Why We Need More, Not Less, Government

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wanna try getting that food to your store and then home without massive government subsidies and the government building the transportation systems necessary?

I get massive government subsidies to drive 1/4 mile to Rouses to get some boudin and French bread?

Who knew?

Yeah. You do. Your car was probably made by a company that got massive taxbreaks and/or bailouts. The road you drove on wouldn't exist if it weren't for the government. The government funds your way of life.

If the government stuck to its Constitutionally mandated functions, like roads, our government would be 10% the size it is now.

 

[Meister]

Wanna try getting that food to your store and then home without massive government subsidies and the government building the transportation systems necessary?

I get massive government subsidies to drive 1/4 mile to Rouses to get some boudin and French bread?

Who knew?

Yeah. You do. Your car was probably made by a company that got massive taxbreaks and/or bailouts. The road you drove on wouldn't exist if it weren't for the government. The government funds your way of life.

Just where does the government get these funds? Oh, they borrow from China, because they have already spent what we gave them.

 

[The T]

I get massive government subsidies to drive 1/4 mile to Rouses to get some boudin and French bread?

Who knew?

Yeah. You do. Your car was probably made by a company that got massive taxbreaks and/or bailouts. The road you drove on wouldn't exist if it weren't for the government. The government funds your way of life.

Just where does the government get these funds? Oh, they borrow from China, because they have already spent what we gave them.

Correct...so Obama in his infinite wisdom wants MORE of a ceiling, and to rob the so-called RICH that can afford it as a stop-gap in case the Chicoms say NO.

 

[shintao]

Not a right winger, but you can believe them on that one.

.

The experts disagree. Go find another pony to mount, because you are wrong, and as you notice, they can't back up their BS and there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

"There isn´t any worse blind man that the one who doesn´t want to see"

.

yeah, well sorry you are blinded to the fact that the melt down didn't involve even a majority of CRA homes.

The Federal Reserve, having examined the evidence, holds that empirical research has not validated any relationship between the CRA and the 2008 financial crisis. At the FDIC, Chair Sheila Bair delivered remarks noting that the majority of subprime loans originated from lenders not regulated by the CRA, calling it a "scapegoat" and declaring it "NOT guilty."

Try bootle glasses.................

 

[Contumacious]

The experts disagree. Go find another pony to mount, because you are wrong, and as you notice, they can't back up their BS and there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

"There isn´t any worse blind man that the one who doesn´t want to see"

.

yeah, well sorry you are blinded to the fact that the melt down didn't involve even a majority of CRA homes.

The Federal Reserve, having examined the evidence, holds that empirical research has not validated any relationship between the CRA and the 2008 financial crisis. At the FDIC, Chair Sheila Bair delivered remarks noting that the majority of subprime loans originated from lenders not regulated by the CRA, calling it a "scapegoat" and declaring it "NOT guilty."

Try bootle glasses.................

I see.

Would you let your father in law be your divorce attorney?

.

 

[shintao]

For the moron rightys ~ who could provide no proof of their rightwinged propaganda, and blatantly come here to spout lies and distortions of facts.

Economist Stan Liebowitz wrote in the New York Post that a strengthening of the CRA in the 1990s encouraged a loosening of lending standards throughout the banking industry. He also charges the Federal Reserve with ignoring the negative impact of the CRA.[98] In a commentary for CNN, Congressman Ron Paul, who serves on the United States House Committee on Financial Services, charged the CRA with "forcing banks to lend to people who normally would be rejected as bad credit risks."[108] In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, Austrian school economist Russell Roberts wrote that the CRA subsidized low-income housing by pressuring banks to serve poor borrowers and poor regions of the country.[109]

However, many others dispute that the CRA was a significant cause of the subprime crisis. Paul Krugman[110] noted in November 2009 that 55% of commercial real estate loans were currently underwater, despite being completely unaffected by the CRA.[111] According to Federal Reserve Governor Randall Kroszner, the claim that "the law pushed banking institutions to undertake high-risk mortgage lending" was contrary to their experience, and that no empirical evidence had been presented to support the claim.[106] In a Bank for International Settlements (BIS) working paper, economist Luci Ellis concluded that "there is no evidence that the Community Reinvestment Act was responsible for encouraging the subprime lending boom and subsequent housing bust", relying partly on evidence that the housing bust has been a largely exurban event.[112] Others have also concluded that the CRA did not contribute to the financial crisis, for example, FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair,[107] Comptroller of the Currency John C. Dugan,[113] Tim Westrich of the Center for American Progress,[114] Robert Gordon of the American Prospect,[115] Ellen Seidman of the New America Foundation,[116] Daniel Gross of Slate,[117] and Aaron Pressman from BusinessWeek.[118]

Some legal and financial experts note that CRA regulated loans tend to be safe and profitable, and that subprime excesses came mainly from institutions not regulated by the CRA. In the February 2008 House hearing, law professor Michael S. Barr, a Treasury Department official under President Clinton,[63][119] stated that a Federal Reserve survey showed that affected institutions considered CRA loans profitable and not overly risky. He noted that approximately 50% of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA, and another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates. Barr noted that institutions fully regulated by CRA made "perhaps one in four" sub-prime loans, and that "the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight".[120] According to Janet L. Yellen, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, independent mortgage companies made risky "high-priced loans" at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts; most CRA loans were responsibly made, and were not the higher-priced loans that have contributed to the current crisis.[121] A 2008 study by Traiger & Hinckley LLP, a law firm that counsels financial institutions on CRA compliance, found that CRA regulated institutions were less likely to make subprime loans, and when they did the interest rates were lower. CRA banks were also half as likely to resell the loans.[122] Emre Ergungor of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland found that there was no statistical difference in foreclosure rates between regulated and less-regulated banks, although a local bank presence resulted in fewer foreclosures.[123]

Community Reinvestment Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[shintao]

"There isn´t any worse blind man that the one who doesn´t want to see"

.

yeah, well sorry you are blinded to the fact that the melt down didn't involve even a majority of CRA homes.

The Federal Reserve, having examined the evidence, holds that empirical research has not validated any relationship between the CRA and the 2008 financial crisis. At the FDIC, Chair Sheila Bair delivered remarks noting that the majority of subprime loans originated from lenders not regulated by the CRA, calling it a "scapegoat" and declaring it "NOT guilty."

Try bootle glasses.................

I see.

Would you let your father in law be your divorce attorney?

.

I notice you can't take your own advice. I guess your word isn't worth much, and your denial runs rampant.

 

[Jack Fate]

For the moron rightys ~ who could provide no proof of their rightwinged propaganda, and blatantly come here to spout lies and distortions of facts.

Economist Stan Liebowitz wrote in the New York Post that a strengthening of the CRA in the 1990s encouraged a loosening of lending standards throughout the banking industry. He also charges the Federal Reserve with ignoring the negative impact of the CRA.[98] In a commentary for CNN, Congressman Ron Paul, who serves on the United States House Committee on Financial Services, charged the CRA with "forcing banks to lend to people who normally would be rejected as bad credit risks."[108] In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, Austrian school economist Russell Roberts wrote that the CRA subsidized low-income housing by pressuring banks to serve poor borrowers and poor regions of the country.[109]

However, many others dispute that the CRA was a significant cause of the subprime crisis. Paul Krugman[110] noted in November 2009 that 55% of commercial real estate loans were currently underwater, despite being completely unaffected by the CRA.[111] According to Federal Reserve Governor Randall Kroszner, the claim that "the law pushed banking institutions to undertake high-risk mortgage lending" was contrary to their experience, and that no empirical evidence had been presented to support the claim.[106] In a Bank for International Settlements (BIS) working paper, economist Luci Ellis concluded that "there is no evidence that the Community Reinvestment Act was responsible for encouraging the subprime lending boom and subsequent housing bust", relying partly on evidence that the housing bust has been a largely exurban event.[112] Others have also concluded that the CRA did not contribute to the financial crisis, for example, FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair,[107] Comptroller of the Currency John C. Dugan,[113] Tim Westrich of the Center for American Progress,[114] Robert Gordon of the American Prospect,[115] Ellen Seidman of the New America Foundation,[116] Daniel Gross of Slate,[117] and Aaron Pressman from BusinessWeek.[118]

Some legal and financial experts note that CRA regulated loans tend to be safe and profitable, and that subprime excesses came mainly from institutions not regulated by the CRA. In the February 2008 House hearing, law professor Michael S. Barr, a Treasury Department official under President Clinton,[63][119] stated that a Federal Reserve survey showed that affected institutions considered CRA loans profitable and not overly risky. He noted that approximately 50% of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA, and another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates. Barr noted that institutions fully regulated by CRA made "perhaps one in four" sub-prime loans, and that "the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight".[120] According to Janet L. Yellen, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, independent mortgage companies made risky "high-priced loans" at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts; most CRA loans were responsibly made, and were not the higher-priced loans that have contributed to the current crisis.[121] A 2008 study by Traiger & Hinckley LLP, a law firm that counsels financial institutions on CRA compliance, found that CRA regulated institutions were less likely to make subprime loans, and when they did the interest rates were lower. CRA banks were also half as likely to resell the loans.[122] Emre Ergungor of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland found that there was no statistical difference in foreclosure rates between regulated and less-regulated banks, although a local bank presence resulted in fewer foreclosures.[123]

Community Reinvestment Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Astounding that a poster still uses Wikipedia as a source. Pitiful and ignorant.

 

[The T]

The experts disagree. Go find another pony to mount, because you are wrong, and as you notice, they can't back up their BS and there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

"There isn´t any worse blind man that the one who doesn´t want to see"

.

yeah, well sorry you are blinded to the fact that the melt down didn't involve even a majority of CRA homes.

The Federal Reserve, having examined the evidence, holds that empirical research has not validated any relationship between the CRA and the 2008 financial crisis. At the FDIC, Chair Sheila Bair delivered remarks noting that the majority of subprime loans originated from lenders not regulated by the CRA, calling it a "scapegoat" and declaring it "NOT guilty."

Try bootle glasses.................

Save without HUD interviening...eh?

A final rule from federal regulators will give banks positive consideration in their Community Reinvestment Act examinations when they lend and invest in neighborhoods with high foreclosure rates.
The rule changes the definition of "community development" in CRA regulations to include loans, investments and services in areas targeted by the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Neighborhood Stabilization Program. According to the final rule, high levels of foreclosures are expected into 2012 and beyond, which will continue to effect low- and moderate-income areas.

ARTICLE

Still the Government interviening on behalf of the fucking Moocher class...end run-around.

 

[Vel]

Why We Need More, Not Less, Government

Because "we" are mentally retarded parasites?

Lead the way chief. Get up off your ass and go into the wilderness. Clear some land..farm maybe..hunt. Go on. Try it. No gubmint for a year or so.

If you make it..you can let us all know how it went.

Seriously? What do they teach you damned Yankees? How exactly do you think this nation was settled? May I suggest you pick up a copy of "Little House on the Prairie"? OMG Are you really fucking helpless?

 

[KissMy]

Government negligence & incompetence is what destroyed the economy. Government gives a false sense of security that allows criminals to prey upon its citizens who have let down their guard trusting in the security of their government.

How many criminals has the SEC jailed over the past 10 years? How many in the last 20 years? - The answer is 1.

Now - How many high priced government employees does the SEC have with fat ass pensions for life? The answer is 3,748 costing us $1.4 Billion a year or $376,000 per employee per year.

Are you getting your monies worth? Hell No!!! Not unless you are Bernie Madoff.

 

[shintao]

For the moron rightys ~ who could provide no proof of their rightwinged propaganda, and blatantly come here to spout lies and distortions of facts.

Economist Stan Liebowitz wrote in the New York Post that a strengthening of the CRA in the 1990s encouraged a loosening of lending standards throughout the banking industry. He also charges the Federal Reserve with ignoring the negative impact of the CRA.[98] In a commentary for CNN, Congressman Ron Paul, who serves on the United States House Committee on Financial Services, charged the CRA with "forcing banks to lend to people who normally would be rejected as bad credit risks."[108] In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, Austrian school economist Russell Roberts wrote that the CRA subsidized low-income housing by pressuring banks to serve poor borrowers and poor regions of the country.[109]

However, many others dispute that the CRA was a significant cause of the subprime crisis. Paul Krugman[110] noted in November 2009 that 55% of commercial real estate loans were currently underwater, despite being completely unaffected by the CRA.[111] According to Federal Reserve Governor Randall Kroszner, the claim that "the law pushed banking institutions to undertake high-risk mortgage lending" was contrary to their experience, and that no empirical evidence had been presented to support the claim.[106] In a Bank for International Settlements (BIS) working paper, economist Luci Ellis concluded that "there is no evidence that the Community Reinvestment Act was responsible for encouraging the subprime lending boom and subsequent housing bust", relying partly on evidence that the housing bust has been a largely exurban event.[112] Others have also concluded that the CRA did not contribute to the financial crisis, for example, FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair,[107] Comptroller of the Currency John C. Dugan,[113] Tim Westrich of the Center for American Progress,[114] Robert Gordon of the American Prospect,[115] Ellen Seidman of the New America Foundation,[116] Daniel Gross of Slate,[117] and Aaron Pressman from BusinessWeek.[118]

Some legal and financial experts note that CRA regulated loans tend to be safe and profitable, and that subprime excesses came mainly from institutions not regulated by the CRA. In the February 2008 House hearing, law professor Michael S. Barr, a Treasury Department official under President Clinton,[63][119] stated that a Federal Reserve survey showed that affected institutions considered CRA loans profitable and not overly risky. He noted that approximately 50% of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA, and another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates. Barr noted that institutions fully regulated by CRA made "perhaps one in four" sub-prime loans, and that "the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight".[120] According to Janet L. Yellen, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, independent mortgage companies made risky "high-priced loans" at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts; most CRA loans were responsibly made, and were not the higher-priced loans that have contributed to the current crisis.[121] A 2008 study by Traiger & Hinckley LLP, a law firm that counsels financial institutions on CRA compliance, found that CRA regulated institutions were less likely to make subprime loans, and when they did the interest rates were lower. CRA banks were also half as likely to resell the loans.[122] Emre Ergungor of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland found that there was no statistical difference in foreclosure rates between regulated and less-regulated banks, although a local bank presence resulted in fewer foreclosures.[123]

Community Reinvestment Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Astounding that a poster still uses Wikipedia as a source. Pitiful and ignorant.

And Factual. You forgot factual, and that your an imbecile.

 

[Chris]

The financial crisis was caused by the $516 TRILLION DOLLAR derivative Ponzi scheme that Wall Street was running....

Not for nothing did US billionaire Warren Buffett call them the real 'weapons of mass destruction'

The market is worth more than $516 trillion, (£303 trillion), roughly 10 times the value of the entire world's output: it's been called the "ticking time-bomb".

It's a market in which the lead protagonists – typically aggressive, highly educated, and now wealthy young men – have flourished in the derivatives boom. But it's a market that is set to come to a crashing halt – the Great Unwind has begun.

Last week the beginning of the end started for many hedge funds with the combination of diving market values and worried investors pulling out their cash for safer climes.

Some of the world's biggest hedge funds – SAC Capital, Lone Pine and Tiger Global – all revealed they were sitting on double-digit losses this year. September's falls wiped out any profits made in the rest of the year. Polygon, once a darling of the London hedge fund circuit, last week said it was capping the basic salaries of its managers to £100,000 each. Not bad for the average punter but some way off the tens of millions plundered by these hotshots during the good times. But few will be shedding any tears.

The complex and opaque derivatives markets in which these hedge funds played has been dubbed the world's biggest black hole because they operate outside of the grasp of governments, tax inspectors and regulators. They operate in a parallel, shadow world to the rest of the banking system. They are private contracts between two companies or institutions which can't be controlled or properly assessed. In themselves derivative contracts are not dangerous, but if one of them should go wrong – the bad 2 per cent as it's been called – then it is the domino effect which could be so enormous and scary.

Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction: A $516 Trillion Derivatives 'Time-Bomb'

 

[The T]

The financial crisis was caused by the $516 TRILLION DOLLAR derivative Ponzi scheme that Wall Street was running....

Not for nothing did US billionaire Warren Buffett call them the real 'weapons of mass destruction'

The market is worth more than $516 trillion, (£303 trillion), roughly 10 times the value of the entire world's output: it's been called the "ticking time-bomb".

It's a market in which the lead protagonists – typically aggressive, highly educated, and now wealthy young men – have flourished in the derivatives boom. But it's a market that is set to come to a crashing halt – the Great Unwind has begun.

Last week the beginning of the end started for many hedge funds with the combination of diving market values and worried investors pulling out their cash for safer climes.

Some of the world's biggest hedge funds – SAC Capital, Lone Pine and Tiger Global – all revealed they were sitting on double-digit losses this year. September's falls wiped out any profits made in the rest of the year. Polygon, once a darling of the London hedge fund circuit, last week said it was capping the basic salaries of its managers to £100,000 each. Not bad for the average punter but some way off the tens of millions plundered by these hotshots during the good times. But few will be shedding any tears.

The complex and opaque derivatives markets in which these hedge funds played has been dubbed the world's biggest black hole because they operate outside of the grasp of governments, tax inspectors and regulators. They operate in a parallel, shadow world to the rest of the banking system. They are private contracts between two companies or institutions which can't be controlled or properly assessed. In themselves derivative contracts are not dangerous, but if one of them should go wrong – the bad 2 per cent as it's been called – then it is the domino effect which could be so enormous and scary.

Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction: A $516 Trillion Derivatives 'Time-Bomb'

How about the $120 TRILLION at the hands of government. YOU cannot hang this on Wall street. They aren't elected Government.

But you continue the class warfare shit Chrissy.

 

[ShackledNation]

Government cannot create wealth. All money the government spends is drained from the private economy. Individuals are much better at improving their own lives than the government.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Wow! Lots of extreme views here. Government solves everything. Government is the source of all problems.

I've lived in lots of places. Countries with little or no government tend to be dangerous and unstable. Countries where corporations are left to "govern themselves" make our homeless problem look extremely mild. So yes, I'm glad we have a government. And for all its' faults, I like our government. That is why I have always returned to the United States.
I wish we had a more efficient government but we have a really big country. Just like really big companies operate less efficiently than smaller ones. But we are after all, the UNITED States of America.
Do I like that we have agencies to check food, products etc... for safety? Sure. I've lived in places where it is left up to "the market" to take care of that and guess what? People get sick or die and the companies just keep on going. So no, "the market" won't make those bad ol' companies go away. People won't quit doing business with them because they weild so much power, no one ever gets an accurate picture of what really happened.
On the other side, there is SO much waste and duplication in our government, there's obviously room for cuts. Do you know we spend tens of millions every year on the Rural Electrification Agency? Yup. It's job since the 1920? Making sure rural America has electricity. Yeah. We still need that one. WTF?
Anyway, just my two cents...

 

[Chris]

The financial crisis was caused by the $516 TRILLION DOLLAR derivative Ponzi scheme that Wall Street was running....

Not for nothing did US billionaire Warren Buffett call them the real 'weapons of mass destruction'

The market is worth more than $516 trillion, (£303 trillion), roughly 10 times the value of the entire world's output: it's been called the "ticking time-bomb".

It's a market in which the lead protagonists – typically aggressive, highly educated, and now wealthy young men – have flourished in the derivatives boom. But it's a market that is set to come to a crashing halt – the Great Unwind has begun.

Last week the beginning of the end started for many hedge funds with the combination of diving market values and worried investors pulling out their cash for safer climes.

Some of the world's biggest hedge funds – SAC Capital, Lone Pine and Tiger Global – all revealed they were sitting on double-digit losses this year. September's falls wiped out any profits made in the rest of the year. Polygon, once a darling of the London hedge fund circuit, last week said it was capping the basic salaries of its managers to £100,000 each. Not bad for the average punter but some way off the tens of millions plundered by these hotshots during the good times. But few will be shedding any tears.

The complex and opaque derivatives markets in which these hedge funds played has been dubbed the world's biggest black hole because they operate outside of the grasp of governments, tax inspectors and regulators. They operate in a parallel, shadow world to the rest of the banking system. They are private contracts between two companies or institutions which can't be controlled or properly assessed. In themselves derivative contracts are not dangerous, but if one of them should go wrong – the bad 2 per cent as it's been called – then it is the domino effect which could be so enormous and scary.

Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction: A $516 Trillion Derivatives 'Time-Bomb'

How about the $120 TRILLION at the hands of government. YOU cannot hang this on Wall street. They aren't elected Government.

But you continue the class warfare shit Chrissy.

You can't re-write history.

The derivatives bomb brought down the financial system.

Where have you been?

 

[Chris]

Government cannot create wealth. All money the government spends is drained from the private economy. Individuals are much better at improving their own lives than the government.

That's total bullshit.

The government pays the police, the fire department, the military, the highway system, the schools, etc...

Who built the Hoover Dam? The government.

Who built the interstate highway system? The government.

Who developed the internet? The government.

 

[ShackledNation]

The financial crisis was caused by the $516 TRILLION DOLLAR derivative Ponzi scheme that Wall Street was running....

Not for nothing did US billionaire Warren Buffett call them the real 'weapons of mass destruction'

The market is worth more than $516 trillion, (£303 trillion), roughly 10 times the value of the entire world's output: it's been called the "ticking time-bomb".

It's a market in which the lead protagonists – typically aggressive, highly educated, and now wealthy young men – have flourished in the derivatives boom. But it's a market that is set to come to a crashing halt – the Great Unwind has begun.

Last week the beginning of the end started for many hedge funds with the combination of diving market values and worried investors pulling out their cash for safer climes.

Some of the world's biggest hedge funds – SAC Capital, Lone Pine and Tiger Global – all revealed they were sitting on double-digit losses this year. September's falls wiped out any profits made in the rest of the year. Polygon, once a darling of the London hedge fund circuit, last week said it was capping the basic salaries of its managers to £100,000 each. Not bad for the average punter but some way off the tens of millions plundered by these hotshots during the good times. But few will be shedding any tears.

The complex and opaque derivatives markets in which these hedge funds played has been dubbed the world's biggest black hole because they operate outside of the grasp of governments, tax inspectors and regulators. They operate in a parallel, shadow world to the rest of the banking system. They are private contracts between two companies or institutions which can't be controlled or properly assessed. In themselves derivative contracts are not dangerous, but if one of them should go wrong – the bad 2 per cent as it's been called – then it is the domino effect which could be so enormous and scary.

Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction: A $516 Trillion Derivatives 'Time-Bomb'

How about the $120 TRILLION at the hands of government. YOU cannot hang this on Wall street. They aren't elected Government.

But you continue the class warfare shit Chrissy.

You can't re-write history.

The derivatives bomb brought down the financial system.

Where have you been?

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) forced banks to loan money to those with bad credit creating toxic assets which were bundled as derivative packages and sold to other banks. You need to look farther upstream. The complaining about derivatives is just the normal BS you hear about 'speculators' during any crisis. People haven't by and large heard the word 'derivatives' much so it sounds fresh, therefore it gets more press. If they're bitching about the mortgage derivatives you simply have to remember that regulations and rules can allow and even promote the creation of bad debt, but without buyers what the hell is anyone going to do with that debt, much less derivatives/structured products based on it? The Fed provided the buyers, plain and simple. It's an odd application of Keynesianism I think in that people seem to believe "if you produce it, they will buy" which is not true. In order for people to buy bad debt they needed and got three things: easy money and credit; the lower interest rates for which also fueled a hunger for high yield, high risk debt; and explicit and implicit guarantees of bailout should the debt go tits up. Without those three things, all provided by the government and The Fed, any bad debt or derivatives that were produced would have been sold to...no one.

Derivatives have received such a bad press that it is necessary to point out that the insurance policy on a home is a derivative. And many of the derivatives that were sold and which are now creating problems of insolvency and bankruptcy, namely, "credit default swaps (CDSs)," were insurance policies in one form or another. Their flaw was that unlike ordinary homeowners' insurance, they did not have a sufficient list of exclusions. But decades of brainwashing by the government, the media, and the educational system had convinced almost everyone that such collapse was no longer possible. The Federal Reserve would save us from any disaster. So there was no reason to create sound derivatives. And many of these same big businesses received bailouts, and were indeed "saved."

 

[ShackledNation]

Wow! Lots of extreme views here. Government solves everything. Government is the source of all problems.

I've lived in lots of places. Countries with little or no government tend to be dangerous and unstable. Countries where corporations are left to "govern themselves" make our homeless problem look extremely mild. So yes, I'm glad we have a government. And for all its' faults, I like our government. That is why I have always returned to the United States.
I wish we had a more efficient government but we have a really big country. Just like really big companies operate less efficiently than smaller ones. But we are after all, the UNITED States of America.
Do I like that we have agencies to check food, products etc... for safety? Sure. I've lived in places where it is left up to "the market" to take care of that and guess what? People get sick or die and the companies just keep on going. So no, "the market" won't make those bad ol' companies go away. People won't quit doing business with them because they weild so much power, no one ever gets an accurate picture of what really happened.
On the other side, there is SO much waste and duplication in our government, there's obviously room for cuts. Do you know we spend tens of millions every year on the Rural Electrification Agency? Yup. It's job since the 1920? Making sure rural America has electricity. Yeah. We still need that one. WTF?
Anyway, just my two cents...

I see your point, but with all due respect your argument seems like the typical "If we don't have government we will all have food poising and die and turn into zombies." Can you tell me what places and countries you are referring to? As for our government, if states had the powers they were supposed to have we wouldn't have to worry about being to big. Yet the 10th amendment is largely ignored today.