Republicans so worried about the debt, yet they cause most of it.

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm not whining about bank mergers, liberals are. Waaahhh too big to fail. DURR.

You said that the regulations in Dodd-Frank were going to cause big banks to merge and acquire smaller ones. Well, that was happening prior to Dodd-Frank.
So your argument that Dodd-Frank causes it is bullshit.

Nope.I want people to realize that excessive regulations harm small and medium sized banks more than huge banks.

But that's not what you said before. We can certainly debate the effects on small and medium banks, but nothing Dodd-Frank did causes bigger banks to buy up and merge with smaller ones. And we wanted to break up the banks following the Bush Collapse. You all opposed that completely.

You said that the regulations in Dodd-Frank were going to cause big banks to merge and acquire smaller ones.

Yes. The added expanse of these idiotic regulations has driven/will continue to drive smaller banks to merge or be acquired by larger banks.

And then liberal idiots will point to fewer larger banks and ask "how could we let this happen?". It's hilarious.

Well, that was happening prior to Dodd-Frank.

Absolutely. And now it will happen more/faster.

So your argument that Dodd-Frank causes it is bullshit.

Look around. I didn't come up with the argument. It's out there. Educate yourself.

nothing Dodd-Frank did causes bigger banks to buy up and merge with smaller ones.

If a regulation costs $1 million to satisfy, the bank that makes $2 million a year is harmed more than the bank that earns $200 million a year.
It's commonsense.......which explains why you don't get it.

And we wanted to break up the banks following the Bush Collapse.

And then you implemented rules and regulations that had the opposite effect. Good job!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Self-regulation isn't mentioned even once.

So now you're off the deep end in this. Clearly, the three statements I quoted all reference the self-regulation that was put in place after that April 2004 meeting. You're just denying them now for your own egotistical purposes.

1. In loosening the capital rules, which are supposed to provide a buffer in turbulent times,
the agency also decided to rely on the firms’ own computer models for determining the riskiness of investments, essentially outsourcing the job of monitoring risk to the banks themselves. <-----SELF -REGULATION
...

2. The commission’s decision effectively to ****outsource its oversight to the firms themselves****(<-----SELF-REGULATION) fit squarely in the broader Washington culture of the last eight years under President Bush.
...
3. “It’s a fair criticism of the Bush administration that regulators have relied on many voluntary regulatory programs,” said Roderick M. Hills, a Republican who was chairman of the S.E.C. under President Gerald R. Ford. “The problem with such voluntary programs is that, as we’ve seen throughout history, they often don’t work.” Voluntary programs = self regulation.​

So now we're in the Conservative world of words not meaning what they mean. Where critical thinking is absent and reactionary thinking is all that remains.

You're now taking the sophist position that unless the words are specifically arranged in that order, then it isn't true. But all that does is reveal to everyone that you lack critical thinking skills.

So why are you pretending to be dumb? Or is this just who you are as a person?

That's a big change from your original claims, "they eliminated capital requirements" and "they self regulate".
Lift with your knees when you move those goalposts.

PROJECTION ALERT! So now what you're doing is projecting on me, which is another tactic of a sophist. You're projecting your own pathetic ever-changing positions for no other reason than to protect your fragile ego.

the agency also decided to rely on the firms’ own computer models for determining the riskiness of investments, essentially outsourcing the job of monitoring risk to the banks themselves.​

Tell me what you think that phrase means if not that regulators deferred to the banks to determine what levels of capitalization was comfortable for them. WHICH IS WHAT SELF-REGULATION IS.

Here's a helpful bit of advice for you; if you're going to go to those shameless lengths, just kill yourself. Because that type of shiity behavior is indicative of someone so mentally unbalanced and fragile, that the simplest thing can propel them to take a gun and shoot up a crowd of innocent people because you feel humiliated and impotent. If you're projecting your own shitty issues on me, then we're done here. Grow up or kill yourself. I don't care which.

In loosening the capital rules, which are supposed to provide a buffer in turbulent times,

Loosening? LOL!

 

[The Derp]

How many of those do you need to sell to offset truck mileage?

Trucks can have more fuel-efficient engines and get their mileage up too. With the rise of automated trucking comes the inevitable rise of fuel-efficient big rigs. Many (including FedEx) already use clean energy to power their fleet. Public transit too. If we can get better fuel efficiency out of buses, we can get them out of trucks.

No, his work against drilling and fracking was right out there in the open.

So, he cut back leases on federal land, but leases on private land continued unabated, right?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He clearly wanted higher energy prices.

Clearly? According to whom, you!? Well, your credibility is non-existent so why should I take your word for it? What have you done to establish that level of trust and credibility, anyway?

His Energy Secretary wanted $9-$10 gasoline in the US.

When did Chu say that?

Do appoint someone who feels that way if you want lower gas prices? DURR!

Well, since you (predictably) didn't source that claim, I'm sure there's more to it than what you're saying here. Given your habit of deliberately omitting parts of information that undermine your case, you're gonna have to do the hard work of sourcing and then detailing your claim. I doubt you can do it because you would have already. So I think you heard something form someone else, and are just repeating it without bothering to question it yourself. That's the kind of sloppy work you do here.

What do you feel he "did to lower energy costs"?
Any specific law? Any specific regulation?
Or was it his awesome speech, "Let's try all of the above", that lowered costs? LOL!

Whatever you think Obama may or may not have said doesn't matter because energy prices under Obama reached a 20-year low when you claimed that he raised energy prices. You still haven't acknowledged you were wrong about that. So since you were so wrong about your insistence that he raised energy prices, why the **** would you be right about anything else you say?

Clearly? According to whom, you!?

According to his words.
According to his actions.

Well, since you (predictably) didn't source that claim

Steven Chu didn't want that? Are you sure? LOL!

Chu, when he was director of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, told The Wall Street Journal in late 2008, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,” and said he supported gradually increasing gasoline taxes over 15 years to coax consumers into buying more efficient cars.

Chu declined Tuesday to say whether he regretted making the 2008 comments.

“Let me not comment on that,” he said.

Obama energy chief disavows 2008 remark in favor of raising gas prices

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How many of those do you need to sell to offset truck mileage?

Trucks can have more fuel-efficient engines and get their mileage up too. With the rise of automated trucking comes the inevitable rise of fuel-efficient big rigs. Many (including FedEx) already use clean energy to power their fleet. Public transit too. If we can get better fuel efficiency out of buses, we can get them out of trucks.

No, his work against drilling and fracking was right out there in the open.

So, he cut back leases on federal land, but leases on private land continued unabated, right?

So, he cut back leases on federal land, but leases on private land continued unabated, right?

Yup. He didn't have the power to stop American frackers.
That's why his desire for higher prices went unfulfilled.

 

[The Derp]

Didn't help their capital position.

Sure it did! Getting low- or no-interest loans certainly helps the capital position.

Liquidity, not capital. Moron.

Liquidity to do...what?

If the math is too hard for you, substitute your own numbers. Maybe ask an adult?

You're working from the assumption that banks over-leveraged themselves in order to issue more loans. But that's not true. They over-leveraged themselves to buy securities. So why not then buy less securities and issue more loans? Because the securities are what's more profitable. And since the banks aren't held accountable when it comes to issuing loans, they just take the capital used for lending and instead use it to buy securities, which ups their profit margins. So you see, it's not even about lending. It's about having enough capital to make purchases of securities.

So simple solution; cut back on the purchasing of securities and increase the issuing of loans. But that reduces (but doesn't eliminate) a bank's profitability. So there's no incentive for a bank to issue loans if they're going to make more money gambling, is there?

You should prove your claim by finding the actual published rule.

Beyond what was provided to you in the NYT link, I don't know what more you want. It seems to me that you're just looking for any out in this debate.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Loosening? I thought they were eliminated?
Wasn't that your claim? Eliminated?

So this is where critical thinking skills come into play. Clearly you lack those skills. If you replace a capitalization requirement with one that the capitalization is up to the banks to determine, then you've eliminated the capitalization requirement.

All your semantic and pedantic shittiness doesn't change that.

Obama wanted cap and trade. Cap and trade makes energy more expensive.

WRONG! Cap and trade does not make energy more expensive, as we saw since 2009 when the Northeastern states entered into their own cap-and-trade pact, which ended up reducing costs by half a billion, as the study linked there shows and says:

Energy consumers overall – households, businesses, government users, and others – have enjoyed a net gain of $460 million, as their overall energy bills drop over time.​

So another one of your shitty, preconceived notions and "conventional wisdom" is once again dashed and destroyed by facts. Facts I'm sure you will deny in favor of your dogmatic, cult beliefs in Conservative policy.

Was he pushing for regulations to make wind and solar energy more expensive?

Nope. And he wasn't pushing for any forms of energy to be more expensive. As we saw that in 2016 energy prices hit 20-year lows. A fact you simultaneously accept and deny, inexplicably, depending on how your shit argument is faring.

WRONG! Cap and trade does not make energy more expensive, as we saw since 2009 when the Northeastern states entered into their own cap-and-trade pact, which ended up reducing costs by half a billion, as the study linked there shows and says:

Adding this moronic regulation doesn't make energy more expensive? That's funny.

Why did Obama say it would make energy more expensive? Was he wrong? Or are you wrong?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Obama didn't reduce leases? Didn't restrict offshore drilling? Prove it.

Ummm...reducing leases doesn't mean that overall production was reduced. Mostly because it takes years before exploratory drilling and then extraction actually produces crude from the ground. Do you...do you think that as soon as a lease is given drilling starts immediately?! LOL! What a ******* idiot!

So you're insisting that Obama cut production by reducing leases, however production didn't decline by lease reduction. In fact, production didn't decline at all. And since the time between when a lease is issued and when a well starts producing oil could be years, you cannot say that reducing leases on land resulted in reduced production...mostly because production didn't decline under Obama. You're trying to pretend that it did. But you're a liar in that sense.

In fact, the vast majority of the increase in U.S. oil production occurred on private land. On land that the U.S. government controls, it was a different story. The EIA reported in 2015 that while U.S. oil and gas production overall were surging, production of natural gas on federal lands was declining. Oil production is at about the same level as it was during his first year in office

So production on federal lands was declining, but production everywhere else was rising. So then OBAMA DIDN'T REDUCE PRODUCTION, he just reduced production on federal lands. You were trying to represent that it was a reduction of production everywhere, but that wasn't true, was it? So you made a statement, realized it wasn't true, rather than admit you spoke out of turn you decide to redefine the parameters to mean just production from federal lands. So that there is a clear and undeniable goalpost shift on your part. Yes, Obama reduced production on federal lands, however production overall increased and the price per barrel dropped.

So why did you feel the need to alter what the truth was? Simple; you suck, your argument sucks, and you are desperate to have a point land when all your other points haven't.

You think they saved money because of cap-and-trade?
I'd love to see the logic behind that fantasy claim. Never mind, there is no logic.

I don't think it, I KNOW IT. Here's the study showing that the North east saved $460M thanks to Cap-and-Trade.

Energy consumers overall – households, businesses, government users, and others – have enjoyed a net gain of $460 million, as their overall energy bills drop over time.​

Uh-oh, Spaghetti-O's! There's the proof, in black and white, demolishing yet another piece of your stupid "conventional wisdom".

Once again, louder for those in the back:

Energy consumers overall – households, businesses, government users, and others – have enjoyed a net gain of $460 million, as their overall energy bills drop over time.​

Now watch as you pretend words don't mean what they mean.

And one more time, for the folks in the cheap seats:

Energy consumers overall – households, businesses, government users, and others – have enjoyed a net gain of $460 million, as their overall energy bills drop over time.​

p-and-trade, an expensive regulatory mess, lowered their costs or was it fracking?

Wait, so now you're admitting the costs went down? Well, that's another about-face on your part. You just spent the better part of a few posts arguing cap-and-trade increases costs when the reality is that it lowers them. And it's not my conclusion, it's the conclusion from the study of the Northeast's cap-and-trade pact.

Do yourself a favor and get informed. Don't just repeat what your fellow troglodytes say.

Obama's push for higher prices failed. Thanks to frackers.
Just another Obama failure.

LOL! So it's clear now that you're not trying to convince me, but rather you're trying to convince yourself because as more and more facts come in, your position gets weaker and weaker.

I won when Obama failed to make our energy prices higher. You won too, idiot.

Obama never set out to make energy prices higher, and you're only basing that opinion on your questionable interpretation of a questionably-edited clip where Obama was talking about cap-and-trade from 2007.

Ummm...reducing leases doesn't mean that overall production was reduced.

I know. Because he wasn't a dictator. He tried, he failed.

So production on federal lands was declining,

I know, that's why your claim that he deserves credit for increased production is so funny. And wrong.

 

[Spare_change]

Repealing regulations creates/saves jobs ...

Regulations aren't why coal jobs are disappearing. They're disappearing because robots are taking them, natural gas is more plentiful, and extracting coal from the ground is messy, dangerous work that results in deaths.

What ******* stupidity.

Why don't you grow up and go out into the real world and find out the truth ... you just keep repeating the same leftist pablum ad nauseum.

 

[The Derp]

Yes. The added expanse of these idiotic regulations has driven/will continue to drive smaller banks to merge or be acquired by larger banks. And then liberal idiots will point to fewer larger banks and ask "how could we let this happen?". It's hilarious.

But smaller and medium banks were routinely and consistently bought by larger ones, pre-Dodd-Frank. So what you're saying isn't true, is it? Dodd-Frank doesn't cause big banks to do what they were doing before Dodd-Frank. You're trying to pretend that Dodd-Frank somehow started something that had already been happening for decades. That's sophistry. We wanted to break up the big banks, but you didn't. So how are you not the cause of the thing you are complaining about? Repealing Dodd-Frank isn't going to suddenly put a stop to bank mergers. It's childish to think it will.

Absolutely. And now it will happen more/faster.

Faster than it did before?! Not true. Prior to Dodd-Frank, mergers and acquisitions were the standard, particularly in banking and particularly after the repeal of Glass-Steagal in 2000.

Look around. I didn't come up with the argument. It's out there. Educate yourself.

Well that's the first truthful thing you've said all day...that you didn't come up with the argument. That you're just repeating it because you adhere to it dogmatically. We know you didn't come to the conclusions in this thread on your own, now we know the argument you're making isn't even yours. So it's just a bunch of reactionary garbage you're parroting from someone else. Who is that someone else and why do you take what they say as the gospel? If you didn't do the critical thinking necessary to formulate an argument, what ******* good are you?

If a regulation costs $1 million to satisfy, the bank that makes $2 million a year is harmed more than the bank that earns $200 million a year.

So you're working from the assumption that the "regulation" costs the same for all banks. Clearly it doesn't, since the "regulation" you seem to be getting at is the net capital rule which is a ratio of their capital, not a set amount. Apparently you think that is burdensome to banks when it wasn't before. It's only burdensome to banks who are seeking to use that capital to make purchases in the securities market. Otherwise, the capital they're spending there could instead be issued via loans. So banks are making a choice to not lend in favor of higher, short-term profits. Not because lending loses them money...but because they make more gambling.

It's commonsense.......which explains why you don't get it.

So this is the part where you substitute in a "take my word for it" approach to debate. To that I say, no. I am not going to take your word for it. You're barking up the wrong tree.

And then you implemented rules and regulations that had the opposite effect. Good job!

Well, TBTF banks growing their market share was a trend loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong before Dodd-Frank.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Didn't help their capital position.

Sure it did! Getting low- or no-interest loans certainly helps the capital position.

Liquidity, not capital. Moron.

Liquidity to do...what?

If the math is too hard for you, substitute your own numbers. Maybe ask an adult?

You're working from the assumption that banks over-leveraged themselves in order to issue more loans. But that's not true. They over-leveraged themselves to buy securities. So why not then buy less securities and issue more loans? Because the securities are what's more profitable. And since the banks aren't held accountable when it comes to issuing loans, they just take the capital used for lending and instead use it to buy securities, which ups their profit margins. So you see, it's not even about lending. It's about having enough capital to make purchases of securities.

So simple solution; cut back on the purchasing of securities and increase the issuing of loans. But that reduces (but doesn't eliminate) a bank's profitability. So there's no incentive for a bank to issue loans if they're going to make more money gambling, is there?

You should prove your claim by finding the actual published rule.

Beyond what was provided to you in the NYT link, I don't know what more you want. It seems to me that you're just looking for any out in this debate.

Sure it did!

My capital is $100,000.
I borrow $1,000,000 overnight from the Discount Window, what's my new capital amount?

Getting low- or no-interest loans certainly helps the capital position.

Loans from the discount window were not free.

Liquidity to do...what?

Meet reserve requirements. Meet withdrawal requests.

You're working from the assumption that banks over-leveraged themselves in order to issue more loans.

You're working from the assumption that banks over-leveraged themselves in order to not issue more loans.

Because the securities are what's more profitable.

Prove it.

So simple solution; cut back on the purchasing of securities and increase the issuing of loans.

If every bank had to hold every loan to maturity, they would lend less.

Beyond what was provided to you in the NYT link, I don't know what more you want.

Proof of your claim. "They eliminated capital requirements"

 

[The Derp]

In loosening the capital rules, which are supposed to provide a buffer in turbulent times,Loosening? LOL!

So you make a semantic argument. "Loosening" means changing it from a standard to self-regulating.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes. The added expanse of these idiotic regulations has driven/will continue to drive smaller banks to merge or be acquired by larger banks. And then liberal idiots will point to fewer larger banks and ask "how could we let this happen?". It's hilarious.

But smaller and medium banks were routinely and consistently bought by larger ones, pre-Dodd-Frank. So what you're saying isn't true, is it? Dodd-Frank doesn't cause big banks to do what they were doing before Dodd-Frank. You're trying to pretend that Dodd-Frank somehow started something that had already been happening for decades. That's sophistry. We wanted to break up the big banks, but you didn't. So how are you not the cause of the thing you are complaining about? Repealing Dodd-Frank isn't going to suddenly put a stop to bank mergers. It's childish to think it will.

Absolutely. And now it will happen more/faster.

Faster than it did before?! Not true. Prior to Dodd-Frank, mergers and acquisitions were the standard, particularly in banking and particularly after the repeal of Glass-Steagal in 2000.

Look around. I didn't come up with the argument. It's out there. Educate yourself.

Well that's the first truthful thing you've said all day...that you didn't come up with the argument. That you're just repeating it because you adhere to it dogmatically. We know you didn't come to the conclusions in this thread on your own, now we know the argument you're making isn't even yours. So it's just a bunch of reactionary garbage you're parroting from someone else. Who is that someone else and why do you take what they say as the gospel? If you didn't do the critical thinking necessary to formulate an argument, what ******* good are you?

If a regulation costs $1 million to satisfy, the bank that makes $2 million a year is harmed more than the bank that earns $200 million a year.

So you're working from the assumption that the "regulation" costs the same for all banks. Clearly it doesn't, since the "regulation" you seem to be getting at is the net capital rule which is a ratio of their capital, not a set amount. Apparently you think that is burdensome to banks when it wasn't before. It's only burdensome to banks who are seeking to use that capital to make purchases in the securities market. Otherwise, the capital they're spending there could instead be issued via loans. So banks are making a choice to not lend in favor of higher, short-term profits. Not because lending loses them money...but because they make more gambling.

It's commonsense.......which explains why you don't get it.

So this is the part where you substitute in a "take my word for it" approach to debate. To that I say, no. I am not going to take your word for it. You're barking up the wrong tree.

And then you implemented rules and regulations that had the opposite effect. Good job!

Well, TBTF banks growing their market share was a trend loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong before Dodd-Frank.

But smaller and medium banks were routinely and consistently bought by larger ones, pre-Dodd-Frank.

Hey, let's make it happen more/faster!

So you're working from the assumption that the "regulation" costs the same for all banks.

Some do, some don't. Some small banks are even exempt from some of the moronic regulations.

Clearly it doesn't, since the "regulation" you seem to be getting at is the net capital rule which is a ratio of their capital,

No. Other idiotic regulations, not the capital requirements.

Apparently you think that is burdensome to banks when it wasn't before.

Increasing capital requirements is clearly a burden.

 

[The Derp]

According to his words.
According to his actions.

But not according to the results. So it's just wishful thinking on your part. You say energy prices reached record lows in spite of Obama, and you offer nothing to support that claim. The very fact that there were record lows proves Obama's intent was to do just that; reduce energy prices. Which he did. Which you still refuse to accept, depending on the thread.

Steven Chu didn't want that? Are you sure? LOL!

Well, what he wanted to do before he was energy secretary doesn't really matter. Once he became Energy Secretary, he presided over the lowest energy costs in 20 years. So you're using a quote from before he was SoE, to argue that the decline in energy prices didn't happen? I'm not sure what your point is. Seems to me that you just don't want to give Obama credit for lowering your energy bill because that would ruin this false narrative you've gleaned -a narrative you admit isn't even yours- and you'd have to admit you were wrong.

And lord knows you will never do that!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In loosening the capital rules, which are supposed to provide a buffer in turbulent times,Loosening? LOL!

So you make a semantic argument. "Loosening" means changing it from a standard to self-regulating.

Loosening means making them less restrictive.
Your claim was "elimination".
Still waiting for your proof that capital requirements were there and then they were gone.

 

[The Derp]

I know. Because he wasn't a dictator. He tried, he failed.

When did Obama say he wanted to cut oil production? He just wanted to stop leasing federal land, but seemed perfectly OK with increased production on private land. But he did succeed in cutting production on federal land. That was made up for with an increase in production on private land. So...he was trying to be a dictator, how? Do you think that he thought cutting production on federal land would lead to a drop in production on private land? What makes you think that? The two are mutually exclusive.

I know, that's why your claim that he deserves credit for increased production is so funny. And wrong.

But production did increase on private lands, as the data shows. So he cut production on federal lands, and increased production on private lands. He netted out ahead in production overall. You are trying to convince people that he wanted to cut private land production, and you haven't given anything to support that false premise.

 

[The Derp]

Why don't you grow up and go out into the real world and find out the truth ... you just keep repeating the same leftist pablum ad nauseum.

Kill yourself.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

According to his words.
According to his actions.

But not according to the results. So it's just wishful thinking on your part. You say energy prices reached record lows in spite of Obama, and you offer nothing to support that claim. The very fact that there were record lows proves Obama's intent was to do just that; reduce energy prices. Which he did. Which you still refuse to accept, depending on the thread.

Steven Chu didn't want that? Are you sure? LOL!

Well, what he wanted to do before he was energy secretary doesn't really matter. Once he became Energy Secretary, he presided over the lowest energy costs in 20 years. So you're using a quote from before he was SoE, to argue that the decline in energy prices didn't happen? I'm not sure what your point is. Seems to me that you just don't want to give Obama credit for lowering your energy bill because that would ruin this false narrative you've gleaned -a narrative you admit isn't even yours- and you'd have to admit you were wrong.

And lord knows you will never do that!

But not according to the results

He wasn't fracking, he was trying to stop fracking.
He wasn't drilling, he was trying to stop drilling.

He tried, he failed. Again.

You say energy prices reached record lows in spite of Obama

Clearly.

The very fact that there were record lows proves Obama's intent was to do just that; reduce energy prices.

And his intent was shown by what new laws? What new rules? What new regulations?

Provide any of those that he pushed or signed.

So you're using a quote from before he was SoE, to argue that the decline in energy prices didn't happen?

American frackers increased supply, prices fell, Chu and Obama wanted the opposite.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I know. Because he wasn't a dictator. He tried, he failed.

When did Obama say he wanted to cut oil production? He just wanted to stop leasing federal land, but seemed perfectly OK with increased production on private land. But he did succeed in cutting production on federal land. That was made up for with an increase in production on private land. So...he was trying to be a dictator, how? Do you think that he thought cutting production on federal land would lead to a drop in production on private land? What makes you think that? The two are mutually exclusive.

I know, that's why your claim that he deserves credit for increased production is so funny. And wrong.

But production did increase on private lands, as the data shows. So he cut production on federal lands, and increased production on private lands. He netted out ahead in production overall. You are trying to convince people that he wanted to cut private land production, and you haven't given anything to support that false premise.

When did Obama say he wanted to cut oil production?

After the BP spill. And more recently, below.

Obama restricts offshore drilling in latest poke at Trump

So he cut production on federal lands

Yes. On land he controlled, he cut production.

increased production on private lands

Yes, production increased in areas he didn't control.

You are trying to convince people that he wanted to cut private land production,

His fights to stop new pipeline construction would have cut, but not ended, private production.

 

[The Derp]

Meet reserve requirements. Meet withdrawal requests.

OK, and that's a bad thing, why?

You're working from the assumption that banks over-leveraged themselves in order to not issue more loans.

And that's precisely what happened. They over-leveraged themselves to purchase securities they would then gamble on. That's why they did what they did.

Prove it.

You want me to prove gambling on securities is more profitable than lending? Ummm, OK (from Financial Times, 2007):

Banks are increasingly reliant on the business of turning mortgages and other kinds of debt into complex bond-like products to generate a significant share of their profits, according to research to be published Monday. Banks globally saw revenues of almost $30bn from asset-backed securities business in 2006, which analysts at JPMorgan estimate is as big as the revenues generated by equity derivatives or cash equities trading.​

So clearly, securities are the most profitable thing for these banks.

If every bank had to hold every loan to maturity, they would lend less.

So you're...arguing for credit default swaps? Really?

Proof of your claim. "They eliminated capital requirements"

Self-regulating eliminates the requirement because it puts the decision on the bank as to what acceptable ratio they want. That's what "self-regulating" means. It means "not regulating".