Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[Toddsterpatriot]

So Androw cheers on CEOs who cave in to pressure to hand out millions of bad loans.

I'd like to see the PDF that lowered the Lending Standards (doesn't exist) and I'd like to know why these ultra savvy CEOs approved bypassing the database tables with paper.

The answer is greed, avarice and knowing they would get bailed out.

I'd like to see the PDF that lowered the Lending Standards

The CRA didn't lower lending standards? Is that your claim?

 

[dnsmith35]

I am, sadly, able to believe that. As painful as it is to review this chapter in our history, and recognize that much of the wealth we enjoy today was built on those early unspeakable bonds and investments, does this reflect an inherent flaw in Capitalism?

Not in any intelligent manner. Slavery was evil, but it was not the back bone of the industrial rise in capitalism. Once the agrarian era was over, and it became obvious that the concept of capital is the excessive production of labor had been totally wrong, capitalism was born. Then we realized it needed regulation. It is the only economic system which makes the most people and nations prosperous.

In fact, during the years before the US Civil War, there was no capitalism without slavery; they were one and the same thing.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/30/king-cottons-long-shadow/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

"In the 1830s, hundreds of millions of acres of conquered land were surveyed and put up for sale by the United States. This vast privatization of the public domain touched off one of the greatest economic booms in the history of the world up to that time..."

"Without slavery, however, the survey maps of the General Land Office would have remained a sort of science-fiction plan for a society that could never happen.

"Between 1820 and 1860 more than a million enslaved people were transported from the upper to the lower South, the vast majority by the venture-capitalist slave traders the slaves called 'soul drivers.'

"The first wave cleared the region for cultivation. 'Forests were literally dragged out by the roots,' the former slave John Parker remembered in 'His Promised Land.'

"Those who followed planted the fields in cotton, which they then protected, picked, packed and shipped — from 'sunup to sundown' every day for the rest of their lives..."

"When the cotton crop came in short and sales failed to meet advanced payments, planters found themselves indebted to merchants and bankers.

"Slaves were sold to make up the difference.

"The mobility and salability of slaves meant they functioned as the primary form of collateral in the credit-and-cotton economy of the 19th century.

"It is not simply that the labor of enslaved people underwrote 19th-century capitalism.

"Enslaved people were the capital: four million people worth at least $3 billion in 1860, which was more than all the capital invested in railroads and factories in the United States combined.

"Seen in this light, the conventional distinction between slavery and capitalism fades into meaninglessness."

You are comparing apples to lemons. Slavery was an agrarian issue, and capitalism was more about capital as money and investment whereas during the agrarian system capital was the excess production of a worker. You can talk about all of that as much as you wish, but you cannot get away from the fact that capitalism as explained by economist worth their salt, is not slavery. BTW, thank goodness that $3 billion capital was removed in the 19th century. So spew your bullshit about the 19th century and before, and I will discuss the situation as it is today; therefore I can accurately say that Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty as a % of the population than any other system. We have learned from our past and do not expect to revert to the wrongs of the past.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

Then onto the subject of "truisms"

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"

I HOPE that the US government entities which CHOSE to have no down payment loans given to people with little or no credit will remember that they will repeat the housing crash.

Really? Are you sticking with the single cause?
Causes of the United States housing bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The cause you cite is listed as a cause... a [Indefinite article] cause

So, irrational enthusiasm for home buying had no effect on demand?

You seem determined to convince me that there never would have been a bubble if the Community Reinvestment Act never existed. I don't see this as particularly germane to the thread, but I'll play along. To pretermit any lengthy post on history which is easily accessible on google I shall understand the term "CRA" to include all Legislative and Regulatory changes with special attention paid to the 1995 regulatory changes. How do you blame the CRA, and only the CRA absent of any other factors, for the housing bubble?

I ask because your position seems premised on the fallacy of the single cause. I say premised because you are only looking for one cause, therefore the existence of a single cause is not a conclusion but a premise, like a hammer looking for a nail.
Fallacy of the single cause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Often after a tragedy it is asked, "What was the cause of this?" Such language implies that there is one cause, when instead there was probably a large number of contributing factors. However, having produced a list of several contributing factors, it may be worthwhile to look for the strongest of the factors, or a single cause underlying several of them. A need for simplification may be perceived in order to make the explanation of the tragedy operational, so that responsible authorities can be seen to have taken action.​

When you talk about the evils of 100 years ago, before the government started to mind the store, OHSA, and our labor laws which have made unions passé, you make zero sense.

People need to be reminded why we have such laws.
People like your buddies on the far right.

 

[georgephillip]

Neither party is going to bite the hand that feeds them, and the politicians can't stand success, they wouldn't have a point to run on.

Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes

"Many actors obviously played a role in this story.

"Some of the actors were in the public sector and some of them were in the private sector.

"But the public sector agencies were acting at behest of the private sector.

"It’s not as though Congress woke up one morning and thought to itself, 'Let’s abolish the Glass-Steagall Act!' Or the SEC spontaneously happened to have the bright idea of relaxing capital requirements on the investment banks. Or the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency of its own accord abruptly had the idea of preempting state laws protecting borrowers.

"These agencies of government were being strenuously lobbied to do the very things that would benefit the financial sector and their managers and traders.

"And behind it all, was the drive for short-term profits."

Maybe we can all agree to blame the lobbyists?

I think we can all agree that lobbyists played a part, politicians played a part and the banking industry was all to ready to help them along the way. Lobbying should be outlawed. Gerrymandering should be outlawed. We should go back to "all politics are local."

Lobbying and gerrymandering have certainly outlived any usefulness they ever had.
I would strongly suggest voters also stop "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican when picking their congressional representatives, as well. Especially voters with ballots that contain Third Party alternatives for House and Senate races.

 

[dnsmith35]

Okay, there is a dangerous double-edge sword at play here. Global trade has, in point of fact, increased the real wage in developing countries. Global trade has also, in point of fact, set up sweatshops so terrible that the workers leap from windows.
So my answer is I don't know. I want that real wage increased. Global trade is a good path to world peace. Little girls making Nike shoes is why I don't buy Nikes.

We need not trade with nations that enslave people. C'mon, be fair, Nike didn't open up a plant in Sudan. That being said, I don't know how to implement global trade without recognizing the sovereignty of foreign nations over their own people. Maybe, just maybe, as these other nations go through many of the pains we went through, these other countries will go through those pains more quickly and with less pain overall than we experienced. Maybe we can try to set a good example?

Hopefully, but in the process if we don't trade with those nations, their people will continue to be enslaved in perpetuity. As long as we withhold the use of their labor we are contributing to the status quo and hurting those people even more.

The relevant question then is what is the engine that actuates systemic denial and violation of the most basic rights? I think it's evident that there is systemic violations day in and day out across the globe. Some areas worse than others but no place is immune.

As I gather you assert regulated capitalism is a relative good given our place in history. I might be on board with that as it generates wealth, undoubtedly. But doesn't wealth accumulate despite regulation?

It can, but the point of regulation is to help level the playing field. I know of no purely laissez-faire capitalist system in the world.

And when one becomes so wealthy, isn't that the engine behind systemic violations?

Absolutely not, especially since our government works to protect the little guy. The problems arise when the government goes beyond making a level playing field and tries to play in the market.

That capital is set above the rights of human beings in order to make more capital/generate wealth in the vicious cycle of wealth accumulation?

Again, absolutely not. The capital is only what it is, money and what it buys. Capitalism is what has consistently lifted more people out of poverty than any other system.

Wages have "increased" relative to the fact that many subsistence farmers have been forcibly moved from arable land so that big agro-business can utilize it and export as capitalism holds: comparative advantage. [/quote]Sustenance farmers were unable to grow the quantities of food we need here in the US and what we export and sell or give to the poor in other countries.

Thus the locals have re-located to the hills as in Haiti and to the slums and favelas near the city. Since they no longer feed themselves through crops, they need employment. And as a result of its opening up at the behest of capitalist enterprises, employment and wages have increased. I would hardly understand this as a genuine rise in real wages when wages don't include the conditions under which one now works and lives compared to the cycle of leisure and work that results from being a farmer.

Wow, comparing capitalism in Haiti, to any other modern country is a typical ploy of the left wingers who look for the most depressed people in small countries around the globe so as to look at them and declare incorrectly that it is capitalism which caused the problem. Nothing could be further from the truth. As I have said before, and posted links and citations, over the world in general, capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system; especially dictatorships as was in Haiti.

 

[dnsmith35]

Then onto the subject of "truisms"

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"

I HOPE that the US government entities which CHOSE to have no down payment loans given to people with little or no credit will remember that they will repeat the housing crash.

Really? Are you sticking with the single cause?
Causes of the United States housing bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The cause you cite is listed as a cause... a [Indefinite article] cause

So, irrational enthusiasm for home buying had no effect on demand?

Of course it did. But why do you think there was irrational enthusiasm existed? Like low interest? Like finally able to by one's own home? (with out regard for credit worthiness?

You seem determined to convince me that there never would have been a bubble if the Community Reinvestment Act never existed.

Absolute bullshit. The CRA was one driving force, pushing the banks to make loans that were not viable. I believe the government driving interest so low is a more important issue than the CRA, except for the part CRA may have had in driving the rates down.

I don't see this as particularly germane to the thread, but I'll play along. To pretermit any lengthy post on history which is easily accessible on google I shall understand the term "CRA" to include all Legislative and Regulatory changes with special attention paid to the 1995 regulatory changes. How do you blame the CRA, and only the CRA absent of any other factors, for the housing bubble?

You have either not read my assertions, or, you do not understand English. I have never touted the CRA as THE CAUSE, but rather one of the CAUSES, with low interest rates caused by the government as the principle cause of the housing balloon and subsequent.

I ask because your position seems premised on the fallacy of the single cause. I say premised because you are only looking for one cause, therefore the existence of a single cause is not a conclusion but a premise, like a hammer looking for a nail.

ROTFLMAO at your inability to read and reason.

Fallacy of the single cause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Often after a tragedy it is asked, "What was the cause of this?" Such language implies that there is one cause, when instead there was probably a large number of contributing factors. However, having produced a list of several contributing factors, it may be worthwhile to look for the strongest of the factors, or a single cause underlying several of them. A need for simplification may be perceived in order to make the explanation of the tragedy operational, so that responsible authorities can be seen to have taken action.​

Obviously you do not know what I have said or you would have come to such a stupid conclusion.

When you talk about the evils of 100 years ago, before the government started to mind the store, OHSA, and our labor laws which have made unions passé, you make zero sense.

People need to be reminded why we have such laws.
People like your buddies on the far right.

The facts are, I DO NOT HAVE BUDDIES ON THE RIGHT. I am and have always been to the left of center, a true liberal, in that I believe we should have policies which help all people, starting off with the "least of his people." I KNOW why we have such laws. As the union membership started to drop as a % of our labor force the government took over the cause of labor. As a result union labor is becoming less and less of value, EXCEPT for that elite 12% of our labor force.

 

[dnsmith35]

Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes

"Many actors obviously played a role in this story.

"Some of the actors were in the public sector and some of them were in the private sector.

"But the public sector agencies were acting at behest of the private sector.

"It’s not as though Congress woke up one morning and thought to itself, 'Let’s abolish the Glass-Steagall Act!' Or the SEC spontaneously happened to have the bright idea of relaxing capital requirements on the investment banks. Or the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency of its own accord abruptly had the idea of preempting state laws protecting borrowers.

"These agencies of government were being strenuously lobbied to do the very things that would benefit the financial sector and their managers and traders.

"And behind it all, was the drive for short-term profits."

Maybe we can all agree to blame the lobbyists?

I think we can all agree that lobbyists played a part, politicians played a part and the banking industry was all to ready to help them along the way. Lobbying should be outlawed. Gerrymandering should be outlawed. We should go back to "all politics are local."

Lobbying and gerrymandering have certainly outlived any usefulness they ever had.
I would strongly suggest voters also stop "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican when picking their congressional representatives, as well. Especially voters with ballots that contain Third Party alternatives for House and Senate races.

People should vote for their one member of the House, because s/he is from their local area. Then they should vote for their state legislators from their local area and then perhaps vote for the state senators who represent their local district. That is where it should stop. The state legislators should appoint presidential electors from their state and the two US senators who will represent that state in the US Senate. Politics was intended to be local, and we should go back to that premise.

 

[georgephillip]

Imply hell! let me say it straight out. The banks did what the government told them to do. The fault is the government's. No matter how you try to pass it off on the banks whose only blame is trying not to lose too much money with low interest toxic loans. If there is another crisis in the making, look to our politicians in Washington, D.C., not to the banks.

Of course, those banks hired the lobbyists to tell government which laws to pass, right?

"Even this morning, November 22, 2011, a seemingly smart guy like Joe Kernan was saying on CNBC’s Squawkbox, 'When the losses at Fannie and Freddie reach $200 billion… how can the ‘deniers’ say that Fannie and Freddie were enablers for a lot of the housing crisis. When it gets up to that levels, how can they say that they were only into sub-prime late, and they were only in it a little bit?'

"The reason that people can say that is because it is true.

"The $200 billion was a mere drop in the ocean of derivatives which in 2007 amounted to three times the size of the entire global economy."

Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes

Yet the failure and losses in the derivatives market was a result of the housing crash, not the cause.

"It is not just mortgages that provide the underlying value for derivatives. Other types of loans and assets can, too.

"For example, if the underlying value is corporate debt, credit card debt or auto loans, then the derivative is called a Collateralized Debt Obligations. A type of CDO is Asset-backed Commercial Paper, which is debt that is due within a year.

"If it is insurance for debt, the derivative is called a Credit Default Swap.

"Not only is this market extremely complicated and difficult to value, it is unregulated by the SEC. That means that there are no rules or oversights to help instill trust in the market participants.

"When one went bankrupt, like Lehman Brothers did, it started a panic among hedge funds and banks that the world's governments are still trying to fully resolve.(2008)

Role of Derivatives in Creating Mortgage Crisis

 

[dnsmith35]

Of course, those banks hired the lobbyists to tell government which laws to pass, right?

"Even this morning, November 22, 2011, a seemingly smart guy like Joe Kernan was saying on CNBC’s Squawkbox, 'When the losses at Fannie and Freddie reach $200 billion… how can the ‘deniers’ say that Fannie and Freddie were enablers for a lot of the housing crisis. When it gets up to that levels, how can they say that they were only into sub-prime late, and they were only in it a little bit?'

"The reason that people can say that is because it is true.

"The $200 billion was a mere drop in the ocean of derivatives which in 2007 amounted to three times the size of the entire global economy."

Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes

Yet the failure and losses in the derivatives market was a result of the housing crash, not the cause.

"It is not just mortgages that provide the underlying value for derivatives. Other types of loans and assets can, too.

"For example, if the underlying value is corporate debt, credit card debt or auto loans, then the derivative is called a Collateralized Debt Obligations. A type of CDO is Asset-backed Commercial Paper, which is debt that is due within a year.

"If it is insurance for debt, the derivative is called a Credit Default Swap.

"Not only is this market extremely complicated and difficult to value, it is unregulated by the SEC. That means that there are no rules or oversights to help instill trust in the market participants.

"When one went bankrupt, like Lehman Brothers did, it started a panic among hedge funds and banks that the world's governments are still trying to fully resolve.(2008)

Role of Derivatives in Creating Mortgage Crisis

Your comments about derivatives is not really relevant to the housing balloon, subsequent crash, or the attempts to blame capitalism for the issues you find undesirable. As I have said before, capitalism has raised a higher % of a population out of poverty than any other economic system.

 

[dnsmith35]

Don't sulk, kiddo, you sorta got the point in the end. (pun?)

He has had the point all along.

Okay, now that's funny on a number of levels.

Yes it was the original point that both Androw and I made

Androw attempted to prove that new construction was always cheaper and defended the claim by exclaiming the equivalent of "well...duh!". I didn't even touch that in relation to the original claim on price indices the subsequent claim is a non sequitur. I do show restraint, you know.
But I digress...
I get that you're doing some tag team thing. That's cute. Is it your intention to have any serious discussion in this thread or are you just tagging in and out for the lulz?

ALL of my discussion is serious including when I agree with Androw, and recently when I agreed with George Phillip. Your assumptions about my posing or my use of economic studies
on which I base my opinions show little understanding of my assertions and opinions. Try to read for understanding instead of skimming and making rash comments about my posts.

 

[dnsmith35]

Nap time folks. Us old guys need our naps to recharge what little battery power we have left.

 

[Andylusion]

Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes

"Many actors obviously played a role in this story.

"Some of the actors were in the public sector and some of them were in the private sector.

"But the public sector agencies were acting at behest of the private sector.

"It’s not as though Congress woke up one morning and thought to itself, 'Let’s abolish the Glass-Steagall Act!' Or the SEC spontaneously happened to have the bright idea of relaxing capital requirements on the investment banks. Or the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency of its own accord abruptly had the idea of preempting state laws protecting borrowers.

"These agencies of government were being strenuously lobbied to do the very things that would benefit the financial sector and their managers and traders.

"And behind it all, was the drive for short-term profits."

Maybe we can all agree to blame the lobbyists?

Yeah, which lobbyists? You mean ACORN and other community groups that lobbied to lower lending standards? Yeah. Absolutely we blame them.

Whoever wrote that article from Forbes, was an idiot.

The very act of the banking business, involves risk. It's fundamental to how loaning money works. You don't know what will happen when you loan money to person X, and if they will repay or not.

Of course the banks are operating the same way they were in the past. If you legislate out risk, there would be no banking industry.

Further, of course reform didn't work. When you bailout banks, what reason do banks have to fundamentally change how they operate?

"WHY BANKS FAILED THE STRESS TEST"
Andrew G Haldane
Executive Director for Financial Stability
Bank of England
13 February 2009

Gave this report:

A few years ago, ahead of the present crisis, the Bank of England and the FSA commenced a series of seminars with financial firms, exploring their stress-testing practices. The first meeting of that group sticks in my mind. We had asked firms to tell us the sorts of stress which they routinely used for their stress-tests.

A quick survey suggested these were very modest stresses. We asked why. Perhaps disaster myopia – disappointing, but perhaps unsurprising? Or network externalities – we understood how difficult these were to capture?

No. There was a much simpler explanation according to one of those present. There was absolutely no incentive for individuals or teams to run severe stress tests and show these to management. First, because if there were such a severe shock, they would very likely lose their bonus and possibly their jobs.

Second, because in that event the authorities would have to step-in anyway to save a bank and others suffering a similar plight.

All of the other assembled bankers began subjecting their shoes to intense scrutiny. The unspoken words had been spoken. The officials in the room were aghast.

Did banks not understand that the official sector would not underwrite banks mismanaging their risks?

Yet history now tells us that the unnamed banker was spot-on. His was a brilliant articulation of the internal and external incentive problem within banks.

You people on the left don't seem to grasp this. You can make a BILLION LAWS.... all trying to mitigate risk, and it's all pointless. No amount of regulation will ever stop banks from making bad choices. No amount of laws will stop this.

The only system that will prevent banks from making bad choices, is letting them fail, and not bailing them out.

This report, where government officials interviewed bank executives, is absolute proof of why everything happened the way it did.

The banker years before the crisis, said they would likely lose their jobs, and the banks would end up bailed out anyway.

When Bear Stearns, one of the original players in the 1997 Sub-prime Freddie Mac Loan scheme, crash... the very first thing that happened was James Cayne, was fired. Alan Schwartz replaced him, but only for a few months, and he was gone. Meanwhile the company was given billions, and ultimately bond holders of Bear Stearns were paid back 100¢ on the dollar by tax payers.

In other words, the bank executives were absolutely right. They knew exactly what would happen. The government would bail them out anyway, and they would lose their jobs, so why bother mitigating risk?

This is the real problem. All that blaw blaw blaw blaw and Glass-Steagall, and leverage ratios, and capital requirements... all of that, doesn't mean anything. It's all completely irrelevant.

As long as the banks know the government will bail them out, they will never do high risk stress tests, because there's no reason to.

Lastly, the article makes some really lame points.

Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with the crash. If it had been left in place, nothing would have changed. As far as I can tell, only 3 of the major banks would have been affected by it, and 2 of those did NOT fail.

Second, relaxing capital requirements on investment banks, is also largely irrelevant. I have yet to find one single example of an investment bank that failed, that had they followed the original capital requirements, would not have failed. If you can tell me which investment bank you think would not have failed, under the original capital requirement rules, by all means post it.

Moreover, investment banks were a fraction of the banks that failed. IndyMac was not an investment bank. Countrywide was not an investment bank. Wachovia (originally First Union, one of the original 1997 sub-prime Freddie Mac lenders), was not an investment bank. AIG was not an investment bank.

All of these, and the majority of all banks that failed, were not investment banks, and did not have their capital requirements relaxed.

Lastly, preempting state laws that protect borrowers, is something I'm against, but honestly it was good from the crisis perspective.

I'm against it, because I'm against the federal government telling anyone what to do. It's not the Federal government's job to determine what protections borrowers have, or what regulations banks must follow.

However, that said.... Borrower protection, is exactly the opposite of what we want. When you protect borrowers from the fallout of making bad loans, that just increases the chances of having people make bad loans.

What do you think "strategic default" means? People intentionally default on their loans, knowing they have protections. They can declare bankruptcy, and walk away from all the debts they owe.

This is one of the reasons Canada has had no real housing price bubble, or housing price crash, because all loans are full recourse. Meaning, if you buy a house with a loan for $200,000, and you decide to strategically default... you end up losing everything. They'll chase you until the end of your life until you pay back that loan.

Consequently people are not likely to make a risky loan. They are not likely to borrow hundreds of thousands, and then walk away... because they'll lose everything, and end up garnished for years.

The article was dumb, and pointless. Focus on the cause, not irrelevant unimportant side notes, that had nothing to do with the crash.

The cause, was government pushing bad loans. Period.

Which lobbyists pushed the government to push bad loans?
Hint: it wasn't ACORN or Obama

"Weissman notes that Glass-Steagall remained law until 1998, when Citicorp and Travelers Group announced they were merging:

"Such a combination of banking and insurance companies was illegal under the Bank Holding Company Act, but was excused due to a loophole that provided a two-year review period of proposed mergers.

"The merger was premised on the expectation that Glass-Steagall would be repealed. Citigroup’s co-chairs Sandy Weill and John Reed led a swarm of industry executives and lobbyists who trammeled the halls of Congress to make sure a deal was cut.

"But as the deal-making on the bill moved into its final phase in Fall 1999, fears ran high that the entire exercise would collapse. (Reed now says repeal of Glass-Steagall was a mistake.)"

If you decide to argue that the repeal of Glass-Steagall played no role in perpetuating the US housing bubble, supply proof (for a change)

Looking Back at the Repeal of Glass-Steagall, or, How the Banks Caught Casino Fever | Roosevelt Institute

You are becoming an idiot on the forum.

You have said over and over that Glass-Steagall had something to do with the crash, yet never once showed any proof of that at all.

I have posted proof that Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with it, over and over and over and over again.

You want more proof? You pathetic stupid hypocrite. YOU provide proof first, then demand it from others. You have shown nothing over and over for a dozens posts. Here you mindlessly cut and paste a few lines from Wiki, NOT ONE OF WHICH SHOWS ANY CONNECTION BETWEEN GSA AND SUB-PRIME LENDING.... and then you are such an arrogant pile of trash, you demand proof of others? Idiot.

But I'll post more proof of what I said AGAIN. You dumb hypocrite will find a way to ignore this too. Idiot.

Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, was passed in 1999, and came into effect in November of 1999.

The sub-prime market was already in the hundreds of billions by then. Home prices had already increased well above the norm. I already posted those numbers. Go read them idiot.

The GLB Act, allowed companies to convert to Financial Holding Companies. By doing so, they could then engage in Investment, Retail, Commercial, and Insurance, and merge with such.

"Analyzing the Credit Crisis: Was the SEC Missing in Action?"
By John C. Coffee Jr.
New York Law Journal
December 5, 2008

No major investment bank, however, became a bank holding company until 2008 in the midst of the late-2000s financial crisis. Then all five major “free standing” investment banks (i.e., those not part of a bank holding company) entered bankruptcy proceedings (Lehman Brothers), were acquired by bank holding companies (Bear Stearns by JP Morgan Chase and Merrill Lynch by Bank of America), or became bank holding companies by converting their industrial loan companies (“nonbank banks”) into a national (Morgan Stanley) or state chartered Federal Reserve member bank (Goldman Sachs).

Merrill Lynch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Services: Investment management

Merrill Lynch was an investment bank you moron. It didn't do retail, or commercial, or insurance. Without GSA repealed, Merrill Lynch would have had to do........ NOTHING IDIOT.

Bear Stearns - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The Bear Stearns Companies, Inc. was a New York based global investment bank and securities trading and brokerage firm that failed in 2008 as part of the global financial crisis and recession"

Bear Stearns was an investment bank you moron. It didn't do retail, or commercial, or insurance. Without GSA repealed, Bear Stearns would have had to do........ NOTHING IDIOT.

Lehman Brothers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Before declaring bankruptcy in 2008, Lehman was the fourth-largest investment bank in the US"

Lehman Brothers was an investment bank you moron. It didn't do retail, or commercial, or insurance. Without GSA repealed, Lehman Borthers would have had to do........ NOTHING IDIOT.

OneWest Bank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Before its failure, IndyMac Bank was the largest savings and loan association in the Los Angeles area and the seventh largest mortgage originator in the United States."

IndyMac was a retail bank you moron. It didn't do investment, or commercial, or insurance. Without GSA repealed, IndyMac would have had to do........ NOTHING IDIOT.

How many examples do you want?

How about this.... stop being a mindless asshole. You are too dumb to be talking about this topic.

 

[Andylusion]

In fact, during the years before the US Civil War, there was no capitalism without slavery; they were one and the same thing.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/30/king-cottons-long-shadow/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

"In the 1830s, hundreds of millions of acres of conquered land were surveyed and put up for sale by the United States. This vast privatization of the public domain touched off one of the greatest economic booms in the history of the world up to that time..."

"Without slavery, however, the survey maps of the General Land Office would have remained a sort of science-fiction plan for a society that could never happen.

"Between 1820 and 1860 more than a million enslaved people were transported from the upper to the lower South, the vast majority by the venture-capitalist slave traders the slaves called 'soul drivers.'

"The first wave cleared the region for cultivation. 'Forests were literally dragged out by the roots,' the former slave John Parker remembered in 'His Promised Land.'

"Those who followed planted the fields in cotton, which they then protected, picked, packed and shipped — from 'sunup to sundown' every day for the rest of their lives..."

"When the cotton crop came in short and sales failed to meet advanced payments, planters found themselves indebted to merchants and bankers.

"Slaves were sold to make up the difference.

"The mobility and salability of slaves meant they functioned as the primary form of collateral in the credit-and-cotton economy of the 19th century.

"It is not simply that the labor of enslaved people underwrote 19th-century capitalism.

"Enslaved people were the capital: four million people worth at least $3 billion in 1860, which was more than all the capital invested in railroads and factories in the United States combined.

"Seen in this light, the conventional distinction between slavery and capitalism fades into meaninglessness."

If I am a slave.... I can't have capital. If I can't have capital... it's not capitalism stupid. Idiots on the forum today.

"We deny people the ability to own capital, and that proves capitalism is bad!"

What moron says stuff like this? Oh wait... some internet forum poster.

You are fundamentally challenged, aren't you?
Were you homeschooled?
You're lack of reading COMPREHENSION skills make most of your responses imbecilic.

Slaves were NOT denied the right to have capital, Moron.

Slaves WERE capital.

Go to college

You sir, are an idiot. You are simply too stupid to be on a forum.

 

[georgephillip]

Okay, there is a dangerous double-edge sword at play here. Global trade has, in point of fact, increased the real wage in developing countries. Global trade has also, in point of fact, set up sweatshops so terrible that the workers leap from windows.
So my answer is I don't know. I want that real wage increased. Global trade is a good path to world peace. Little girls making Nike shoes is why I don't buy Nikes.

Hopefully, but in the process if we don't trade with those nations, their people will continue to be enslaved in perpetuity. As long as we withhold the use of their labor we are contributing to the status quo and hurting those people even more.It can, but the point of regulation is to help level the playing field. I know of no purely laissez-faire capitalist system in the world. Absolutely not, especially since our government works to protect the little guy. The problems arise when the government goes beyond making a level playing field and tries to play in the market.Again, absolutely not. The capital is only what it is, money and what it buys. Capitalism is what has consistently lifted more people out of poverty than any other system.

Wages have "increased" relative to the fact that many subsistence farmers have been forcibly moved from arable land so that big agro-business can utilize it and export as capitalism holds: comparative advantage.

Sustenance farmers were unable to grow the quantities of food we need here in the US and what we export and sell or give to the poor in other countries.

Thus the locals have re-located to the hills as in Haiti and to the slums and favelas near the city. Since they no longer feed themselves through crops, they need employment. And as a result of its opening up at the behest of capitalist enterprises, employment and wages have increased. I would hardly understand this as a genuine rise in real wages when wages don't include the conditions under which one now works and lives compared to the cycle of leisure and work that results from being a farmer.

Wow, comparing capitalism in Haiti, to any other modern country is a typical ploy of the left wingers who look for the most depressed people in small countries around the globe so as to look at them and declare incorrectly that it is capitalism which caused the problem. Nothing could be further from the truth. As I have said before, and posted links and citations, over the world in general, capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system; especially dictatorships as was in Haiti.[/QUOTE]
I wonder if you're aware of who financed Haiti's dictators?

"The first United States occupation of Haiti began on July 28, 1915, when 330 US Marines landed at Port-au-Prince on the authority of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson to safeguard the interests of U.S. corporations.

"The first invasion forces however already had debarked from U.S.S. 'Montana' on 27 January, 1914.[1]

"The occupation ended on August 1, 1934 after Franklin D. Roosevelt reaffirmed an August 1933 disengagement agreement. The last contingent of U.S. Marines departed on August 15, 1934 after a formal transfer of authority to the Garde."

United States occupation of Haiti - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Haiti got on the wrong side of US elites when it became home of the only successful slave revolt in human history early in the 19th Century. Since that time it's been home to one mass murder after another perpetrated in the commercial interests of foreign powers.

In 1915 US Marines invaded and occupied Haiti on behalf of The National City Bank of New York (today's Citi), and they didn't leave until 1934.

Some argue Haiti is where Slavery changed its name to Capitalism.

 

[Andylusion]

Of course, those banks hired the lobbyists to tell government which laws to pass, right?

"Even this morning, November 22, 2011, a seemingly smart guy like Joe Kernan was saying on CNBC’s Squawkbox, 'When the losses at Fannie and Freddie reach $200 billion… how can the ‘deniers’ say that Fannie and Freddie were enablers for a lot of the housing crisis. When it gets up to that levels, how can they say that they were only into sub-prime late, and they were only in it a little bit?'

"The reason that people can say that is because it is true.

"The $200 billion was a mere drop in the ocean of derivatives which in 2007 amounted to three times the size of the entire global economy."

Lest We Forget: Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes

Yet the failure and losses in the derivatives market was a result of the housing crash, not the cause.

"It is not just mortgages that provide the underlying value for derivatives. Other types of loans and assets can, too.

"For example, if the underlying value is corporate debt, credit card debt or auto loans, then the derivative is called a Collateralized Debt Obligations. A type of CDO is Asset-backed Commercial Paper, which is debt that is due within a year.

"If it is insurance for debt, the derivative is called a Credit Default Swap.

"Not only is this market extremely complicated and difficult to value, it is unregulated by the SEC. That means that there are no rules or oversights to help instill trust in the market participants.

"When one went bankrupt, like Lehman Brothers did, it started a panic among hedge funds and banks that the world's governments are still trying to fully resolve.(2008)

Role of Derivatives in Creating Mortgage Crisis

You idiot. Yes, other things can be the underlining asset. Those other assets didn't crash stupid. The only counter example was AIG, which had Credit Default Swaps on other companies..... COMPANIES THAT WERE IN THE SUB-PRIME MORTGAGE MARKING MORON.

Idiot. You are just an idiot. You don't know what you are talking about. In fact, I bet that's why all you do is cut and past from Wiki.

 

[georgephillip]

Yeah, which lobbyists? You mean ACORN and other community groups that lobbied to lower lending standards? Yeah. Absolutely we blame them.

Whoever wrote that article from Forbes, was an idiot.

The very act of the banking business, involves risk. It's fundamental to how loaning money works. You don't know what will happen when you loan money to person X, and if they will repay or not.

Of course the banks are operating the same way they were in the past. If you legislate out risk, there would be no banking industry.

Further, of course reform didn't work. When you bailout banks, what reason do banks have to fundamentally change how they operate?

"WHY BANKS FAILED THE STRESS TEST"
Andrew G Haldane
Executive Director for Financial Stability
Bank of England
13 February 2009

Gave this report:



You people on the left don't seem to grasp this. You can make a BILLION LAWS.... all trying to mitigate risk, and it's all pointless. No amount of regulation will ever stop banks from making bad choices. No amount of laws will stop this.

The only system that will prevent banks from making bad choices, is letting them fail, and not bailing them out.

This report, where government officials interviewed bank executives, is absolute proof of why everything happened the way it did.

The banker years before the crisis, said they would likely lose their jobs, and the banks would end up bailed out anyway.

When Bear Stearns, one of the original players in the 1997 Sub-prime Freddie Mac Loan scheme, crash... the very first thing that happened was James Cayne, was fired. Alan Schwartz replaced him, but only for a few months, and he was gone. Meanwhile the company was given billions, and ultimately bond holders of Bear Stearns were paid back 100¢ on the dollar by tax payers.

In other words, the bank executives were absolutely right. They knew exactly what would happen. The government would bail them out anyway, and they would lose their jobs, so why bother mitigating risk?

This is the real problem. All that blaw blaw blaw blaw and Glass-Steagall, and leverage ratios, and capital requirements... all of that, doesn't mean anything. It's all completely irrelevant.

As long as the banks know the government will bail them out, they will never do high risk stress tests, because there's no reason to.

Lastly, the article makes some really lame points.

Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with the crash. If it had been left in place, nothing would have changed. As far as I can tell, only 3 of the major banks would have been affected by it, and 2 of those did NOT fail.

Second, relaxing capital requirements on investment banks, is also largely irrelevant. I have yet to find one single example of an investment bank that failed, that had they followed the original capital requirements, would not have failed. If you can tell me which investment bank you think would not have failed, under the original capital requirement rules, by all means post it.

Moreover, investment banks were a fraction of the banks that failed. IndyMac was not an investment bank. Countrywide was not an investment bank. Wachovia (originally First Union, one of the original 1997 sub-prime Freddie Mac lenders), was not an investment bank. AIG was not an investment bank.

All of these, and the majority of all banks that failed, were not investment banks, and did not have their capital requirements relaxed.

Lastly, preempting state laws that protect borrowers, is something I'm against, but honestly it was good from the crisis perspective.

I'm against it, because I'm against the federal government telling anyone what to do. It's not the Federal government's job to determine what protections borrowers have, or what regulations banks must follow.

However, that said.... Borrower protection, is exactly the opposite of what we want. When you protect borrowers from the fallout of making bad loans, that just increases the chances of having people make bad loans.

What do you think "strategic default" means? People intentionally default on their loans, knowing they have protections. They can declare bankruptcy, and walk away from all the debts they owe.

This is one of the reasons Canada has had no real housing price bubble, or housing price crash, because all loans are full recourse. Meaning, if you buy a house with a loan for $200,000, and you decide to strategically default... you end up losing everything. They'll chase you until the end of your life until you pay back that loan.

Consequently people are not likely to make a risky loan. They are not likely to borrow hundreds of thousands, and then walk away... because they'll lose everything, and end up garnished for years.

The article was dumb, and pointless. Focus on the cause, not irrelevant unimportant side notes, that had nothing to do with the crash.

The cause, was government pushing bad loans. Period.

Which lobbyists pushed the government to push bad loans?
Hint: it wasn't ACORN or Obama

"Weissman notes that Glass-Steagall remained law until 1998, when Citicorp and Travelers Group announced they were merging:

"Such a combination of banking and insurance companies was illegal under the Bank Holding Company Act, but was excused due to a loophole that provided a two-year review period of proposed mergers.

"The merger was premised on the expectation that Glass-Steagall would be repealed. Citigroup’s co-chairs Sandy Weill and John Reed led a swarm of industry executives and lobbyists who trammeled the halls of Congress to make sure a deal was cut.

"But as the deal-making on the bill moved into its final phase in Fall 1999, fears ran high that the entire exercise would collapse. (Reed now says repeal of Glass-Steagall was a mistake.)"

If you decide to argue that the repeal of Glass-Steagall played no role in perpetuating the US housing bubble, supply proof (for a change)

Looking Back at the Repeal of Glass-Steagall, or, How the Banks Caught Casino Fever | Roosevelt Institute

You are becoming an idiot on the forum.

You have said over and over that Glass-Steagall had something to do with the crash, yet never once showed any proof of that at all.

I have posted proof that Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with it, over and over and over and over again.

You want more proof? You pathetic stupid hypocrite. YOU provide proof first, then demand it from others. You have shown nothing over and over for a dozens posts. Here you mindlessly cut and paste a few lines from Wiki, NOT ONE OF WHICH SHOWS ANY CONNECTION BETWEEN GSA AND SUB-PRIME LENDING.... and then you are such an arrogant pile of trash, you demand proof of others? Idiot.

But I'll post more proof of what I said AGAIN. You dumb hypocrite will find a way to ignore this too. Idiot.

Gramm?Leach?Bliley Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, was passed in 1999, and came into effect in November of 1999.

The sub-prime market was already in the hundreds of billions by then. Home prices had already increased well above the norm. I already posted those numbers. Go read them idiot.

The GLB Act, allowed companies to convert to Financial Holding Companies. By doing so, they could then engage in Investment, Retail, Commercial, and Insurance, and merge with such.

"Analyzing the Credit Crisis: Was the SEC Missing in Action?"
By John C. Coffee Jr.
New York Law Journal
December 5, 2008

No major investment bank, however, became a bank holding company until 2008 in the midst of the late-2000s financial crisis. Then all five major “free standing” investment banks (i.e., those not part of a bank holding company) entered bankruptcy proceedings (Lehman Brothers), were acquired by bank holding companies (Bear Stearns by JP Morgan Chase and Merrill Lynch by Bank of America), or became bank holding companies by converting their industrial loan companies (“nonbank banks”) into a national (Morgan Stanley) or state chartered Federal Reserve member bank (Goldman Sachs).

Merrill Lynch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Services: Investment management

Merrill Lynch was an investment bank you moron. It didn't do retail, or commercial, or insurance. Without GSA repealed, Merrill Lynch would have had to do........ NOTHING IDIOT.

Bear Stearns - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The Bear Stearns Companies, Inc. was a New York based global investment bank and securities trading and brokerage firm that failed in 2008 as part of the global financial crisis and recession"

Bear Stearns was an investment bank you moron. It didn't do retail, or commercial, or insurance. Without GSA repealed, Bear Stearns would have had to do........ NOTHING IDIOT.

Lehman Brothers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Before declaring bankruptcy in 2008, Lehman was the fourth-largest investment bank in the US"

Lehman Brothers was an investment bank you moron. It didn't do retail, or commercial, or insurance. Without GSA repealed, Lehman Borthers would have had to do........ NOTHING IDIOT.

OneWest Bank - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Before its failure, IndyMac Bank was the largest savings and loan association in the Los Angeles area and the seventh largest mortgage originator in the United States."

IndyMac was a retail bank you moron. It didn't do investment, or commercial, or insurance. Without GSA repealed, IndyMac would have had to do........ NOTHING IDIOT.

How many examples do you want?

How about this.... stop being a mindless asshole. You are too dumb to be talking about this topic.

Your link, Homeschool:

"The act is 'often cited as a cause' of the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis 'even by some of its onetime supporters.'[26]

"President Barack Obama has stated that GLB led to deregulation that, among other things, allowed for the creation of giant financial supermarkets that could own investment banks, commercial banks and insurance firms, something banned since the Great Depression.[citation needed]

"Its passage, critics also say, cleared the way for companies that were too big and intertwined to fail.[27]

"Mark Thornton and Robert Ekelund, economists who follow the free-market Austrian School, have also criticized the Act as contributing to the crisis, noting that the act did not at all 'deregulate' in the literal sense of the word, but merely transferred regulatory power to the regional Federal Reserve Banks.

"They state that 'in a world regulated by a gold standard, 100% reserve banking, and no FDIC deposit insurance' the Financial Services Modernization Act would have made perfect sense as a legitimate act of so-called 'deregulation', but under the present fiat monetary it 'amounts to corporate welfare for financial institutions and a moral hazard that will make taxpayers pay dearly'.[28]

"Another Austrian School economist, Frank Shostak, has argued that GLB actually gave more regulation over the banking sector. He argues that with the existence of a central bank, competition among banks led to increased inflation and 'rather than promoting an efficient allocation of real savings, the current "deregulated" monetary system has been channeling money created out of thin air across the economy'".[29]

"Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has also argued that the Act helped to create the crisis.[30]

"In an article in The Nation, Mark Sumner asserted that the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act was responsible for the creation of entities that took on more risk due to their being considered 'too big to fail'.[31]

"Other critics also assert that proponents and defenders of the Act espouse a form of 'eliteconomics' that has, with the passage of the Act, directly precipitated the current economic recession while at the same time shifting the burden of belt-tightening measures onto the lower- and middle-income classes.[32]"

 

[georgephillip]

I think we can all agree that lobbyists played a part, politicians played a part and the banking industry was all to ready to help them along the way. Lobbying should be outlawed. Gerrymandering should be outlawed. We should go back to "all politics are local."

Lobbying and gerrymandering have certainly outlived any usefulness they ever had.
I would strongly suggest voters also stop "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican when picking their congressional representatives, as well. Especially voters with ballots that contain Third Party alternatives for House and Senate races.

People should vote for their one member of the House, because s/he is from their local area. Then they should vote for their state legislators from their local area and then perhaps vote for the state senators who represent their local district. That is where it should stop. The state legislators should appoint presidential electors from their state and the two US senators who will represent that state in the US Senate. Politics was intended to be local, and we should go back to that premise.

Wouldn't that provide the richest citizens (corporate and natural) in each local area with even more control over democracy than they currently enjoy? You really have problems with direct elections of US Senators?

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

ROTFLMAO at your inability to read and reason. Obviously you do not know what I have said or you would have come to such a stupid conclusion.

That sort of comment isn't going to help things.

I HOPE that the US government entities which CHOSE to have no down payment loans given to people with little or no credit will remember that they will repeat the housing crash.

Really? Are you sticking with the single cause?

Of course it did. But why do you think there was irrational enthusiasm existed? Like low interest? Like finally able to by one's own home? (with out regard for credit worthiness? Absolute bullshit. The CRA was one driving force, pushing the banks to make loans that were not viable. I believe the government driving interest so low is a more important issue than the CRA, except for the part CRA may have had in driving the rates down.

So then, why didn't you say

"I HOPE that the US government entities which CHOSE to make poor decisions, such as driving interest so low and the CRA, will remember that they will repeat the housing crash."​

But that's not what you said. I would really rather not dredge up tens of pages of posts of that not being what you said. There is a choice here. I can either choose to let this go; or, we can argue about what you said for tens more pages.
How about we just move on.

I am satisfied.

You have either not read my assertions, or, you do not understand English. I have never touted the CRA as THE CAUSE, but rather one of the CAUSES, with low interest rates caused by the government as the principle cause of the housing balloon and subsequent.

Okay, again, why then wouldn't you assert that here:

I HOPE that the US government entities which CHOSE to have no down payment loans given to people with little or no credit will remember that they will repeat the housing crash.

I mean you just argued that, for the sake of posterity, as the lesson to carry forward into the history books, it was the CRA that was the culprit.
I would really rather not dredge up tens of pages of posts of that being what you said. There is a choice here. I can either choose to let this go; or, we can argue about what you said for tens more pages.
How about we just move on.

When you talk about the evils of 100 years ago, before the government started to mind the store, OHSA, and our labor laws which have made unions passé, you make zero sense.

People need to be reminded why we have such laws.
People like your buddies on the far right.

The facts are, I DO NOT HAVE BUDDIES ON THE RIGHT. I am and have always been to the left of center, a true liberal

Then I owe you an apology. I apologize. I'm more to the right of center; of course that was before the definition of "Political Center" moved underneath me. Now I am engaged in RL conversations trying to explain that the intent of a Ponzi scheme is to bamboozle people whereas the intent of Social Security is to give a small subsidy to the elderly such that the elderly won't have to eat dog food. That's in Real Life, let alone a message board.

 

[Andylusion]

Your link, Homeschool:

"The act is 'often cited as a cause' of the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis 'even by some of its onetime supporters.'[26]

Opinion.

"President Barack Obama has stated that GLB led to deregulation that, among other things, allowed for the creation of giant financial supermarkets that could own investment banks, commercial banks and insurance firms, something banned since the Great Depression.[citation needed]

Opinion. The same Obama that was suing banks to make bad loans.

"Its passage, critics also say, cleared the way for companies that were too big and intertwined to fail.[27]

I just proved that most of the companies would not be effected by Glass Steagall. Regardless, what does this have to do with sub-prime mortgages? Nothing.

"Mark Thornton and Robert Ekelund, economists who follow the free-market Austrian School, have also criticized the Act as contributing to the crisis, noting that the act did not at all 'deregulate' in the literal sense of the word, but merely transferred regulatory power to the regional Federal Reserve Banks.

So both noted that it didn't "deregulate" at all. Great. And how does this prove the act contributed to sub-prime loans? No proof here at all.

"They state that 'in a world regulated by a gold standard, 100% reserve banking, and no FDIC deposit insurance' the Financial Services Modernization Act would have made perfect sense as a legitimate act of so-called 'deregulation', but under the present fiat monetary it 'amounts to corporate welfare for financial institutions and a moral hazard that will make taxpayers pay dearly'.[28]

Well I would agree with that. We should have a gold standard, and we should have no FDIC. Great. What's this got to do with sub-prime lending? Nothing.

"Another Austrian School economist, Frank Shostak, has argued that GLB actually gave more regulation over the banking sector. He argues that with the existence of a central bank, competition among banks led to increased inflation and 'rather than promoting an efficient allocation of real savings, the current "deregulated" monetary system has been channeling money created out of thin air across the economy'".[29]

What does this have to do with sub-prime lending.

"Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has also argued that the Act helped to create the crisis.[30]

Opinion.

"In an article in The Nation, Mark Sumner asserted that the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act was responsible for the creation of entities that took on more risk due to their being considered 'too big to fail'.[31]

Again, I just proved that the act didn't affect the companies that crashed. So.... he's wrong. Are you too dumb to think for yourself?

"Other critics also assert that proponents and defenders of the Act espouse a form of 'eliteconomics' that has, with the passage of the Act, directly precipitated the current economic recession while at the same time shifting the burden of belt-tightening measures onto the lower- and middle-income classes.[32]"

What's this got to do with sub-prime lending?

Idiot. You are just so absolutely stupid, you don't even realize how moronic your posts are.

Are you just too plain stupid to think for yourself? Glass Steagall, didn't have anything to do with 90% of what you said, and the other 10%, it was just wrong. I just proved that those companies where not Retail, Commercial, Investment and Insurance companies.

That's the ONLY THINK that Glass-Steagall prevented, was one bank doing all four things.

None of what you just said, matters to that, except for the claim that repealing it allowed the banks to get bigger.... which I just proved did not apply. Those banks that failed were not doing that. Glass-Steagall would not effect them.

Are you too dumb to figure that out? Are you so blindly stupid, all you can do is repost other people's opinions? Are you idiotic, that you think opinions are the same as facts??

Get off the forum. You are too immature to be here. Grow up, learn something, and maybe we'll bother listening to you again.

I'm done with you. You have proven yourself incapable of reason, incapable of logic, you post opinion as fact, then demand proof. You are an idiot. You are waste of oxygen. You couldn't argue your way out of a 4th grade debate club. You and me... we're done. I'm not wasting my time with such a pathetic idiot.

 

[Andylusion]

Nap time folks. Us old guys need our naps to recharge what little battery power we have left.

You can't fix stupid anyway. Every time you make a point, he goes to wiki, does a 'cut and paste' job on some morons opinion, posts it like fact, and then demands others provide proof.

He's a complete waste of time. People this stupid are only good to be laughed at. Total idiot.