noam chomsky vs milton friedman

[bripat9643]

The claim that deregulation caused it is beyond ludicrous.

The liberal loves to pretend Fed Fanny Freddie FHA SEC Credit Reporting, CRA, VA etc etc were not examples of excessive and thorough regulation!!

"The big event that drove the drove the monetary bubble being created by the Fed into the housing market was a decision made by the Clnton Administration in Sept of 1999, Bill Clinton put teeth into and his political power behind the goal of Fred/ Fan having at least 50% of their loan portfolios in affordable housing( sub prime) loans." John Allison

Yep. When banks do exactly what the feds tell them to do and it blows up in their faces, that's caused by deregulation!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The claim that deregulation caused it is beyond ludicrous.

The liberal loves to pretend Fed Fanny Freddie FHA SEC Credit Reporting, CRA, VA etc etc were not examples of excessive and thorough regulation!!

"The big event that drove the drove the monetary bubble being created by the Fed into the housing market was a decision made by the Clnton Administration in Sept of 1999, Bill Clinton put teeth into and his political power behind the goal of Fred/ Fan having at least 50% of their loan portfolios in affordable housing( sub prime) loans." John Allison

Yep. When banks do exactly what the feds tell them to do and it blows up in their faces, that's caused by deregulation!

the way the libcommie has a childlike faith in regulation even after the USSR and Red China killed 150 million is hard to comprehend.

 

[Andylusion]

. So, they don't want recessions, even while they are voting for policies that help to create them.

So then why so afriad to name a Republican policy that creates recessions. What does your fear teach you?

I've already pointed to Republican obstruction of economic recovery to end recessions. I'll also point out that deregulation caused the last three recessions. Deregulation is a conservative approach I politics, that promises economic growth, but lowered economic growth in the median and long terms.

You seem to love "pointing out" things that aren't true. Deregulation never caused a recession in the history of recessions. The libturd claim that banking was "deregulated" is too absurd for words. There are something like 180 government agencies regulating banks.

First, the teeth were taken out of regulators with just a few changes to law, including Glass-Steagall repeal, and the wall between commercial and investment banking being taken down. The deregulation that caused the problems was also in rules on how capital could cross national borders.
Is the Federal Reserve breeding the next financial crisis vox

You are just flat out wrong. There was no deregulation. Banks were forced to make bad loans by the government. Banks were given incentives to make bad loans by the government.

Banks didn't make bad loans because of deregulation. They made bad loans because government sued and incentivised them too.

Glass Steagall didn't prevent banks from making those loans. The most obvious evidence of this..... is that sub-prime loans were taking off before the repeal.

The sub-prime loan, and the price bubble started in 1997. The Glass Steagall Act (GSA) repeal didn't happen until 1999.

Further, the second problem is, GSA didn't prevent the vast majority of the banks that failed.... from doing anything.

Remember, the primary 'regulation' was the prevention of Retail, Investment, and Commercial banks, and insurance companies from being merged.

Bear Stearns was only an investment bank. GSA would have done nothing.
Lehman Brothers was only an investment bank. GSA would have done nothing.
Wachovia was only a retail bank. GSA would have done nothing.
AIG was only an insurance company. GSA would have done nothing.
Countrywide was only a retail bank. GSA would have done nothing.

GSA would have prevented ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Only a tiny hand full of the banks that crash would have even been affected.

Moreover, if the GSA would have prevented the crash, then why did that crash originate here, instead of Europe or the rest of the world?

Europe has NEVER HAD a GSA like regulation, nor Canada, nor Japan, nor the rest of Asia. In fact, we're the only country in the world that has ever had a GSA like regulation.

Yet the crash started here, not anywhere else? This only makes sense in leftard land, where nothing has to be logical.

Lastly, it was exactly through the allowing of merging between bank types, that the government used to 'save' the economy.

If you really think that the repeal of GSA caused all the problems.... then you should be most angry with Obama. Obama used the repeal of GSA in the 'fix' for the economy.

Bank of America, bought out Countrywide Financial and Merrill Lynch. Both illegal under GSA.
JP Morgan Chase, bought out WaMu and Bear Stearns. Both illegal under GSA.
Wells Fargo bought out Wachovia. Illegal under GSA.

And there are hundreds of others.

The very thing that you claim caused the crash, not only had nothing to do with it, but was in fact the very thing that Obama used to "save" the system.

 

[Andylusion]

It wasn't subprime. It was a grade below prime. This is why conservatives are so ignorant. They read this stuff without investigating the facts and believe it like the easily led tools they are.
7 Things You Need to Know About Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Center for American Progress

Really......
Unbelievable. See this is how I know that leftists are absolute neanderthalic creatures, incapable of rational thought.

"It wasn't subprime. It was a grade below prime."

It wasn't.... sub-prime.... it was a grade below.... prime.

Can you not read your own writing, and see what a idiotic fool you just made of yourself? Every single intelligent person on this thread, which read that line is laughing their butt off right now.

It was not sub-prime...... no... it was a grade BELOW the Prime rate. A grade below prime. Below prime...... like sub...... prime....

Hey Forest Gump.... What do you think "SUB - PRIME" means???

How are people like you even able to turn on a computer, without hurting yourself? Do you have like a 8 year old girl to help you get on here and post?

It's posts like this, that make me think talking to you is a waste of time. When you say "It wasn't sub-prime.. it was a grade below prime".... and not realize how mindless that is.... then obviously you are not going to grasp any other discussion we have with you.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Liberal:the repeal of GSA caused all the problems....

Conservative: how?

Liberal: Honestly, I have no idea its just something Marxists taught me to parrot.

 

[Shanty]

. There was no deregulation. That's just flat out a lie.

yes the Fed was more active than ever in printing money to make it possible to buy and bid up prices of homes without which the crisis would have been 100 impossible!! Liberals don't kow what Fed is so cant understand.

Fanny Freddie were created to control entire market to get people into homes free market said they could not afford. This was cause but liberals lack IQ to understand it so alway revert back to their Marxist anti-business roots to cover their pure ignorance.

You're completely off your rocker, dude.
The Treasury Department prints money.
Fannie and Freddie being blamed is completely wrong. Subprime loans were made by mortgage companies, led by CEOs who were getting paid bonuses for the extra business they saw under their leadership, but never vetting the people they were loaning to. That was completely an overreach of Wall Street.

 

[Shanty]

It wasn't subprime.

Fannie and Freddie bought 25.2% of the record $272.81 billion in subprime MBS [mortgage-backed securities] sold in the first half of 2006, according to Inside Mortgage Finance Publications, a Bethesda, MD-based publisher that covers the home loan industry.

In 2005, Fannie and Freddie purchased 35.3% of all subprime MBS

More importantly Fanny Freddie controlled whole market by taking best mortgages and forces worst mortgages on private industry!!

See why we say pure ignorance?

you say pure ignorance because that's what you promote as your ideology. It wasn't subprime. It was a grade below prime. By law, Fannie and Freddie are not allowed to back subprime loans, as those loans are made to people with credit ratings below 640. You're barking up the wrong tree.

Wall Street didn't have to get in on those "worst mortgages" at all. No one twisted their arms to make bad business decisions. You're blaming government for not stopping CEOs from being stupid? You're a real communist, ya know?

 

[Shanty]

During the bubble, loan originators backed by Wall Street capital began operating beyond the Fannie and Freddie system

why?? Because Fanny Freddie took all the good loans first!!

Moron liberal defeats himself without even knowing it!!

You're the only moron beating off, jagoff.

 

[Shanty]

I asked, because highways create opportunities for wealth and job creation..

dear everyone wants roads. So what??

So, infrastructure spent for with government funding has created opportunities for wealth creation. No movement of people and goods, smaller economy.

Even if that were true, 95% of the budget is spent on providing sustenance for ticks on the ass of society. It doesn't create wealth. It consumes wealth.

Not really. Look at regulations. Most of them are common sense approaches that keep the economy from losing billions and trillions of dollars from the economy. In the case of the housing bubble, we saw lenders take advantage of deregulated, and unregulated aspects of the mortgage markets. Then saw large salaries and bonuses for the executives of the lending companies that weren't commensurate with the longer term performance of the loans they made.
https://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/v105/n3/1205/LR105n3Tung.pdf

Even if you could argue that regulations increased the productivity of the economy, which no one can, the cost of enforcing them is only a small fraction of the budget. Most of the budget is spent issuing checks to ticks on the ass of society. That doesn't improve our productivity one iota. In fact it causes drastic decreases in our producitivity.

BTW, government regulations caused the housing bubble. The claim that deregulation caused it is beyond ludicrous.

The government does quite a few things. The biggest discretionary cost we have is the military. The two non-discretionary big ticket items are SS and Medicare, which have extremely low administrative costs.

There weren't any regulations that promoted the housing bubble.

 

[Shanty]

. So, they don't want recessions, even while they are voting for policies that help to create them.

So then why so afriad to name a Republican policy that creates recessions. What does your fear teach you?

I've already pointed to Republican obstruction of economic recovery to end recessions. I'll also point out that deregulation caused the last three recessions. Deregulation is a conservative approach I politics, that promises economic growth, but lowered economic growth in the median and long terms.

You seem to love "pointing out" things that aren't true. Deregulation never caused a recession in the history of recessions. The libturd claim that banking was "deregulated" is too absurd for words. There are something like 180 government agencies regulating banks.

First, the teeth were taken out of regulators with just a few changes to law, including Glass-Steagall repeal, and the wall between commercial and investment banking being taken down. The deregulation that caused the problems was also in rules on how capital could cross national borders.
Is the Federal Reserve breeding the next financial crisis vox

You are just flat out wrong. There was no deregulation. Banks were forced to make bad loans by the government. Banks were given incentives to make bad loans by the government.

Banks didn't make bad loans because of deregulation. They made bad loans because government sued and incentivised them too.

Glass Steagall didn't prevent banks from making those loans. The most obvious evidence of this..... is that sub-prime loans were taking off before the repeal.

The sub-prime loan, and the price bubble started in 1997. The Glass Steagall Act (GSA) repeal didn't happen until 1999.

Further, the second problem is, GSA didn't prevent the vast majority of the banks that failed.... from doing anything.

Remember, the primary 'regulation' was the prevention of Retail, Investment, and Commercial banks, and insurance companies from being merged.

Bear Stearns was only an investment bank. GSA would have done nothing.
Lehman Brothers was only an investment bank. GSA would have done nothing.
Wachovia was only a retail bank. GSA would have done nothing.
AIG was only an insurance company. GSA would have done nothing.
Countrywide was only a retail bank. GSA would have done nothing.

GSA would have prevented ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Only a tiny hand full of the banks that crash would have even been affected.

Moreover, if the GSA would have prevented the crash, then why did that crash originate here, instead of Europe or the rest of the world?

Europe has NEVER HAD a GSA like regulation, nor Canada, nor Japan, nor the rest of Asia. In fact, we're the only country in the world that has ever had a GSA like regulation.

Yet the crash started here, not anywhere else? This only makes sense in leftard land, where nothing has to be logical.

Lastly, it was exactly through the allowing of merging between bank types, that the government used to 'save' the economy.

If you really think that the repeal of GSA caused all the problems.... then you should be most angry with Obama. Obama used the repeal of GSA in the 'fix' for the economy.

Bank of America, bought out Countrywide Financial and Merrill Lynch. Both illegal under GSA.
JP Morgan Chase, bought out WaMu and Bear Stearns. Both illegal under GSA.
Wells Fargo bought out Wachovia. Illegal under GSA.

And there are hundreds of others.

The very thing that you claim caused the crash, not only had nothing to do with it, but was in fact the very thing that Obama used to "save" the system.

No banks or mortgage companies were forced to make subprime loans. Wall Street got into the market, because it was less regulated than the loans that tra

. So, they don't want recessions, even while they are voting for policies that help to create them.

So then why so afriad to name a Republican policy that creates recessions. What does your fear teach you?

I've already pointed to Republican obstruction of economic recovery to end recessions. I'll also point out that deregulation caused the last three recessions. Deregulation is a conservative approach I politics, that promises economic growth, but lowered economic growth in the median and long terms.

You seem to love "pointing out" things that aren't true. Deregulation never caused a recession in the history of recessions. The libturd claim that banking was "deregulated" is too absurd for words. There are something like 180 government agencies regulating banks.

First, the teeth were taken out of regulators with just a few changes to law, including Glass-Steagall repeal, and the wall between commercial and investment banking being taken down. The deregulation that caused the problems was also in rules on how capital could cross national borders.
Is the Federal Reserve breeding the next financial crisis vox

You are just flat out wrong. There was no deregulation. Banks were forced to make bad loans by the government. Banks were given incentives to make bad loans by the government.

Banks didn't make bad loans because of deregulation. They made bad loans because government sued and incentivised them too.

Glass Steagall didn't prevent banks from making those loans. The most obvious evidence of this..... is that sub-prime loans were taking off before the repeal.

The sub-prime loan, and the price bubble started in 1997. The Glass Steagall Act (GSA) repeal didn't happen until 1999.

Further, the second problem is, GSA didn't prevent the vast majority of the banks that failed.... from doing anything.

Remember, the primary 'regulation' was the prevention of Retail, Investment, and Commercial banks, and insurance companies from being merged.

Bear Stearns was only an investment bank. GSA would have done nothing.
Lehman Brothers was only an investment bank. GSA would have done nothing.
Wachovia was only a retail bank. GSA would have done nothing.
AIG was only an insurance company. GSA would have done nothing.
Countrywide was only a retail bank. GSA would have done nothing.

GSA would have prevented ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Only a tiny hand full of the banks that crash would have even been affected.

Moreover, if the GSA would have prevented the crash, then why did that crash originate here, instead of Europe or the rest of the world?

Europe has NEVER HAD a GSA like regulation, nor Canada, nor Japan, nor the rest of Asia. In fact, we're the only country in the world that has ever had a GSA like regulation.

Yet the crash started here, not anywhere else? This only makes sense in leftard land, where nothing has to be logical.

Lastly, it was exactly through the allowing of merging between bank types, that the government used to 'save' the economy.

If you really think that the repeal of GSA caused all the problems.... then you should be most angry with Obama. Obama used the repeal of GSA in the 'fix' for the economy.

Bank of America, bought out Countrywide Financial and Merrill Lynch. Both illegal under GSA.
JP Morgan Chase, bought out WaMu and Bear Stearns. Both illegal under GSA.
Wells Fargo bought out Wachovia. Illegal under GSA.

And there are hundreds of others.

The very thing that you claim caused the crash, not only had nothing to do with it, but was in fact the very thing that Obama used to "save" the system.

first, lets dispense with the nonsense that lenders were forced to make bad loans. That's complete bullshit. Let's throw in some facts showing how wrong the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and CRA claims made by the right are horseshit, too.
Economist s View It Wasn t Fannie Freddie or the CRA

It wasn't subprime. It was a grade below prime. This is why conservatives are so ignorant. They read this stuff without investigating the facts and believe it like the easily led tools they are.
7 Things You Need to Know About Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Center for American Progress

Really......
Unbelievable. See this is how I know that leftists are absolute neanderthalic creatures, incapable of rational thought.

"It wasn't subprime. It was a grade below prime."

It wasn't.... sub-prime.... it was a grade below.... prime.

Can you not read your own writing, and see what a idiotic fool you just made of yourself? Every single intelligent person on this thread, which read that line is laughing their butt off right now.

It was not sub-prime...... no... it was a grade BELOW the Prime rate. A grade below prime. Below prime...... like sub...... prime....

Hey Forest Gump.... What do you think "SUB - PRIME" means???

How are people like you even able to turn on a computer, without hurting yourself? Do you have like a 8 year old girl to help you get on here and post?

It's posts like this, that make me think talking to you is a waste of time. When you say "It wasn't sub-prime.. it was a grade below prime".... and not realize how mindless that is.... then obviously you are not going to grasp any other discussion we have with you.

Subprime, as everyone talks about it in finance, are loans made to people who have credit scores below 640. Fannie and Freddie are barred from underwriting those loans. Those subprime loans that blew up were underwritten by Wall Street. Wall Street wasn't forced to make any bad loans. Wall Street saw a way for more loans to be made, hoping that the subprime they jumped into wouldn't blow up in their faces. Then they packaged bad loans into MBSs, and got the blessing of the credit agencies. There's not a single reg you can point to that made them take on bad loans.

Talking to me is a waste of time for you because you are bringing in right wing talking points without you understanding the logical fallacies it takes to believe in them. I don't are if you're fact averse. Put me on ignore if you feel your arguments are destroyed so badly. You're asking me to give credence to demonstrably false right wing but talking points. **** that. If it isn't fact based, I can respect it's your opinion, while not respecting the opinion itself, as you're basing into false information.

Let's not forget that Fannie and Freddie had some accounting scandals early in the 2000s, and retreated from the housing markets, and saw Wall Street take on some of the better loans. And look at the contradiction you're in. You're saying that the GSEs took on underwriting good loans, then are griping that Wall Street, of their own volition, took on bad loans in MBSs they created.

As an aside, this new quote function sucks.

 

[Unkotare]

Wow, is this 'shanty' clown still here making a fool of himself? Talk about a mindless, partisan drone...

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. And look at the contradiction you're in. .

dear, the banana market did not crash!! The housing market did because soviet liberals interfered with the free market 129 different ways starting with printing the money for it!!

The USSR, Red China, and East Germany would have succeeded if only they had the right regulations!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Fannie and Freddie are barred from underwriting those loans.

yes they had cheaper money thanks to liberal GSE status so got all the best loans forcing the others to take more and more of the lower quality loans.

 

[Andylusion]

. There was no deregulation. That's just flat out a lie.

yes the Fed was more active than ever in printing money to make it possible to buy and bid up prices of homes without which the crisis would have been 100 impossible!! Liberals don't kow what Fed is so cant understand.

Fanny Freddie were created to control entire market to get people into homes free market said they could not afford. This was cause but liberals lack IQ to understand it so alway revert back to their Marxist anti-business roots to cover their pure ignorance.

You're completely off your rocker, dude.
The Treasury Department prints money.
Fannie and Freddie being blamed is completely wrong. Subprime loans were made by mortgage companies, led by CEOs who were getting paid bonuses for the extra business they saw under their leadership, but never vetting the people they were loaning to. That was completely an overreach of Wall Street.

Again... Sub-prime loans have existed for decades before the boom and crash. What changed? What caused the banks to think sub-prime loans were safe?

Freddie Guaranteed sub-prime loans. That shifted the market.

Freddie and Fannie were both heavily involved in sub-prime loans. Alt-A loans, are sub-prime loans. CRA loans, are sub-prime loans.

You don't seem to grasp this. Once the GSEs gave their stamp of approval on loans that did not meet Prime-rate guidelines, then the rest of the market followed.

 

[Andylusion]

you say pure ignorance because that's what you promote as your ideology. It wasn't subprime. It was a grade below prime. By law, Fannie and Freddie are not allowed to back subprime loans, as those loans are made to people with credit ratings below 640. You're barking up the wrong tree.

Wall Street didn't have to get in on those "worst mortgages" at all. No one twisted their arms to make bad business decisions. You're blaming government for not stopping CEOs from being stupid? You're a real communist, ya know?

You are so dumb, you can't think outside the leftist dogma. All grades below prime, by definition.... are sub-prime.

Further, the fact that Fannie and Freddie owned loans they themselves called 'sub-prime' indicates apparently your CRAP about them not being able to back them legally, is unsupportable.

You people are so blind and dumb, it's amazing you can still breath without a machine.

The Last Trillion-Dollar Commitment - Economics - AEI

The AEI, citing a report by Fannie Mae itself.

There are few data available publicly on the dollar amount of junk loans held by the GSEs in 2004, but according to their own reports, GSE purchases of these mortgages and MBS increased substantially between 2005 and 2007. Subprime and Alt-A purchases during this period were a higher share of total purchases than in previous years. For example, Fannie reported that mortgages and MBS of all types originated in 2005–2007 comprised 49.8 percent of its overall book of single-family mortgages, which includes both mortgages and MBS retained in their portfolio as well as mortgages they securitized and guaranteed. But the percentage of mortgages with subprime characteristics purchased during this period consistently exceeded 49.8 percent, demonstrating that Fannie was substantially increasing its reliance on junk loans between 2005 and 2007. For example, in its 10-Q Investor Summary report for the quarter ended June 30, 2008, Fannie reported that mortgages with subprime characteristics comprised substantial percentages of all 2005–2007 mortgages the company acquired, as shown in table 1. Based on these figures, it is likely that as much as 40 percent of the mortgages that Fannie Mae added to its single-family book of business during 2005–2007 were junk loans.

http://www.aei.org/files/2008/09/30/20081001_FSOTable1.gif

Negative Amortization. When the loan monthly payment is lower than the amount of interest charged. So the borrower is getting deeper in debt every single month.

62% of Fannie Mae purchased or guaranteed loans were of this nature.

Interest only, where the borrower is paying monthly payments, but only on the interest, this they are never paying down the debt.

83% of loans purchased had this.

FICO less than 620. Clearly an unqualified buyer. 57% had this.

LTV, greater than 90%. Meaning the amount of money borrowed was more than 90% of the value of the house.

Alt-A. Low-doc, no-doc loans.

All of these are Sub-prime loans.

A massive chunk of Fannie and Freddie's loans, were sub-prime. There is no way, short of absolute stupidity, someone can say Fannie and Freddie were prevented by law, from getting millions of loans that they in fact got.

 

[Andylusion]

During the bubble, loan originators backed by Wall Street capital began operating beyond the Fannie and Freddie system

why?? Because Fanny Freddie took all the good loans first!!

Moron liberal defeats himself without even knowing it!!

You're the only moron beating off, jagoff.

You have proven yourself too stupid to even talk on this forum, let alone accuse others of being morons. Glass house dude.

 

[Andylusion]

I asked, because highways create opportunities for wealth and job creation..

dear everyone wants roads. So what??

So, infrastructure spent for with government funding has created opportunities for wealth creation. No movement of people and goods, smaller economy.

Even if that were true, 95% of the budget is spent on providing sustenance for ticks on the ass of society. It doesn't create wealth. It consumes wealth.

Not really. Look at regulations. Most of them are common sense approaches that keep the economy from losing billions and trillions of dollars from the economy. In the case of the housing bubble, we saw lenders take advantage of deregulated, and unregulated aspects of the mortgage markets. Then saw large salaries and bonuses for the executives of the lending companies that weren't commensurate with the longer term performance of the loans they made.
https://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/v105/n3/1205/LR105n3Tung.pdf

Even if you could argue that regulations increased the productivity of the economy, which no one can, the cost of enforcing them is only a small fraction of the budget. Most of the budget is spent issuing checks to ticks on the ass of society. That doesn't improve our productivity one iota. In fact it causes drastic decreases in our producitivity.

BTW, government regulations caused the housing bubble. The claim that deregulation caused it is beyond ludicrous.

The government does quite a few things. The biggest discretionary cost we have is the military. The two non-discretionary big ticket items are SS and Medicare, which have extremely low administrative costs.

There weren't any regulations that promoted the housing bubble.

Other than the CRA, and the administration directly suing banks to make bad loans. But other than those two economy directing actions, you are right.

 

[elektra]

Noam Chomsky, a lousy soul.

http://www.wernercohn.com/Chomsky.html

In March of 1989, not long after the appearance of the first edition of this book, A. M. Rosenthal of the New York Times wrote a column to mark the tenth anniversary of the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty. The column was generally favorable to Israel, although he also chided Israel for what he called its "historical error the refusal to recognize the reality of the Palestinian people and passion."

One of Rosenthal's points was that Jordan is a Palestinian state (Jordan's territory is situated in the original British mandate of Palestine), and Rosenthal opposed the creation of a second Palestinian state in this territory. This was enough to once again provoke Noam Chomsky's legendary bile. He wrote:

We might ask how the Times would react to an Arab claim that the Jews do not merit a 'second homeland' because they already have New York, with a huge Jewish population, Jewish-run media, a Jewish mayor, and domination of cultural and economic life. (1)

As it happened, Rosenthal did not use either the words or the concept of a "second homeland." Nonetheless, Chomsky saw fit to put these words between quotation marks to attribute them to Rosenthal. Chomsky habitually, as we shall see in the body of this book, misrepresents the writings of others. But let that pass for the moment.

What is actually most noteworthy in this passage is Chomsky's unpleasant tone about the Jews of New York and the fact that his malice does not conform to familiar "anti-Zionist" left-wing doctrines. Chomsky's target here is very simply Jews, without any pretense whatever about being "anti-Zionist-but-not-anti-Semitic."

When Chomsky wrote these words, there was indeed a Jewish mayor in New York, and a large Jewish population. There were Jews in the media on all levels. There were also many Jews in cultural and economic pursuits in New York. These facts are not in dispute.

But what are "Jewish-run media?" What is meant by a Jewish "domination of cultural and economic life?" These hateful expressions are staples of traditional anti-Semitism. They suggest that Jews do not act as individuals but only as agents of a larger Jewish cabal. The anti-Semitic propagandist says that Jewish artists and business men and journalists do not pursue such professions as other men would. No, to him such Jewish men and women are "running" the media, "dominating" culture and the economy, all in their capacity as Jews, all for the sake of a Jewish design.

But wait a minute. Is it Chomsky himself who makes these anti-Semitic allegations? Or is it some unnamed anti-Semitic Arab? Chomsky does not say. Nor is he explicit, assuming that it isn't he but rather his hypothetical Arab who is speaking, in telling us whether he would regard the accusations as justified.

But what he fails to do explicitly he does by indirection. By mixing legitimate facts with allegations of "running" media and "dominating" culture, all in the same sentence and in the same tone, he endorses and justifies the anti-Semitic assertions. And he does all this without taking direct responsibility. Chomsky, as always, is what is the word clever.

Actually we have here a fine example of the well-known Chomskyan method of devious ambiguity. He says the anti-Semitic thing by very clear implication, and then, with the wink of complicity to his neo-Nazi following that we shall encounter again, there is a built-in explanation of it all to his left-wing following: it is not I who would ever say such a thing, not I at all, but how can I help it if an oppressed Arab makes such interesting observations

just saying, chomsky is an idiot

 

[bripat9643]

. There was no deregulation. That's just flat out a lie.

yes the Fed was more active than ever in printing money to make it possible to buy and bid up prices of homes without which the crisis would have been 100 impossible!! Liberals don't kow what Fed is so cant understand.

Fanny Freddie were created to control entire market to get people into homes free market said they could not afford. This was cause but liberals lack IQ to understand it so alway revert back to their Marxist anti-business roots to cover their pure ignorance.

You're completely off your rocker, dude.
The Treasury Department prints money.
Fannie and Freddie being blamed is completely wrong. Subprime loans were made by mortgage companies, led by CEOs who were getting paid bonuses for the extra business they saw under their leadership, but never vetting the people they were loaning to. That was completely an overreach of Wall Street.

Again... Sub-prime loans have existed for decades before the boom and crash. What changed? What caused the banks to think sub-prime loans were safe?

Freddie Guaranteed sub-prime loans. That shifted the market.

Freddie and Fannie were both heavily involved in sub-prime loans. Alt-A loans, are sub-prime loans. CRA loans, are sub-prime loans.

You don't seem to grasp this. Once the GSEs gave their stamp of approval on loans that did not meet Prime-rate guidelines, then the rest of the market followed.

The liberal agenda depends on blaming private banks for the sub-prime debacle. You don't actually believe they are going to concede facts that point the finger at government, do you? Pretending they don't get it is part of their strategy.

 

[Andylusion]

first, lets dispense with the nonsense that lenders were forced to make bad loans.

To recap... Andrew Cuomo, openly says that the Clinton Administration's lawsuit is forcing the bank to make loans to people who, in Cuomo's own words "would not have qualified otherwise", and also openly admits "a higher risk, and I'm sure a higher default rate".

Equally, ACORN and other community groups did in fact sue banks to lower lending standards. The lawsuit at 6:30 into the clip, is real, and I have looked it up. Obama's name is on the suit, and the agree was in fact that Citibank would increase loans to low and moderate income people who otherwise didn't qualify.

So in other words... government did force banks to make bad loans. And community groups, which included Obama himself, did use government regulations to push bad loans.

Fact trumps your opinion.

Subprime, as everyone talks about it in finance, are loans made to people who have credit scores below 640. Fannie and Freddie are barred from underwriting those loans. Those subprime loans that blew up were underwritten by Wall Street. Wall Street wasn't forced to make any bad loans. Wall Street saw a way for more loans to be made, hoping that the subprime they jumped into wouldn't blow up in their faces. Then they packaged bad loans into MBSs, and got the blessing of the credit agencies. There's not a single reg you can point to that made them take on bad loans.

I just posted direct proof that Fannie and Freddie both, securitized, and purchased, loans with credit scores below 640.

Second, I just posted above, that the government was directly suing banks to lower landing standards.

Sub-prime, is any loan that doesn't qualify for the prime rate. By definition, if is a loan that is a 'grade below prime', it is in fact a sub-prime loan.

The whole reason Fannie and Freddie created this super special category of "a notch just below the prime", which I think Franklin Raines, the account book cooker of Clinton's picking, said in congressional testimony.... they whole reason he made up that crap, was because he knew there would be hordes of mindless baboons, like you, which would parrot the party line for the rest of time, no matter how much people smacked you around with the truth.

All sub-prime loans, whether they were Alt-A, or CRA loans, or any other non-prime loans, all of them had much higher default, and much higher delinquency. Those facts, trump your opinion, and the opinion of whatever egg head you cite.

Let's not forget that Fannie and Freddie had some accounting scandals early in the 2000s, and retreated from the housing markets, and saw Wall Street take on some of the better loans. And look at the contradiction you're in. You're saying that the GSEs took on underwriting good loans, then are griping that Wall Street, of their own volition, took on bad loans in MBSs they created.

Once a bubble is created, the market is going to push that bubble until it pops. The moment the GSEs ligitimized the market, and the market shot off, there was nothing they were going to do 6 years later to stop it.