Trump's "deregulating" everything is tantamount to.......

[Mac1958]

You're focusing on the Fannie & Freddie aspect of this, and there's simply much more to it that has nothing to do with that crap.

The lenders didn't have to worry about losing money, because they were immediately packaging the dog shit sub-prime mortgages into dog shit CMO's and double dog shit CDO's, getting COMPLETELY FRAUDULENT AAA ratings from the ratings agencies who were making a ton literally selling ratings, and POOF, the dog shit was OFF THE BOOKS, sold to some unsuspecting investors who foolishly thought that AAA ratings actually MEANT something. Ha! Dumb shits! Suckers!

Meanwhile, AIG is making a SHITLOAD selling a few hundred billion dollars of CDS's with ZERO (0) actual "money" to back up those bets, to institutions that thought (suckers!) they were hedging their bets on those CDO's and other shit, only to find out that AIG NEVER HAD THE MONEY TO PAY THEM OFF. THEY NEVER HAD THE FUCKING MONEY, YET THEY TOOK THE FEES. WHAT A DEAL! Holy crap, talk about a boffo business model! But that's okay - they called the gubmit, told them they forgot to keep money in reserve (oops!), and got bailed out! How cool is THAT!

Oh yeah, it gets better -- THEN the banks were creating and selling these horrific dog shit CMO's and CDO's and selling them with their phony dog shit AAA ratings, while AT THE SAME TIME they were BUYING CDS's to fucking SHORT THE VERY SHIT THEY WERE SELLING. Brilliant! Win/Win! My personal FAVE was the Goldman Sachs/John Paulson crime partnership that made Paulson $1 billion, GS even more, and fucked over all KINDS of people with shit CDO's that they had PURPOSELY MADE shit CDO's. Whoopee!

So what does ANY of this have to do with Fannie and Freddie? And by the way....

• Why were the ratings agencies getting away with slapping AAA - TREASURY LEVEL - ratings for SHIT securities?
• Why was AIG able to sell hundreds of billions of dollars in swaps with NO RESERVE REQUIREMENTS?
• Why were the creators of these shit securities able to bring them to market in the FIRST PLACE?
• Why were no limits placed on the amount of CDS's that could be bought to transfer risk?
  
• Why were there ZERO controls on the types of debt that were being shoved into these shit securities?
• Why were banks allowed to be in bed with companies that were selling hyper-toxic "synthetic CDO's" with zero fucking oversight?
  
• Why were the banks getting away with manipulating the value of CDS's, as they were buying them themselves?
  
• Why were the banks getting away with SHORTING the very crap securities they were creating and selling?

Because there was no one saying "stop, we need to look at this". That's what a regulator does. In a normal world.

Are you really going to blame the Democrats ALONE for all that? Holy crap, come on.
.

Why were the banks getting away with SHORTING the very crap securities they were creating and selling?

When a bank creates a synthetic CDO for a client, the bank is on the other side of the trade.
So of course they are short the security.
If you buy a call, are you mad because the market maker who sold it to you is short the call he sold you?

How exactly are they fulfilling their fiduciary obligation to the client by doing that?
.

If I go into the IBM pit on the CBOE and I buy 100 July 175 calls for 1.89
the market maker selling me those calls is now short 100 July 175 calls.
Why can he sell me this crap and go short this crap at the same time?

Because he doesn't have any fiduciary responsibility. None. His is a pure supply and demand dynamic. He's only a broker between a buyer and seller.

Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan DO have fiduciary responsibilities to act in their clients' best interests. Just like I do. Only about a trillion zillion times bigger, and an integral part of the economy.

Acting in their clients' best interests? They did not. They literally bet against what they were selling their clients using securities that were not regulated. They created dog shit securities, bought AAA ratings for them, fraudulently sold them based on bogus ratings, then bet against them. They created a market for themselves based on a fraud.

Do you see anything wrong there? And that was just ONE of the scams that was going on.

No regulation of the securities. No regulation of the AAA ratings they were given. No regulation of their behavior once they had them. THAT'S the problem. THAT'S what happened.
.

So what you're saying is that they behaved responsibly with securities that weren't regulated, but they behaved irresponsibly with securities that were regulated. That right their tells you all you need to know to determine what was responsible for this fiasco.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Not even close. So I'll say it again:

They created dog shit securities, bought AAA ratings for them, fraudulently sold them based on bogus ratings, then bet against them.

They created and profited from a market for themselves based on a fraud. On both ends. From beginning to end.
.

 

[bripat9643]

Why were the banks getting away with SHORTING the very crap securities they were creating and selling?

When a bank creates a synthetic CDO for a client, the bank is on the other side of the trade.
So of course they are short the security.
If you buy a call, are you mad because the market maker who sold it to you is short the call he sold you?

How exactly are they fulfilling their fiduciary obligation to the client by doing that?
.

If I go into the IBM pit on the CBOE and I buy 100 July 175 calls for 1.89
the market maker selling me those calls is now short 100 July 175 calls.
Why can he sell me this crap and go short this crap at the same time?

Because he doesn't have any fiduciary responsibility. None. His is a pure supply and demand dynamic. He's only a broker between a buyer and seller.

Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan DO have fiduciary responsibilities to act in their clients' best interests. Just like I do. Only about a trillion zillion times bigger, and an integral part of the economy.

Acting in their clients' best interests? They did not. They literally bet against what they were selling their clients using securities that were not regulated. They created dog shit securities, bought AAA ratings for them, fraudulently sold them based on bogus ratings, then bet against them. They created a market for themselves based on a fraud.

Do you see anything wrong there? And that was just ONE of the scams that was going on.

No regulation of the securities. No regulation of the AAA ratings they were given. No regulation of their behavior once they had them. THAT'S the problem. THAT'S what happened.
.

So what you're saying is that they behaved responsibly with securities that weren't regulated, but they behaved irresponsibly with securities that were regulated. That right their tells you all you need to know to determine what was responsible for this fiasco.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Not even close. So I'll say it again:

They created dog shit securities, bought AAA ratings for them, fraudulently sold them based on bogus ratings, then bet against them.

They created and profited from a market for themselves based on a fraud. On both ends. From beginning to end.
.

The regulators knew about the fraud and looked the other way because the CRA was impossible without it. If you're going to force banks to make bad loans, then the government has to give them their stamp of approval or the banks will quickly go bankrupt. Instead the government put off the day of reckoning until the entire market collapsed.

 

[Mac1958]

How exactly are they fulfilling their fiduciary obligation to the client by doing that?
.

If I go into the IBM pit on the CBOE and I buy 100 July 175 calls for 1.89
the market maker selling me those calls is now short 100 July 175 calls.
Why can he sell me this crap and go short this crap at the same time?

Because he doesn't have any fiduciary responsibility. None. His is a pure supply and demand dynamic. He's only a broker between a buyer and seller.

Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan DO have fiduciary responsibilities to act in their clients' best interests. Just like I do. Only about a trillion zillion times bigger, and an integral part of the economy.

Acting in their clients' best interests? They did not. They literally bet against what they were selling their clients using securities that were not regulated. They created dog shit securities, bought AAA ratings for them, fraudulently sold them based on bogus ratings, then bet against them. They created a market for themselves based on a fraud.

Do you see anything wrong there? And that was just ONE of the scams that was going on.

No regulation of the securities. No regulation of the AAA ratings they were given. No regulation of their behavior once they had them. THAT'S the problem. THAT'S what happened.
.

So what you're saying is that they behaved responsibly with securities that weren't regulated, but they behaved irresponsibly with securities that were regulated. That right their tells you all you need to know to determine what was responsible for this fiasco.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Not even close. So I'll say it again:

They created dog shit securities, bought AAA ratings for them, fraudulently sold them based on bogus ratings, then bet against them.

They created and profited from a market for themselves based on a fraud. On both ends. From beginning to end.
.

The regulators knew about the fraud and looked the other way because the CRA was impossible without it. If you're going to force banks to make bad loans, then the government has to give them their stamp of approval or the banks will quickly go bankrupt. Instead the government put off the day of reckoning until the entire market collapsed.

Ugh. Okay.
.

 

[Correll]

ANARCHY......a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority..

Somehow, Trump cultist "think" that the removal of any safeguards for consumers and clients from "kind-hearted and altruistic" companies will be better for the common citizen.
After all, companies' main objective is to do what is morally and ethically best for consumers, and NOT to make huge profits with the least amount of expenditure.....CORRECT, right wingers???

Here's an example.......Health care insurers....as most insurers have managed to BRIBE congress to make them EXEMPT from anti-trust regulations, so that they could be free to COLLUDE on price fixing and completely eliminate competition........basically the ANTITHESIS of capitalistic tenets.

Price fixing, a free hand in polluting, the emergence of scams to defraud, rising costs, abolition of competition, etc. ARE ALL "legally" ushered in through deregulation.

"Thank you" fat, stupid and inept orange clown.....

(It'll take quite a while to undo this idiot's and his cult's screw-ups.)

If you really want to discuss the issue, a little less partisan filler would encourage that.


Just saying.

BP is polluting Lake Michigan - tribunedigital-chicagotribune

Did President Trump Make It Legal to Dump Coal Mining Waste Into ...

Why Trump just killed a rule restricting coal companies from dumping ...

Stream Protection: Senate Repeals Rule, Coal Miners Rejoice | Fortune

And the shotgun fallacy use, really makes my point.


This isn't about any environmental concern but just an excuse to smear Trump.


Ask yourself. IF he wasn't doing ANY of this, would that change your opinion of him at all?


Try to be honest.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I guess you have never heard the phrase "government of the people, by the people, for the people" before.

Figures, that history would not be a strong suit for you.

Yeah, that was Lincoln's finest piece of propaganda, and it's pure bullshit.

I guess you have never read the Constitution either. Shocking that is not. It starts with "we the people" for a reason.

That's also propaganda, and a lie.

Now I know why you are such a fan of Trump. You both hate the constitution.

Not sure there is anything left for us to discuss. I swore an oath to defend the thing you call a lie.
You are no longer worthy of my time


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I don't hate the Constitution. I simply acknowledge facts. "We the people" didn't write the Constitution, and "We the people" didn't even get to vote on it. A small group of men wrote it, and a small group of men voted on it. "We the people" is a lie.

You are not a libertrian. They believe in freedom. You believe in government.

you call the Constitution propaganda and a lie and then say you don't hate it. Sorry boy, you cannot backtrack on that one no matter how hard you try.

Yes, I am a libertarian, we believe in freedom not anarchy, which is what you seem to want. Governments are a necessary evil and have a role and a place. No libertarian thinks otherwise. If libertarians didn't think the government was necessary they would never run for office of even have a party you fucking brain dead moron.

You are the enemy of the country that will bring it down faster than any outside enemy. So, go fuck your constitution hating self. I am sure you could find a country that does not have much of a government or a constitution and be very happy there. Maybe you should move to Somalia, they do not have much of a government there, I am sure you would fit right in with all those folks over there.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

ANARCHY......a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority..

Somehow, Trump cultist "think" that the removal of any safeguards for consumers and clients from "kind-hearted and altruistic" companies will be better for the common citizen.
After all, companies' main objective is to do what is morally and ethically best for consumers, and NOT to make huge profits with the least amount of expenditure.....CORRECT, right wingers???

Here's an example.......Health care insurers....as most insurers have managed to BRIBE congress to make them EXEMPT from anti-trust regulations, so that they could be free to COLLUDE on price fixing and completely eliminate competition........basically the ANTITHESIS of capitalistic tenets.

Price fixing, a free hand in polluting, the emergence of scams to defraud, rising costs, abolition of competition, etc. ARE ALL "legally" ushered in through deregulation.

"Thank you" fat, stupid and inept orange clown.....

(It'll take quite a while to undo this idiot's and his cult's screw-ups.)

Trump is Regulating Language Over at the Center for Disease Control so don't say he is against Regulations

Words like ‘fetus, transgender, science-based’ and others have been barred from Trump’s Center for Disease Control
Analysts at the Center for Disease Control’s offices in Atlanta were told on Thursday that they are not allowed to use seven words in official documents pertaining to the next year’s budget.

Since when are you against the President ruling that certain words can't be used? Obama had a long list of them - words like "illegal alien," "Islamic extremism" and "terrorist."

Thanks for the reminder of how much alike Trump and Obama are.

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah, that was Lincoln's finest piece of propaganda, and it's pure bullshit.

I guess you have never read the Constitution either. Shocking that is not. It starts with "we the people" for a reason.

That's also propaganda, and a lie.

Now I know why you are such a fan of Trump. You both hate the constitution.

Not sure there is anything left for us to discuss. I swore an oath to defend the thing you call a lie.
You are no longer worthy of my time


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I don't hate the Constitution. I simply acknowledge facts. "We the people" didn't write the Constitution, and "We the people" didn't even get to vote on it. A small group of men wrote it, and a small group of men voted on it. "We the people" is a lie.

You are not a libertrian. They believe in freedom. You believe in government.

you call the Constitution propaganda and a lie and then say you don't hate it. Sorry boy, you cannot backtrack on that one no matter how hard you try.

I only called one sentence in it a lie. The rest of it can't be a lie because the Constitution is a set of rules. They can't be either true or false.

Yes, I am a libertarian, we believe in freedom not anarchy, which is what you seem to want. Governments are a necessary evil and have a role and a place. No libertarian thinks otherwise. If libertarians didn't think the government was necessary they would never run for office of even have a party you fucking brain dead moron.

You're about as libertarian as Pol Pot. Libertarians are against regulations, period. They're against high taxes, welfare and every other form of government meddling. You support all of those things. You're a leftwing statist, not a libertarian.

Some libertarians believe a small amount of government is necessary. Others don't. None of them believe the regularly behemoth we have now is necessary. All of them would cut regulations far more than Trump.

You are the enemy of the country that will bring it down faster than any outside enemy. So, go fuck your constitution hating self. I am sure you could find a country that does not have much of a government or a constitution and be very happy there. Maybe you should move to Somalia, they do not have much of a government there, I am sure you would fit right in with all those folks over there.

ROFL! I'm only the enemy of lying bootlickers like you. In standard leftwing fashion, you post the shopworn idiocy about Somalia.

 

[bripat9643]

ANARCHY......a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority..

Somehow, Trump cultist "think" that the removal of any safeguards for consumers and clients from "kind-hearted and altruistic" companies will be better for the common citizen.
After all, companies' main objective is to do what is morally and ethically best for consumers, and NOT to make huge profits with the least amount of expenditure.....CORRECT, right wingers???

Here's an example.......Health care insurers....as most insurers have managed to BRIBE congress to make them EXEMPT from anti-trust regulations, so that they could be free to COLLUDE on price fixing and completely eliminate competition........basically the ANTITHESIS of capitalistic tenets.

Price fixing, a free hand in polluting, the emergence of scams to defraud, rising costs, abolition of competition, etc. ARE ALL "legally" ushered in through deregulation.

"Thank you" fat, stupid and inept orange clown.....

(It'll take quite a while to undo this idiot's and his cult's screw-ups.)

Trump is Regulating Language Over at the Center for Disease Control so don't say he is against Regulations

Words like ‘fetus, transgender, science-based’ and others have been barred from Trump’s Center for Disease Control
Analysts at the Center for Disease Control’s offices in Atlanta were told on Thursday that they are not allowed to use seven words in official documents pertaining to the next year’s budget.

Since when are you against the President ruling that certain words can't be used? Obama had a long list of them - words like "illegal alien," "Islamic extremism" and "terrorist."

Thanks for the reminder of how much alike Trump and Obama are.

If they were actually alike you wouldn't be whining about Trump constantly.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

ANARCHY......a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority..

Somehow, Trump cultist "think" that the removal of any safeguards for consumers and clients from "kind-hearted and altruistic" companies will be better for the common citizen.
After all, companies' main objective is to do what is morally and ethically best for consumers, and NOT to make huge profits with the least amount of expenditure.....CORRECT, right wingers???

Here's an example.......Health care insurers....as most insurers have managed to BRIBE congress to make them EXEMPT from anti-trust regulations, so that they could be free to COLLUDE on price fixing and completely eliminate competition........basically the ANTITHESIS of capitalistic tenets.

Price fixing, a free hand in polluting, the emergence of scams to defraud, rising costs, abolition of competition, etc. ARE ALL "legally" ushered in through deregulation.

"Thank you" fat, stupid and inept orange clown.....

(It'll take quite a while to undo this idiot's and his cult's screw-ups.)

Trump is Regulating Language Over at the Center for Disease Control so don't say he is against Regulations

Words like ‘fetus, transgender, science-based’ and others have been barred from Trump’s Center for Disease Control
Analysts at the Center for Disease Control’s offices in Atlanta were told on Thursday that they are not allowed to use seven words in official documents pertaining to the next year’s budget.

Since when are you against the President ruling that certain words can't be used? Obama had a long list of them - words like "illegal alien," "Islamic extremism" and "terrorist."

Thanks for the reminder of how much alike Trump and Obama are.

If they were actually alike you wouldn't be whining about Trump constantly.

Sure I would as I complained about Obama all the time too. But it is beyond your little constitution hating mind to understand that a person could dislike both of them

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Lenders are not in business to lose money. Before politicians stuck their nose in this business perspective buyers had to meet strict loan requirements. Income, income to debt ratio, employment, down payment, and all this had to be verified they just didn't take your word for it. This was the way it worked for decades.

Then politicians looking to get reelected demolished the lending standards. Pressured Fannie and Freddie into lowering their requirements. Look, lenders no longer hold these loans long term they immediately sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie. But prior to interference from politicians Fannie and Freddie refused to purchase risky loans, hence lenders did not make risky loans because they couldn't sell them on the secondary mortgage market.

Trust me on this, politicians screwed the whole thing up then pretended like it wasn't their fault. I still remember Frank the banking chair in congress insisting there was nothing at all wrong at Fannie and Freddie. Then when the housing bubble blew up in his face he was the first one to blame everyone else but himself.

You're focusing on the Fannie & Freddie aspect of this, and there's simply much more to it that has nothing to do with that crap.

The lenders didn't have to worry about losing money, because they were immediately packaging the dog shit sub-prime mortgages into dog shit CMO's and double dog shit CDO's, getting COMPLETELY FRAUDULENT AAA ratings from the ratings agencies who were making a ton literally selling ratings, and POOF, the dog shit was OFF THE BOOKS, sold to some unsuspecting investors who foolishly thought that AAA ratings actually MEANT something. Ha! Dumb shits! Suckers!

Meanwhile, AIG is making a SHITLOAD selling a few hundred billion dollars of CDS's with ZERO (0) actual "money" to back up those bets, to institutions that thought (suckers!) they were hedging their bets on those CDO's and other shit, only to find out that AIG NEVER HAD THE MONEY TO PAY THEM OFF. THEY NEVER HAD THE FUCKING MONEY, YET THEY TOOK THE FEES. WHAT A DEAL! Holy crap, talk about a boffo business model! But that's okay - they called the gubmit, told them they forgot to keep money in reserve (oops!), and got bailed out! How cool is THAT!

Oh yeah, it gets better -- THEN the banks were creating and selling these horrific dog shit CMO's and CDO's and selling them with their phony dog shit AAA ratings, while AT THE SAME TIME they were BUYING CDS's to fucking SHORT THE VERY SHIT THEY WERE SELLING. Brilliant! Win/Win! My personal FAVE was the Goldman Sachs/John Paulson crime partnership that made Paulson $1 billion, GS even more, and fucked over all KINDS of people with shit CDO's that they had PURPOSELY MADE shit CDO's. Whoopee!

So what does ANY of this have to do with Fannie and Freddie? And by the way....

• Why were the ratings agencies getting away with slapping AAA - TREASURY LEVEL - ratings for SHIT securities?
• Why was AIG able to sell hundreds of billions of dollars in swaps with NO RESERVE REQUIREMENTS?
• Why were the creators of these shit securities able to bring them to market in the FIRST PLACE?
• Why were no limits placed on the amount of CDS's that could be bought to transfer risk?
  
• Why were there ZERO controls on the types of debt that were being shoved into these shit securities?
• Why were banks allowed to be in bed with companies that were selling hyper-toxic "synthetic CDO's" with zero fucking oversight?
  
• Why were the banks getting away with manipulating the value of CDS's, as they were buying them themselves?
  
• Why were the banks getting away with SHORTING the very crap securities they were creating and selling?

Because there was no one saying "stop, we need to look at this". That's what a regulator does. In a normal world.

Are you really going to blame the Democrats ALONE for all that? Holy crap, come on.
.

Why were the banks getting away with SHORTING the very crap securities they were creating and selling?

When a bank creates a synthetic CDO for a client, the bank is on the other side of the trade.
So of course they are short the security.
If you buy a call, are you mad because the market maker who sold it to you is short the call he sold you?

How exactly are they fulfilling their fiduciary obligation to the client by doing that?
.

If I go into the IBM pit on the CBOE and I buy 100 July 175 calls for 1.89
the market maker selling me those calls is now short 100 July 175 calls.
Why can he sell me this crap and go short this crap at the same time?

Because he doesn't have any fiduciary responsibility. None. His is a pure supply and demand dynamic. He's only a broker between a buyer and seller. He's not selling securities he created. Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan DO have fiduciary responsibilities to act in their clients' best interests. Just like I do. Only about a trillion zillion times bigger, and an integral part of the economy.

Acting in their clients' best interests? They did not. They literally bet against what they were selling their clients using securities that were not regulated. They created dog shit securities, bought AAA ratings for them, fraudulently sold them based on bogus ratings, then bet against them. They literally, LITERALLY created a market for themselves based on a fraud. Your market maker isn't doing that.

Do you see anything wrong there? And that was just ONE of the scams that was going on.

No regulation of the securities. No regulation of the AAA ratings they were given. No regulation of their behavior once they had them. THAT'S the problem. THAT'S what happened.
.

Because he doesn't have any fiduciary responsibility. None. His is a pure supply and demand dynamic. He's only a broker between a buyer and seller. He's not selling securities he created.

You are mistaken, the Market Maker just created, out of thin air, the IBM calls he sold to you.
He's the seller, you are the buyer. No middleman.
And now he's.......SHORT!

Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan DO have fiduciary responsibilities to act in their clients' best interests.

If Goldman was selling a synthetic CDO to some schmoo, I agree, they shouldn't sell complicated securities to
non-professionals who have no clue. When they sell these synthetic CDOs to other professionals, the buyer should do their own due diligence. If Goldman did something fraudulent, zap them, but whining that they sold something and went short at the same time (well, duh!) is just ignorant.

They literally bet against what they were selling their clients using securities that were not regulated.

That literally happens every time a synthetic security is created, literally. They could try to sell off both sides of the synthetic, but most likely just hedge it in some other way.

They created dog shit securities

Without a ready buyer, those securities don't do anything.

bought AAA ratings for them,

If they did something fraudulent to get the ratings, zap them.
If the rating firm did something fraudulent, zap them too.

They literally, LITERALLY created a market for themselves based on a fraud.

If there was fraud, punish the fraud.
Taking the other side of a customer trade ain't fraud.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I guess you have never read the Constitution either. Shocking that is not. It starts with "we the people" for a reason.

That's also propaganda, and a lie.

Now I know why you are such a fan of Trump. You both hate the constitution.

Not sure there is anything left for us to discuss. I swore an oath to defend the thing you call a lie.
You are no longer worthy of my time


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

I don't hate the Constitution. I simply acknowledge facts. "We the people" didn't write the Constitution, and "We the people" didn't even get to vote on it. A small group of men wrote it, and a small group of men voted on it. "We the people" is a lie.

You are not a libertrian. They believe in freedom. You believe in government.

you call the Constitution propaganda and a lie and then say you don't hate it. Sorry boy, you cannot backtrack on that one no matter how hard you try.

I only called one sentence in it a lie. The rest of it can't be a lie because the Constitution is a set of rules. They can't be either true or false.

Yes, I am a libertarian, we believe in freedom not anarchy, which is what you seem to want. Governments are a necessary evil and have a role and a place. No libertarian thinks otherwise. If libertarians didn't think the government was necessary they would never run for office of even have a party you fucking brain dead moron.

You're about as libertarian as Pol Pot. Libertarians are against regulations, period. They're against high taxes, welfare and every other form of government meddling. You support all of those things. You're a leftwing statist, not a libertarian.

Some libertarians believe a small amount of government is necessary. Others don't. None of them believe the regularly behemoth we have now is necessary. All of them would cut regulations far more than Trump.

You are the enemy of the country that will bring it down faster than any outside enemy. So, go fuck your constitution hating self. I am sure you could find a country that does not have much of a government or a constitution and be very happy there. Maybe you should move to Somalia, they do not have much of a government there, I am sure you would fit right in with all those folks over there.

ROFL! I'm only the enemy of lying bootlickers like you. In standard leftwing fashion, you post the shopworn idiocy about Somalia.

Sort of pathetic that you have to make up lies about me just to hide your hate of our constitution. But I have come to expect nothing from from you than lie after lie.

But I am good with a constitution hating anarchist like you lying about me, means I am doing the right thing.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why were the banks getting away with SHORTING the very crap securities they were creating and selling?

When a bank creates a synthetic CDO for a client, the bank is on the other side of the trade.
So of course they are short the security.
If you buy a call, are you mad because the market maker who sold it to you is short the call he sold you?

How exactly are they fulfilling their fiduciary obligation to the client by doing that?
.

If I go into the IBM pit on the CBOE and I buy 100 July 175 calls for 1.89
the market maker selling me those calls is now short 100 July 175 calls.
Why can he sell me this crap and go short this crap at the same time?

Because he doesn't have any fiduciary responsibility. None. His is a pure supply and demand dynamic. He's only a broker between a buyer and seller.

Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan DO have fiduciary responsibilities to act in their clients' best interests. Just like I do. Only about a trillion zillion times bigger, and an integral part of the economy.

Acting in their clients' best interests? They did not. They literally bet against what they were selling their clients using securities that were not regulated. They created dog shit securities, bought AAA ratings for them, fraudulently sold them based on bogus ratings, then bet against them. They created a market for themselves based on a fraud.

Do you see anything wrong there? And that was just ONE of the scams that was going on.

No regulation of the securities. No regulation of the AAA ratings they were given. No regulation of their behavior once they had them. THAT'S the problem. THAT'S what happened.
.

So what you're saying is that they behaved responsibly with securities that weren't regulated, but they behaved irresponsibly with securities that were regulated. That right their tells you all you need to know to determine what was responsible for this fiasco.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Not even close. So I'll say it again:

They created dog shit securities, bought AAA ratings for them, fraudulently sold them based on bogus ratings, then bet against them.

They created and profited from a market for themselves based on a fraud. On both ends. From beginning to end.
.

They created dog shit securities, bought AAA ratings for them, fraudulently sold them based on bogus ratings, then bet against them.

There is no "then bet against them".

If you bet $10 that the Bears will beat the Lions, your bookie is betting the Lions will win.

Do you whine that he took your bet and is now betting against you? LOL!

 

[sakinago]

Except.....he hasn't. Lol. Now, let us know when deregulation really happens so we can celebrate.

Here, have a drink......

That's not taken in U.S.

Want to see some more???

Oh my god...water vapor...someone needs to do something.

 

[nat4900]

Oh my god...water vapor...someone needs to do something.

take really deep breaths.....LOL

 

[Mac1958]

How exactly are they fulfilling their fiduciary obligation to the client by doing that?
.

If I go into the IBM pit on the CBOE and I buy 100 July 175 calls for 1.89
the market maker selling me those calls is now short 100 July 175 calls.
Why can he sell me this crap and go short this crap at the same time?

Because he doesn't have any fiduciary responsibility. None. His is a pure supply and demand dynamic. He's only a broker between a buyer and seller.

Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan DO have fiduciary responsibilities to act in their clients' best interests. Just like I do. Only about a trillion zillion times bigger, and an integral part of the economy.

Acting in their clients' best interests? They did not. They literally bet against what they were selling their clients using securities that were not regulated. They created dog shit securities, bought AAA ratings for them, fraudulently sold them based on bogus ratings, then bet against them. They created a market for themselves based on a fraud.

Do you see anything wrong there? And that was just ONE of the scams that was going on.

No regulation of the securities. No regulation of the AAA ratings they were given. No regulation of their behavior once they had them. THAT'S the problem. THAT'S what happened.
.

So what you're saying is that they behaved responsibly with securities that weren't regulated, but they behaved irresponsibly with securities that were regulated. That right their tells you all you need to know to determine what was responsible for this fiasco.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Not even close. So I'll say it again:

They created dog shit securities, bought AAA ratings for them, fraudulently sold them based on bogus ratings, then bet against them.

They created and profited from a market for themselves based on a fraud. On both ends. From beginning to end.
.

They created dog shit securities, bought AAA ratings for them, fraudulently sold them based on bogus ratings, then bet against them.

There is no "then bet against them".

If you bet $10 that the Bears will beat the Lions, your bookie is betting the Lions will win.

Do you whine that he took your bet and is now betting against you? LOL!

Okay, thanks. You're obviously much smarter at this stuff than me.

You think it's okay for a fiduciary to sell shit securities to clients.

You think it's okay for a fiduciary to buy swaps on the shit securities they sell clients.

You think it's okay to sell swaps without having enough money in reserve.

You think it's okay to give Treasury-level ratings to shit securities, and then sell them.

We're on different planets. I believe in the fiduciary responsibility, not the Old West.
.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If I go into the IBM pit on the CBOE and I buy 100 July 175 calls for 1.89
the market maker selling me those calls is now short 100 July 175 calls.
Why can he sell me this crap and go short this crap at the same time?

Because he doesn't have any fiduciary responsibility. None. His is a pure supply and demand dynamic. He's only a broker between a buyer and seller.

Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan DO have fiduciary responsibilities to act in their clients' best interests. Just like I do. Only about a trillion zillion times bigger, and an integral part of the economy.

Acting in their clients' best interests? They did not. They literally bet against what they were selling their clients using securities that were not regulated. They created dog shit securities, bought AAA ratings for them, fraudulently sold them based on bogus ratings, then bet against them. They created a market for themselves based on a fraud.

Do you see anything wrong there? And that was just ONE of the scams that was going on.

No regulation of the securities. No regulation of the AAA ratings they were given. No regulation of their behavior once they had them. THAT'S the problem. THAT'S what happened.
.

So what you're saying is that they behaved responsibly with securities that weren't regulated, but they behaved irresponsibly with securities that were regulated. That right their tells you all you need to know to determine what was responsible for this fiasco.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Not even close. So I'll say it again:

They created dog shit securities, bought AAA ratings for them, fraudulently sold them based on bogus ratings, then bet against them.

They created and profited from a market for themselves based on a fraud. On both ends. From beginning to end.
.

They created dog shit securities, bought AAA ratings for them, fraudulently sold them based on bogus ratings, then bet against them.

There is no "then bet against them".

If you bet $10 that the Bears will beat the Lions, your bookie is betting the Lions will win.

Do you whine that he took your bet and is now betting against you? LOL!

Okay, thanks. You're obviously much smarter at this stuff than me.

You think it's okay for a fiduciary to sell shit securities to clients.

You think it's okay for a fiduciary to buy swaps on the shit securities they sell clients.

You think it's okay to sell swaps without having enough money in reserve.

You think it's okay to give Treasury-level ratings to securities, and then sell them.

We're on different planets. I believe in the fiduciary responsibility, not the Old West.
.

Okay, thanks. You're obviously much smarter at this stuff than me.

When you whine about shorts, yes.

You think it's okay for a fiduciary to sell shit securities to clients.

If a Goldman trader sells crap to a trader at Deutsche Bank, are you really crying for Deutsche Bank?
What about if a hedge fund bought it?
If a professional trader buys crap, suck it up buttercup.

You think it's okay for a fiduciary to buy swaps on the shit securities they sell clients.

Where does it say a firm has to be on the same side of the market as a client? Anywhere?

You think it's okay to sell swaps without having enough money in reserve.

Yes, the trader at AIG was a moron. The insurance regulators fucked up. And?

You think it's okay to give Treasury-level ratings to securities, and then sell them.

Depends. Was fraud involved?

I believe in the fiduciary responsibility, not the Old West.

Great. Stop whining about synthetic securities having a long and short side.
I'll stop pointing out your confusion.

 

[Mac1958]

Because he doesn't have any fiduciary responsibility. None. His is a pure supply and demand dynamic. He's only a broker between a buyer and seller.

Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan DO have fiduciary responsibilities to act in their clients' best interests. Just like I do. Only about a trillion zillion times bigger, and an integral part of the economy.

Acting in their clients' best interests? They did not. They literally bet against what they were selling their clients using securities that were not regulated. They created dog shit securities, bought AAA ratings for them, fraudulently sold them based on bogus ratings, then bet against them. They created a market for themselves based on a fraud.

Do you see anything wrong there? And that was just ONE of the scams that was going on.

No regulation of the securities. No regulation of the AAA ratings they were given. No regulation of their behavior once they had them. THAT'S the problem. THAT'S what happened.
.

So what you're saying is that they behaved responsibly with securities that weren't regulated, but they behaved irresponsibly with securities that were regulated. That right their tells you all you need to know to determine what was responsible for this fiasco.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Not even close. So I'll say it again:

They created dog shit securities, bought AAA ratings for them, fraudulently sold them based on bogus ratings, then bet against them.

They created and profited from a market for themselves based on a fraud. On both ends. From beginning to end.
.

They created dog shit securities, bought AAA ratings for them, fraudulently sold them based on bogus ratings, then bet against them.

There is no "then bet against them".

If you bet $10 that the Bears will beat the Lions, your bookie is betting the Lions will win.

Do you whine that he took your bet and is now betting against you? LOL!

Okay, thanks. You're obviously much smarter at this stuff than me.

You think it's okay for a fiduciary to sell shit securities to clients.

You think it's okay for a fiduciary to buy swaps on the shit securities they sell clients.

You think it's okay to sell swaps without having enough money in reserve.

You think it's okay to give Treasury-level ratings to securities, and then sell them.

We're on different planets. I believe in the fiduciary responsibility, not the Old West.
.

Okay, thanks. You're obviously much smarter at this stuff than me.

When you whine about shorts, yes.

You think it's okay for a fiduciary to sell shit securities to clients.

If a Goldman trader sells crap to a trader at Deutsche Bank, are you really crying for Deutsche Bank?
What about if a hedge fund bought it?
If a professional trader buys crap, suck it up buttercup.

You think it's okay for a fiduciary to buy swaps on the shit securities they sell clients.

Where does it say a firm has to be on the same side of the market as a client? Anywhere?

You think it's okay to sell swaps without having enough money in reserve.

Yes, the trader at AIG was a moron. The insurance regulators fucked up. And?

You think it's okay to give Treasury-level ratings to securities, and then sell them.

Depends. Was fraud involved?

I believe in the fiduciary responsibility, not the Old West.

Great. Stop whining about synthetic securities having a long and short side.
I'll stop pointing out your confusion.

Okay, we'll stop. Asymmetrical conversations wear me out anyway.

You have a partisan ideological flank to protect. I don't. I deal with the reality of this stuff every day.

I just wish I could get my information from winger websites and talk radio, so I could be smart too.
.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So what you're saying is that they behaved responsibly with securities that weren't regulated, but they behaved irresponsibly with securities that were regulated. That right their tells you all you need to know to determine what was responsible for this fiasco.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Not even close. So I'll say it again:

They created dog shit securities, bought AAA ratings for them, fraudulently sold them based on bogus ratings, then bet against them.

They created and profited from a market for themselves based on a fraud. On both ends. From beginning to end.
.

They created dog shit securities, bought AAA ratings for them, fraudulently sold them based on bogus ratings, then bet against them.

There is no "then bet against them".

If you bet $10 that the Bears will beat the Lions, your bookie is betting the Lions will win.

Do you whine that he took your bet and is now betting against you? LOL!

Okay, thanks. You're obviously much smarter at this stuff than me.

You think it's okay for a fiduciary to sell shit securities to clients.

You think it's okay for a fiduciary to buy swaps on the shit securities they sell clients.

You think it's okay to sell swaps without having enough money in reserve.

You think it's okay to give Treasury-level ratings to securities, and then sell them.

We're on different planets. I believe in the fiduciary responsibility, not the Old West.
.

Okay, thanks. You're obviously much smarter at this stuff than me.

When you whine about shorts, yes.

You think it's okay for a fiduciary to sell shit securities to clients.

If a Goldman trader sells crap to a trader at Deutsche Bank, are you really crying for Deutsche Bank?
What about if a hedge fund bought it?
If a professional trader buys crap, suck it up buttercup.

You think it's okay for a fiduciary to buy swaps on the shit securities they sell clients.

Where does it say a firm has to be on the same side of the market as a client? Anywhere?

You think it's okay to sell swaps without having enough money in reserve.

Yes, the trader at AIG was a moron. The insurance regulators fucked up. And?

You think it's okay to give Treasury-level ratings to securities, and then sell them.

Depends. Was fraud involved?

I believe in the fiduciary responsibility, not the Old West.

Great. Stop whining about synthetic securities having a long and short side.
I'll stop pointing out your confusion.

Okay, we'll stop. Asymmetrical conversations wear me out anyway.

You have a partisan ideological flank to protect. I don't. I deal with the reality of this stuff every day.

I just wish I could get my information from winger websites and talk radio, so I could be smart too.
.

Correcting whining about someone going short when they give a customer accommodation or sell a synthetic security has nothing to do with ideology.