De-Regulation Leads to Banking Crises

[Ravi]

like you're only bored once a year

But seriously though, where do you get your news from then?

Why here, of course. Where do you get yours?

NPR
Miami Herald
Internet

And I will say that often, quite often, all of them get it wrong. Which is why we should thank Al Gore for his great invention. It has become easy to confirm news articles. Sadly, most people don't seem to bother.

 

[Paulie]

I occasionally watch MSM. Mostly I get news online. Lately I prefer not to get current events because I'm just so tired of bad news. I mostly follow financial news to keep up with my current and future prospective investments. Not much changes on the domestic front otherwise, it's just same shit different day.

I watch MSM mostly because I believe almost nothing that they report, so I feel like I can get a good idea where financials will REALLY be moving based on what the MSM is lying to us about. Seems to work pretty well for me. I have a general idea of what's going to happen over the next 10 years, but some of it is based on my paranoid side.

And yeah, I get news here too. This is the only board I post at, besides the Ron Paul board every once in a while. Between there and here, I can get some good information.

 

[Zoomie1980]

I occasionally watch MSM. Mostly I get news online. Lately I prefer not to get current events because I'm just so tired of bad news. I mostly follow financial news to keep up with my current and future prospective investments. Not much changes on the domestic front otherwise, it's just same shit different day.

I watch MSM mostly because I believe almost nothing that they report, so I feel like I can get a good idea where financials will REALLY be moving based on what the MSM is lying to us about. Seems to work pretty well for me. I have a general idea of what's going to happen over the next 10 years, but some of it is based on my paranoid side.

And yeah, I get news here too. This is the only board I post at, besides the Ron Paul board every once in a while. Between there and here, I can get some good information.

I get my news from the sanitized version of the daily Defense Intelligence Report from my buddies in USSTRATCOM....

 

[Cardboard]

By which you mean that every dollar lent should be backed by something at the bank?

If that's what you mean, I think it would literally crush the economy and send this country into riots because the amount of credit that would need to be taken out of the economy would be astronomical.

Fractional reserve banking essentially creates money though, albeit "debt money". The reserve requirement ratio exists as part of an effort to protect the banks and borrowers, by forcing the banks to keep an amount of capital. If there were no such thing as federal reserve banking, the banks would have been much worse off, because they probably wouldn't have had even the 10% capital that is required by the Fed.

 

[elvis]

What about the fact that the dollar is no longer backed by gold? This was changed in the early 70's.

 

[Cardboard]

I didn't say the Democrats "caused" the financial crisis, I said "I’m convinced that the Democratic party was the primary cause of our current banking crisis...". There are probably very few, if any, members of congress who do not share in the responsibility for our current banking/financial crisis. Nevertheless, collectively, they choose to ignore the warnings of the Administration.

If that 124 page PDF document is a Liberal presentation of the (so called) facts, your right, I would most likely disagree with it.

The Democratic party had little to do with the financial meltdown. The banks failed because of the high risk mortgages that they lent. Investors bought mortgage backed securities and credit default swaps, which is essentially an insurance policy on their securities. Because these were labeled as swaps, they escaped the regulation of the insurance industry, which would have required the banks to have kept 10% of the capital they lent out. Thus, after the housing crisis led to more people defaulting on their mortgages, the mortgage backed securities began to fail, and the investors rushed to the banks in order to receive payment on their credit default swap, but the banks didn't have the capital they needed, thus they fell. That really has little to do with either political party for that matter. Regulation was in place, but the banks exploited a loophole in the system.

 

[Zoomie1980]

The Democratic party had little to do with the financial meltdown. The banks failed because of the high risk mortgages that they lent. Investors bought mortgage backed securities and credit default swaps, which is essentially an insurance policy on their securities. Because these were labeled as swaps, they escaped the regulation of the insurance industry, which would have required the banks to have kept 10% of the capital they lent out. Thus, after the housing crisis led to more people defaulting on their mortgages, the mortgage backed securities began to fail, and the investors rushed to the banks in order to receive payment on their credit default swap, but the banks didn't have the capital they needed, thus they fell. That really has little to do with either political party for that matter. Regulation was in place, but the banks exploited a loophole in the system.

I don't think in their wildest dreams Federal regulators ever thought what, for most of our 230+ year history and for much of the past 500 years of world history, was a very risk-AVERSE industry, banking, take on such incredible levels of risk. They kind of depended on a conservative culture to self-police without realizing that culture, at least on Wall St., had largely died years ago....

Thankfully for many Americans, their local, main street state banks and credit unions retain that culture. They might have lent some money to people they shouldn't have, but they dumped those mortgages to the big Wall St. firms as fast as they could write them....thus slufing off most of the risk