at least the part that proves you're not an idiot.

 

[Socialist]

We're not talking about only mortgages..
"When Glass-Steagall was repealed, many big Wall Street banks started making risky bets on "derivatives" and other exotic financial constructs which arguably fueled the onslaught of the Great Recession."

"When Glass-Steagall was repealed, many big Wall Street banks started making risky bets on "derivatives" and other exotic financial constructs

And not a single bank failed because of derivatives.
Many got in trouble, and lost hundreds of billions, on mortgages.

Of course banks didn't fail, but it contributed to the recession, and the banks/etc were very stable until the act was repealed, tell me, seriously, what harm would be done if this act was brought back? Fat cats would lose some cash? You're an idiot.

Of course banks didn't fail, but it contributed to the recession

How?

and the banks/etc were very stable until the act was repealed

LOL! You know very little about banks.

You know very little about the corruption on wall street.
The 2008 Great Recession and Deregulation

Why don't you cut and paste Mr Kumar's wisdom?
Or at least the part that proves you're not an idiot.

"
Deregulation, the mantra promoted by the Republicans since the 1980s is behind the 2008 economic meltdown. After numerous bank failures during the Great Depression, the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and introduced banking reforms like separation of banking and other financial companies. The 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, allowing a bank to offer investment, commercial banking, and insurance services. The 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act allowed firms like Citigroup and Bank of America to offer investment and insurance services apart from banking after their acquisition and merger with other financial firms which would have been illegal before.

In 2004, at the request of big investment banks, the Security and Exchange Commission (S.E.C.) reduced requirements so that they could pile up debts. Although at the same time, the S.E.C. was given supervisory power to look into those banks risky investments. But the S.E.C. assigned only seven people to examine financial firms – which in 2007 had combined assets of more than $4 trillion. Since March 2007, the office has not had a director. As of October 2008, the office had not completed a single inspection since it was reshuffled more than a year and a half ago. The few problems the examiners preliminary investigations uncovered about the riskiness of the firms’ investments and their increased reliance on debt – clear signs of trouble – were all but ignored.[1]

Derivatives exacerbated the 2008 global economic crisis. Derivatives are financial contracts whose values are derived from the value of something else. A derivative is basically a side bet, (i.e. a bet on loans, bonds, commodities, stocks, residential mortgages, commercial real estate, loans, bonds, interest rates, exchange rates, stock market indices, consumer price index, or even on weather conditions) without owning it. It is similar to the bet a person, who is not a player or does not own the team, makes with someone on the outcome of a baseball game. Therefore if a person is certain that mortgage securities would fail, he would place the bet against them without owning them, making millions and even billions of dollars. For an example, a credit default swap (CDS) is a credit derivative contract between two parties. In mid-1990s, CDS was invented by a JP Morgan Chase team.

Brooksley E. Born, the then head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, was for regulating the derivative market, but the wishes of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin and Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Arthur Levitt Jr. prevailed. Ms. Born left the CFTC in June 1999. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 made it illegal to regulate the derivative market. These can be termed as modern financial casino games. After the 2008 Wall Street banking crisis, in his Congressional testimony Alan Greenspan said that he was wrong in his support of de-regulating the derivative market.

Warren Buffett famously described derivatives bought speculatively as "financial weapons of mass destruction." George Soros avoids using the financial contract known as derivatives “because we don’t really understand how they work.” Felix G. Rohatyn, the investment banker who saved New York from financial catastrophe in the 1970s, described derivatives as potential “hydrogen bombs.” [2] For an example in October 2008, trading in Gulf Bank, one of the largest lenders in Kuwait, was halted after a major customer defaulted on a currency derivative contract, a bet on the euro that dived against dollar in the previous ten days. It was reported that losses were as much as 200 million dinars or nearly $750 million.[3]

In mid 2008, the global derivatives market was close to $530 trillion. The global CDS market increased from $900 billion in 2000 to $62 trillion in 2008. According to Eric Dinallo, the insurance superintendent for New York state, about 80 percent of $62 trillion in credit default swaps outstanding in 2008 were speculative. In comparison, the value of the New York Stock Exchange was $30 trillion at the end of 2007 before the start of the 2008 crash. American International Group (AIG), the world's largest private insurance company, had sold $440 billion in credit-default swaps tied to mortgage securities. When the housing bubble burst, the CDSs tied to mortgage securities began to send shock waves throughout the global market. To prevent a chain reaction, the U.S. government had to rescue AIG and get a $700 billion fund from the U.S. Congress to bailout Wall Street firms, as AIG and several others were running out of money after being downgraded by credit-rating agencies because of mounting losses, which triggered a clause in its credit-default swap contracts to post billions in collateral. AIG, an insurance firm, is considered “too big to fail”, so the US government had to save it. The failure of AIG would send a shockwave through the finance industry as it had insured assets of financial firms all over the world.
"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm agreeing with John on something..

And you're both wrong.

How the hell are we wrong? You have yet to back up anything, and the success of the act is empirical and proven, considering the ones who spearheaded removing it were wall street pigs.

How is that proof of anything, dumbshit? It didnt prevent the Latin American debt crisis, the oil bust crisis, the Contintental Illinois crisis, the Long Term Capital Management melt down, or a bunch of other problems.

Yes, because those are all related to banking stability or were major/affected millions of americans in horrid ways.

Yes, because those are all related to banking stability

And they all occurred under Glass-Steagall. Durr.

You know nothing about glass-steagall, nothing is perfect, but we're talking about large crisis and preventing things like the great recession, not little things here and there. Tell me, what's your argument against glass-steagall? Nothing, you're another right wing loon who sucks the cock of wall street and supports deregulation.

You know nothing about glass-steagall, nothing is perfect

Least of all Glass-Steagall.

Tell me, what's your argument against glass-steagall?

It would have done nothing to prevent bad mortgages from being written or purchased by banks.

Pull your head out of your vagina and educate yourself.

 

[Socialist]

How the hell are we wrong? You have yet to back up anything, and the success of the act is empirical and proven, considering the ones who spearheaded removing it were wall street pigs.

How is that proof of anything, dumbshit? It didnt prevent the Latin American debt crisis, the oil bust crisis, the Contintental Illinois crisis, the Long Term Capital Management melt down, or a bunch of other problems.

Yes, because those are all related to banking stability or were major/affected millions of americans in horrid ways.

Yes, because those are all related to banking stability

And they all occurred under Glass-Steagall. Durr.

You know nothing about glass-steagall, nothing is perfect, but we're talking about large crisis and preventing things like the great recession, not little things here and there. Tell me, what's your argument against glass-steagall? Nothing, you're another right wing loon who sucks the cock of wall street and supports deregulation.

You know nothing about glass-steagall, nothing is perfect

Least of all Glass-Steagall.

Tell me, what's your argument against glass-steagall?

It would have done nothing to prevent bad mortgages from being written or purchased by banks.

Pull your head out of your vagina and educate yourself.

The mortgages weren't the only thing that caused the crisis man, and it is no question that glass-steagall had no negative effects, if anything, it was positive, regulation helps in this case, on all accounts, deregulation is a cancer that screws everyone except the rich. Oh, so because it wouldn't prevent one specific thing, you're against it, got it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm agreeing with John on something..

And you're both wrong.

How the hell are we wrong? You have yet to back up anything, and the success of the act is empirical and proven, considering the ones who spearheaded removing it were wall street pigs.

How the hell are we wrong?

Glass-Steagall would have done nothing to prevent the real estate bubble.

You have yet to back up anything

Goldman Sachs Eye on the Bailout ProPublica

AIG Eye on the Bailout ProPublica

and the success of the act is empirical and proven,

It didn't prevent the double recessions in the early 80s.
Didn't prevent the S&L crisis. Would have done nothing to prevent the crisis in 2008.

We're talking about crisis that had a massive effect related to banking stability.
There was more to the recession then the real estate bubble, which was fueled by greedy pigs.
"
Wall Street is booming again in large part because the rest of America -- categories (1) and (2), above -- bailed it out to the tune of $700 billion last year.

The Street has repaid some of that but, according to the bailout program's inspector general, much of it is gone forever.
"

The Street has repaid some of that but

But nothing, Wall Street and the banks repaid it all and the US Treasury made a huge profit.

The true cost of the bank bailout Need to Know PBS
Yeah, sure, keep believing that.

But it turns out that that $700 billion is just a small part of a much larger pool of money that has gone into propping up our nation’s financial system. And most of that taxpayer money hasn’t had much public scrutiny at all.
According to a team at Bloomberg News, at one point last year the U.S. had lent, spent or guaranteed as much as $12.8 trillion to rescue the economy.

And it worked. And it was repaid. And the government made 10s of billions in profit.

 

[Socialist]

How the hell are we wrong? You have yet to back up anything, and the success of the act is empirical and proven, considering the ones who spearheaded removing it were wall street pigs.

How the hell are we wrong?

Glass-Steagall would have done nothing to prevent the real estate bubble.

You have yet to back up anything

Goldman Sachs Eye on the Bailout ProPublica

AIG Eye on the Bailout ProPublica

and the success of the act is empirical and proven,

It didn't prevent the double recessions in the early 80s.
Didn't prevent the S&L crisis. Would have done nothing to prevent the crisis in 2008.

We're talking about crisis that had a massive effect related to banking stability.
There was more to the recession then the real estate bubble, which was fueled by greedy pigs.
"
Wall Street is booming again in large part because the rest of America -- categories (1) and (2), above -- bailed it out to the tune of $700 billion last year.

The Street has repaid some of that but, according to the bailout program's inspector general, much of it is gone forever.
"

The Street has repaid some of that but

But nothing, Wall Street and the banks repaid it all and the US Treasury made a huge profit.

The true cost of the bank bailout Need to Know PBS
Yeah, sure, keep believing that.

But it turns out that that $700 billion is just a small part of a much larger pool of money that has gone into propping up our nation’s financial system. And most of that taxpayer money hasn’t had much public scrutiny at all.
According to a team at Bloomberg News, at one point last year the U.S. had lent, spent or guaranteed as much as $12.8 trillion to rescue the economy.

And it worked. And it was repaid. And the government made 10s of billions in profit.

Yeah, which means nothing when millions of lives were ruined and the fat hogs on wall street/the bankers who caused the crisis rolled in cash, and you're using that same number..
"According to a team at Bloomberg News, at one point last year the U.S. had lent, spent or guaranteed as much as $12.8 trillion to rescue the economy."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"When Glass-Steagall was repealed, many big Wall Street banks started making risky bets on "derivatives" and other exotic financial constructs

And not a single bank failed because of derivatives.
Many got in trouble, and lost hundreds of billions, on mortgages.

Of course banks didn't fail, but it contributed to the recession, and the banks/etc were very stable until the act was repealed, tell me, seriously, what harm would be done if this act was brought back? Fat cats would lose some cash? You're an idiot.

Of course banks didn't fail, but it contributed to the recession

How?

and the banks/etc were very stable until the act was repealed

LOL! You know very little about banks.

You know very little about the corruption on wall street.
The 2008 Great Recession and Deregulation

Why don't you cut and paste Mr Kumar's wisdom?
Or at least the part that proves you're not an idiot.

"
Deregulation, the mantra promoted by the Republicans since the 1980s is behind the 2008 economic meltdown. After numerous bank failures during the Great Depression, the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and introduced banking reforms like separation of banking and other financial companies. The 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, allowing a bank to offer investment, commercial banking, and insurance services. The 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act allowed firms like Citigroup and Bank of America to offer investment and insurance services apart from banking after their acquisition and merger with other financial firms which would have been illegal before.

In 2004, at the request of big investment banks, the Security and Exchange Commission (S.E.C.) reduced requirements so that they could pile up debts. Although at the same time, the S.E.C. was given supervisory power to look into those banks risky investments. But the S.E.C. assigned only seven people to examine financial firms – which in 2007 had combined assets of more than $4 trillion. Since March 2007, the office has not had a director. As of October 2008, the office had not completed a single inspection since it was reshuffled more than a year and a half ago. The few problems the examiners preliminary investigations uncovered about the riskiness of the firms’ investments and their increased reliance on debt – clear signs of trouble – were all but ignored.[1]

Derivatives exacerbated the 2008 global economic crisis. Derivatives are financial contracts whose values are derived from the value of something else. A derivative is basically a side bet, (i.e. a bet on loans, bonds, commodities, stocks, residential mortgages, commercial real estate, loans, bonds, interest rates, exchange rates, stock market indices, consumer price index, or even on weather conditions) without owning it. It is similar to the bet a person, who is not a player or does not own the team, makes with someone on the outcome of a baseball game. Therefore if a person is certain that mortgage securities would fail, he would place the bet against them without owning them, making millions and even billions of dollars. For an example, a credit default swap (CDS) is a credit derivative contract between two parties. In mid-1990s, CDS was invented by a JP Morgan Chase team.

Brooksley E. Born, the then head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, was for regulating the derivative market, but the wishes of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin and Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Arthur Levitt Jr. prevailed. Ms. Born left the CFTC in June 1999. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 made it illegal to regulate the derivative market. These can be termed as modern financial casino games. After the 2008 Wall Street banking crisis, in his Congressional testimony Alan Greenspan said that he was wrong in his support of de-regulating the derivative market.

Warren Buffett famously described derivatives bought speculatively as "financial weapons of mass destruction." George Soros avoids using the financial contract known as derivatives “because we don’t really understand how they work.” Felix G. Rohatyn, the investment banker who saved New York from financial catastrophe in the 1970s, described derivatives as potential “hydrogen bombs.” [2] For an example in October 2008, trading in Gulf Bank, one of the largest lenders in Kuwait, was halted after a major customer defaulted on a currency derivative contract, a bet on the euro that dived against dollar in the previous ten days. It was reported that losses were as much as 200 million dinars or nearly $750 million.[3]

In mid 2008, the global derivatives market was close to $530 trillion. The global CDS market increased from $900 billion in 2000 to $62 trillion in 2008. According to Eric Dinallo, the insurance superintendent for New York state, about 80 percent of $62 trillion in credit default swaps outstanding in 2008 were speculative. In comparison, the value of the New York Stock Exchange was $30 trillion at the end of 2007 before the start of the 2008 crash. American International Group (AIG), the world's largest private insurance company, had sold $440 billion in credit-default swaps tied to mortgage securities. When the housing bubble burst, the CDSs tied to mortgage securities began to send shock waves throughout the global market. To prevent a chain reaction, the U.S. government had to rescue AIG and get a $700 billion fund from the U.S. Congress to bailout Wall Street firms, as AIG and several others were running out of money after being downgraded by credit-rating agencies because of mounting losses, which triggered a clause in its credit-default swap contracts to post billions in collateral. AIG, an insurance firm, is considered “too big to fail”, so the US government had to save it. The failure of AIG would send a shockwave through the finance industry as it had insured assets of financial firms all over the world.
"

The 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, allowing a bank to offer investment, commercial banking, and insurance services.

And the banks made money on those services.

Therefore if a person is certain that mortgage securities would fail, he would place the bet against them

And if a person were certain a stock would go down, they could place a bet against it.
So what?

 

[Socialist]

Of course banks didn't fail, but it contributed to the recession, and the banks/etc were very stable until the act was repealed, tell me, seriously, what harm would be done if this act was brought back? Fat cats would lose some cash? You're an idiot.

Of course banks didn't fail, but it contributed to the recession

How?

and the banks/etc were very stable until the act was repealed

LOL! You know very little about banks.

You know very little about the corruption on wall street.
The 2008 Great Recession and Deregulation

Why don't you cut and paste Mr Kumar's wisdom?
Or at least the part that proves you're not an idiot.

"
Deregulation, the mantra promoted by the Republicans since the 1980s is behind the 2008 economic meltdown. After numerous bank failures during the Great Depression, the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and introduced banking reforms like separation of banking and other financial companies. The 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, allowing a bank to offer investment, commercial banking, and insurance services. The 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act allowed firms like Citigroup and Bank of America to offer investment and insurance services apart from banking after their acquisition and merger with other financial firms which would have been illegal before.

In 2004, at the request of big investment banks, the Security and Exchange Commission (S.E.C.) reduced requirements so that they could pile up debts. Although at the same time, the S.E.C. was given supervisory power to look into those banks risky investments. But the S.E.C. assigned only seven people to examine financial firms – which in 2007 had combined assets of more than $4 trillion. Since March 2007, the office has not had a director. As of October 2008, the office had not completed a single inspection since it was reshuffled more than a year and a half ago. The few problems the examiners preliminary investigations uncovered about the riskiness of the firms’ investments and their increased reliance on debt – clear signs of trouble – were all but ignored.[1]

Derivatives exacerbated the 2008 global economic crisis. Derivatives are financial contracts whose values are derived from the value of something else. A derivative is basically a side bet, (i.e. a bet on loans, bonds, commodities, stocks, residential mortgages, commercial real estate, loans, bonds, interest rates, exchange rates, stock market indices, consumer price index, or even on weather conditions) without owning it. It is similar to the bet a person, who is not a player or does not own the team, makes with someone on the outcome of a baseball game. Therefore if a person is certain that mortgage securities would fail, he would place the bet against them without owning them, making millions and even billions of dollars. For an example, a credit default swap (CDS) is a credit derivative contract between two parties. In mid-1990s, CDS was invented by a JP Morgan Chase team.

Brooksley E. Born, the then head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, was for regulating the derivative market, but the wishes of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin and Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Arthur Levitt Jr. prevailed. Ms. Born left the CFTC in June 1999. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 made it illegal to regulate the derivative market. These can be termed as modern financial casino games. After the 2008 Wall Street banking crisis, in his Congressional testimony Alan Greenspan said that he was wrong in his support of de-regulating the derivative market.

Warren Buffett famously described derivatives bought speculatively as "financial weapons of mass destruction." George Soros avoids using the financial contract known as derivatives “because we don’t really understand how they work.” Felix G. Rohatyn, the investment banker who saved New York from financial catastrophe in the 1970s, described derivatives as potential “hydrogen bombs.” [2] For an example in October 2008, trading in Gulf Bank, one of the largest lenders in Kuwait, was halted after a major customer defaulted on a currency derivative contract, a bet on the euro that dived against dollar in the previous ten days. It was reported that losses were as much as 200 million dinars or nearly $750 million.[3]

In mid 2008, the global derivatives market was close to $530 trillion. The global CDS market increased from $900 billion in 2000 to $62 trillion in 2008. According to Eric Dinallo, the insurance superintendent for New York state, about 80 percent of $62 trillion in credit default swaps outstanding in 2008 were speculative. In comparison, the value of the New York Stock Exchange was $30 trillion at the end of 2007 before the start of the 2008 crash. American International Group (AIG), the world's largest private insurance company, had sold $440 billion in credit-default swaps tied to mortgage securities. When the housing bubble burst, the CDSs tied to mortgage securities began to send shock waves throughout the global market. To prevent a chain reaction, the U.S. government had to rescue AIG and get a $700 billion fund from the U.S. Congress to bailout Wall Street firms, as AIG and several others were running out of money after being downgraded by credit-rating agencies because of mounting losses, which triggered a clause in its credit-default swap contracts to post billions in collateral. AIG, an insurance firm, is considered “too big to fail”, so the US government had to save it. The failure of AIG would send a shockwave through the finance industry as it had insured assets of financial firms all over the world.
"

The 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, allowing a bank to offer investment, commercial banking, and insurance services.

And the banks made money on those services.

Therefore if a person is certain that mortgage securities would fail, he would place the bet against them

And if a person were certain a stock would go down, they could place a bet against it.
So what?

I knew you only cared about the banks and the wall street cats, who the hell cares if the banks made money?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How is that proof of anything, dumbshit? It didnt prevent the Latin American debt crisis, the oil bust crisis, the Contintental Illinois crisis, the Long Term Capital Management melt down, or a bunch of other problems.

Yes, because those are all related to banking stability or were major/affected millions of americans in horrid ways.

Yes, because those are all related to banking stability

And they all occurred under Glass-Steagall. Durr.

You know nothing about glass-steagall, nothing is perfect, but we're talking about large crisis and preventing things like the great recession, not little things here and there. Tell me, what's your argument against glass-steagall? Nothing, you're another right wing loon who sucks the cock of wall street and supports deregulation.

You know nothing about glass-steagall, nothing is perfect

Least of all Glass-Steagall.

Tell me, what's your argument against glass-steagall?

It would have done nothing to prevent bad mortgages from being written or purchased by banks.

Pull your head out of your vagina and educate yourself.

The mortgages weren't the only thing that caused the crisis man, and it is no question that glass-steagall had no negative effects, if anything, it was positive, regulation helps in this case, on all accounts, deregulation is a cancer that screws everyone except the rich. Oh, so because it wouldn't prevent one specific thing, you're against it, got it.

The mortgages weren't the only thing that caused the crisis man

I know, it was also the government pressure to make loans to people who were poor risks.

Oh, so because it wouldn't prevent one specific thing, you're against it,

McCain and Warren want to bring it back to prevent another crisis.
It wouldn't have prevented the last one.
So why are you for it?

deregulation is a cancer that screws everyone except the rich.

And regulation is the cure for everything. Except your idiocy.

 

[Socialist]

Yes, because those are all related to banking stability or were major/affected millions of americans in horrid ways.

Yes, because those are all related to banking stability

And they all occurred under Glass-Steagall. Durr.

You know nothing about glass-steagall, nothing is perfect, but we're talking about large crisis and preventing things like the great recession, not little things here and there. Tell me, what's your argument against glass-steagall? Nothing, you're another right wing loon who sucks the cock of wall street and supports deregulation.

You know nothing about glass-steagall, nothing is perfect

Least of all Glass-Steagall.

Tell me, what's your argument against glass-steagall?

It would have done nothing to prevent bad mortgages from being written or purchased by banks.

Pull your head out of your vagina and educate yourself.

The mortgages weren't the only thing that caused the crisis man, and it is no question that glass-steagall had no negative effects, if anything, it was positive, regulation helps in this case, on all accounts, deregulation is a cancer that screws everyone except the rich. Oh, so because it wouldn't prevent one specific thing, you're against it, got it.

The mortgages weren't the only thing that caused the crisis man

I know, it was also the government pressure to make loans to people who were poor risks.

Oh, so because it wouldn't prevent one specific thing, you're against it,

McCain and Warren want to bring it back to prevent another crisis.
It wouldn't have prevented the last one.
So why are you for it?

deregulation is a cancer that screws everyone except the rich.

And regulation is the cure for everything. Except your idiocy.

Oh, so now it's the governments fault? LOL.
It arguably could have prevented the crisis, and there's no harm in having it, at all.
Regulation in regards to banking, yes, you want no regulations, go to somalia.

 

[Dot Com]

I thought Dodd-Frank was meant to rein in banks. What exactly are we reining in banks from doing? Making money.
Glass Steagal did not prevent a dozen banking crises. Nor did its repeal cause the 2008 melt down. Nor will reinstating it prevent another.
Geez some people are stupid.

The Repubs watered it down too much before agreeing to vote for it to be effective.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How the hell are we wrong?

Glass-Steagall would have done nothing to prevent the real estate bubble.

You have yet to back up anything

Goldman Sachs Eye on the Bailout ProPublica

AIG Eye on the Bailout ProPublica

and the success of the act is empirical and proven,

It didn't prevent the double recessions in the early 80s.
Didn't prevent the S&L crisis. Would have done nothing to prevent the crisis in 2008.

We're talking about crisis that had a massive effect related to banking stability.
There was more to the recession then the real estate bubble, which was fueled by greedy pigs.
"
Wall Street is booming again in large part because the rest of America -- categories (1) and (2), above -- bailed it out to the tune of $700 billion last year.

The Street has repaid some of that but, according to the bailout program's inspector general, much of it is gone forever.
"

The Street has repaid some of that but

But nothing, Wall Street and the banks repaid it all and the US Treasury made a huge profit.

The true cost of the bank bailout Need to Know PBS
Yeah, sure, keep believing that.

But it turns out that that $700 billion is just a small part of a much larger pool of money that has gone into propping up our nation’s financial system. And most of that taxpayer money hasn’t had much public scrutiny at all.
According to a team at Bloomberg News, at one point last year the U.S. had lent, spent or guaranteed as much as $12.8 trillion to rescue the economy.

And it worked. And it was repaid. And the government made 10s of billions in profit.

Yeah, which means nothing when millions of lives were ruined and the fat hogs on wall street/the bankers who caused the crisis rolled in cash, and you're using that same number..
"According to a team at Bloomberg News, at one point last year the U.S. had lent, spent or guaranteed as much as $12.8 trillion to rescue the economy."

Yeah, which means nothing when millions of lives were ruined

If the banks had failed or if they hadn't repaid the loans, that wouldn't have made things better.

Thousands of banks failed during the Great Depression. It made things worse. Much worse.
You're simply blinded by your hatred for bankers.
Plus, you're ignorant.

In the 1920s, Nebraska and the nation as a whole had a lot of banks. At the beginning of the 20s, Nebraska had 1.3 million people and there was one bank for every 1,000 people. Every small town had a bank or two struggling to take in deposits and loan out money to farmers and businesses.
As the economic depression deepened in the early 30s, and as farmers had less and less money to spend in town, banks began to fail at alarming rates. During the 20s, there was an average of 70 banks failing each year nationally. After the crash during the first 10 months of 1930, 744 banks failed – 10 times as many. In all, 9,000 banks failed during the decade of the 30s. It's estimated that 4,000 banks failed during the one year of 1933 alone. By 1933, depositors saw $140 billion disappear through bank failures.

Bank Failures during the 1930s Great Depression

Holy crap! Depositors lost $140 billion because their banks failed.

 

[Socialist]

We're talking about crisis that had a massive effect related to banking stability.
There was more to the recession then the real estate bubble, which was fueled by greedy pigs.
"
Wall Street is booming again in large part because the rest of America -- categories (1) and (2), above -- bailed it out to the tune of $700 billion last year.

The Street has repaid some of that but, according to the bailout program's inspector general, much of it is gone forever.
"

The Street has repaid some of that but

But nothing, Wall Street and the banks repaid it all and the US Treasury made a huge profit.

The true cost of the bank bailout Need to Know PBS
Yeah, sure, keep believing that.

But it turns out that that $700 billion is just a small part of a much larger pool of money that has gone into propping up our nation’s financial system. And most of that taxpayer money hasn’t had much public scrutiny at all.
According to a team at Bloomberg News, at one point last year the U.S. had lent, spent or guaranteed as much as $12.8 trillion to rescue the economy.

And it worked. And it was repaid. And the government made 10s of billions in profit.

Yeah, which means nothing when millions of lives were ruined and the fat hogs on wall street/the bankers who caused the crisis rolled in cash, and you're using that same number..
"According to a team at Bloomberg News, at one point last year the U.S. had lent, spent or guaranteed as much as $12.8 trillion to rescue the economy."

Yeah, which means nothing when millions of lives were ruined

If the banks had failed or if they hadn't repaid the loans, that wouldn't have made things better.

Thousands of banks failed during the Great Depression. It made things worse. Much worse.
You're simply blinded by your hatred for bankers.
Plus, you're ignorant.

In the 1920s, Nebraska and the nation as a whole had a lot of banks. At the beginning of the 20s, Nebraska had 1.3 million people and there was one bank for every 1,000 people. Every small town had a bank or two struggling to take in deposits and loan out money to farmers and businesses.
As the economic depression deepened in the early 30s, and as farmers had less and less money to spend in town, banks began to fail at alarming rates. During the 20s, there was an average of 70 banks failing each year nationally. After the crash during the first 10 months of 1930, 744 banks failed – 10 times as many. In all, 9,000 banks failed during the decade of the 30s. It's estimated that 4,000 banks failed during the one year of 1933 alone. By 1933, depositors saw $140 billion disappear through bank failures.

Bank Failures during the 1930s Great Depression

Holy crap! Depositors lost $140 billion because their banks failed.

Mass Failures during the great depression before regulation? OH LORD, WHO WOULD'VE THOUGHT?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Of course banks didn't fail, but it contributed to the recession

How?

and the banks/etc were very stable until the act was repealed

LOL! You know very little about banks.

You know very little about the corruption on wall street.
The 2008 Great Recession and Deregulation

Why don't you cut and paste Mr Kumar's wisdom?
Or at least the part that proves you're not an idiot.

"
Deregulation, the mantra promoted by the Republicans since the 1980s is behind the 2008 economic meltdown. After numerous bank failures during the Great Depression, the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and introduced banking reforms like separation of banking and other financial companies. The 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, allowing a bank to offer investment, commercial banking, and insurance services. The 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act allowed firms like Citigroup and Bank of America to offer investment and insurance services apart from banking after their acquisition and merger with other financial firms which would have been illegal before.

In 2004, at the request of big investment banks, the Security and Exchange Commission (S.E.C.) reduced requirements so that they could pile up debts. Although at the same time, the S.E.C. was given supervisory power to look into those banks risky investments. But the S.E.C. assigned only seven people to examine financial firms – which in 2007 had combined assets of more than $4 trillion. Since March 2007, the office has not had a director. As of October 2008, the office had not completed a single inspection since it was reshuffled more than a year and a half ago. The few problems the examiners preliminary investigations uncovered about the riskiness of the firms’ investments and their increased reliance on debt – clear signs of trouble – were all but ignored.[1]

Derivatives exacerbated the 2008 global economic crisis. Derivatives are financial contracts whose values are derived from the value of something else. A derivative is basically a side bet, (i.e. a bet on loans, bonds, commodities, stocks, residential mortgages, commercial real estate, loans, bonds, interest rates, exchange rates, stock market indices, consumer price index, or even on weather conditions) without owning it. It is similar to the bet a person, who is not a player or does not own the team, makes with someone on the outcome of a baseball game. Therefore if a person is certain that mortgage securities would fail, he would place the bet against them without owning them, making millions and even billions of dollars. For an example, a credit default swap (CDS) is a credit derivative contract between two parties. In mid-1990s, CDS was invented by a JP Morgan Chase team.

Brooksley E. Born, the then head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, was for regulating the derivative market, but the wishes of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin and Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Arthur Levitt Jr. prevailed. Ms. Born left the CFTC in June 1999. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 made it illegal to regulate the derivative market. These can be termed as modern financial casino games. After the 2008 Wall Street banking crisis, in his Congressional testimony Alan Greenspan said that he was wrong in his support of de-regulating the derivative market.

Warren Buffett famously described derivatives bought speculatively as "financial weapons of mass destruction." George Soros avoids using the financial contract known as derivatives “because we don’t really understand how they work.” Felix G. Rohatyn, the investment banker who saved New York from financial catastrophe in the 1970s, described derivatives as potential “hydrogen bombs.” [2] For an example in October 2008, trading in Gulf Bank, one of the largest lenders in Kuwait, was halted after a major customer defaulted on a currency derivative contract, a bet on the euro that dived against dollar in the previous ten days. It was reported that losses were as much as 200 million dinars or nearly $750 million.[3]

In mid 2008, the global derivatives market was close to $530 trillion. The global CDS market increased from $900 billion in 2000 to $62 trillion in 2008. According to Eric Dinallo, the insurance superintendent for New York state, about 80 percent of $62 trillion in credit default swaps outstanding in 2008 were speculative. In comparison, the value of the New York Stock Exchange was $30 trillion at the end of 2007 before the start of the 2008 crash. American International Group (AIG), the world's largest private insurance company, had sold $440 billion in credit-default swaps tied to mortgage securities. When the housing bubble burst, the CDSs tied to mortgage securities began to send shock waves throughout the global market. To prevent a chain reaction, the U.S. government had to rescue AIG and get a $700 billion fund from the U.S. Congress to bailout Wall Street firms, as AIG and several others were running out of money after being downgraded by credit-rating agencies because of mounting losses, which triggered a clause in its credit-default swap contracts to post billions in collateral. AIG, an insurance firm, is considered “too big to fail”, so the US government had to save it. The failure of AIG would send a shockwave through the finance industry as it had insured assets of financial firms all over the world.
"

The 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, allowing a bank to offer investment, commercial banking, and insurance services.

And the banks made money on those services.

Therefore if a person is certain that mortgage securities would fail, he would place the bet against them

And if a person were certain a stock would go down, they could place a bet against it.
So what?

I knew you only cared about the banks and the wall street cats, who the hell cares if the banks made money?

I knew you only cared about the banks and the wall street cats

Of course pointing out your multiple, huge errors, proves no such thing.

who the hell cares if the banks made money?

Only people who want us to have a functioning economy.
Just look at how the people do in periods where the banks lose money.
Like during the 1930s.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Street has repaid some of that but

But nothing, Wall Street and the banks repaid it all and the US Treasury made a huge profit.

The true cost of the bank bailout Need to Know PBS
Yeah, sure, keep believing that.

But it turns out that that $700 billion is just a small part of a much larger pool of money that has gone into propping up our nation’s financial system. And most of that taxpayer money hasn’t had much public scrutiny at all.
According to a team at Bloomberg News, at one point last year the U.S. had lent, spent or guaranteed as much as $12.8 trillion to rescue the economy.

And it worked. And it was repaid. And the government made 10s of billions in profit.

Yeah, which means nothing when millions of lives were ruined and the fat hogs on wall street/the bankers who caused the crisis rolled in cash, and you're using that same number..
"According to a team at Bloomberg News, at one point last year the U.S. had lent, spent or guaranteed as much as $12.8 trillion to rescue the economy."

Yeah, which means nothing when millions of lives were ruined

If the banks had failed or if they hadn't repaid the loans, that wouldn't have made things better.

Thousands of banks failed during the Great Depression. It made things worse. Much worse.
You're simply blinded by your hatred for bankers.
Plus, you're ignorant.

In the 1920s, Nebraska and the nation as a whole had a lot of banks. At the beginning of the 20s, Nebraska had 1.3 million people and there was one bank for every 1,000 people. Every small town had a bank or two struggling to take in deposits and loan out money to farmers and businesses.
As the economic depression deepened in the early 30s, and as farmers had less and less money to spend in town, banks began to fail at alarming rates. During the 20s, there was an average of 70 banks failing each year nationally. After the crash during the first 10 months of 1930, 744 banks failed – 10 times as many. In all, 9,000 banks failed during the decade of the 30s. It's estimated that 4,000 banks failed during the one year of 1933 alone. By 1933, depositors saw $140 billion disappear through bank failures.

Bank Failures during the 1930s Great Depression

Holy crap! Depositors lost $140 billion because their banks failed.

Mass Failures during the great depression before regulation? OH LORD, WHO WOULD'VE THOUGHT?

Mass Failures during the great depression

Yes. And it didn't help the little people.
Not even the socialist morons.

 

[Socialist]

You know very little about the corruption on wall street.
The 2008 Great Recession and Deregulation

Why don't you cut and paste Mr Kumar's wisdom?
Or at least the part that proves you're not an idiot.

"
Deregulation, the mantra promoted by the Republicans since the 1980s is behind the 2008 economic meltdown. After numerous bank failures during the Great Depression, the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and introduced banking reforms like separation of banking and other financial companies. The 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, allowing a bank to offer investment, commercial banking, and insurance services. The 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act allowed firms like Citigroup and Bank of America to offer investment and insurance services apart from banking after their acquisition and merger with other financial firms which would have been illegal before.

In 2004, at the request of big investment banks, the Security and Exchange Commission (S.E.C.) reduced requirements so that they could pile up debts. Although at the same time, the S.E.C. was given supervisory power to look into those banks risky investments. But the S.E.C. assigned only seven people to examine financial firms – which in 2007 had combined assets of more than $4 trillion. Since March 2007, the office has not had a director. As of October 2008, the office had not completed a single inspection since it was reshuffled more than a year and a half ago. The few problems the examiners preliminary investigations uncovered about the riskiness of the firms’ investments and their increased reliance on debt – clear signs of trouble – were all but ignored.[1]

Derivatives exacerbated the 2008 global economic crisis. Derivatives are financial contracts whose values are derived from the value of something else. A derivative is basically a side bet, (i.e. a bet on loans, bonds, commodities, stocks, residential mortgages, commercial real estate, loans, bonds, interest rates, exchange rates, stock market indices, consumer price index, or even on weather conditions) without owning it. It is similar to the bet a person, who is not a player or does not own the team, makes with someone on the outcome of a baseball game. Therefore if a person is certain that mortgage securities would fail, he would place the bet against them without owning them, making millions and even billions of dollars. For an example, a credit default swap (CDS) is a credit derivative contract between two parties. In mid-1990s, CDS was invented by a JP Morgan Chase team.

Brooksley E. Born, the then head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, was for regulating the derivative market, but the wishes of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin and Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Arthur Levitt Jr. prevailed. Ms. Born left the CFTC in June 1999. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 made it illegal to regulate the derivative market. These can be termed as modern financial casino games. After the 2008 Wall Street banking crisis, in his Congressional testimony Alan Greenspan said that he was wrong in his support of de-regulating the derivative market.

Warren Buffett famously described derivatives bought speculatively as "financial weapons of mass destruction." George Soros avoids using the financial contract known as derivatives “because we don’t really understand how they work.” Felix G. Rohatyn, the investment banker who saved New York from financial catastrophe in the 1970s, described derivatives as potential “hydrogen bombs.” [2] For an example in October 2008, trading in Gulf Bank, one of the largest lenders in Kuwait, was halted after a major customer defaulted on a currency derivative contract, a bet on the euro that dived against dollar in the previous ten days. It was reported that losses were as much as 200 million dinars or nearly $750 million.[3]

In mid 2008, the global derivatives market was close to $530 trillion. The global CDS market increased from $900 billion in 2000 to $62 trillion in 2008. According to Eric Dinallo, the insurance superintendent for New York state, about 80 percent of $62 trillion in credit default swaps outstanding in 2008 were speculative. In comparison, the value of the New York Stock Exchange was $30 trillion at the end of 2007 before the start of the 2008 crash. American International Group (AIG), the world's largest private insurance company, had sold $440 billion in credit-default swaps tied to mortgage securities. When the housing bubble burst, the CDSs tied to mortgage securities began to send shock waves throughout the global market. To prevent a chain reaction, the U.S. government had to rescue AIG and get a $700 billion fund from the U.S. Congress to bailout Wall Street firms, as AIG and several others were running out of money after being downgraded by credit-rating agencies because of mounting losses, which triggered a clause in its credit-default swap contracts to post billions in collateral. AIG, an insurance firm, is considered “too big to fail”, so the US government had to save it. The failure of AIG would send a shockwave through the finance industry as it had insured assets of financial firms all over the world.
"

The 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, allowing a bank to offer investment, commercial banking, and insurance services.

And the banks made money on those services.

Therefore if a person is certain that mortgage securities would fail, he would place the bet against them

And if a person were certain a stock would go down, they could place a bet against it.
So what?

I knew you only cared about the banks and the wall street cats, who the hell cares if the banks made money?

I knew you only cared about the banks and the wall street cats

Of course pointing out your multiple, huge errors, proves no such thing.

who the hell cares if the banks made money?

Only people who want us to have a functioning economy.
Just look at how the people do in periods where the banks lose money.
Like during the 1930s.

Do you know why the banks were losing money? Have you learned anything about the great depression? Banks should make money, but not excess profits when people are suffering. Huge errors? Like what? You have yet to show why reigning in banks is bad in any way.